I just saw Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) on Fox News Channel. He has said that he feels it is very important for Congress to vote on a resolution authorizing the President to take military action to remove Saddam Hussein. He also said that he would support such a resolution and will try to convince his colleagues to do the same.
I just actually SAW the words come right out of Lieberman's mouth. It was not a quote or a snipet from a conversation. They were interviewing him and that is PRECISELY what he said.
Nice to meet you as well TheFreak. It's always good to have another person to debate the issues with.
I'm not so sure this is really a bombshell. Lieberman has traditionally been, I think, a more independent mind in the Senate - similar to McCain. They both have a way of just speaking their own minds. Lieberman lost a little of that having to run alongside Gore, but that's no longer an issue now. I think Congress would, if badgered enough, agree to a resolution of this sort. I don't see any real strong force lobbying against it, to be honest. The key, I think, is getting other nations on board as well. If you get multilateral support, Congress will be more than happy to oblige. Without it, a bill like this could still pass, but I think it will be a bigger battle.
Major's right about Lieberman. This isn't surprising. Lieberman's also very hawkish on the Middle East. Israel is one of his top concerns. But I think Major's wrong about there not being much opposition to this. We'll have a terrible time getting multi-national support for this kind of thing, especially with the unrest in Israel. Even Tony Blair's expressed misgivings. By the way, anyone seen Time? There's an advance look at the Drudge Report site. Seems the Bush administration postponed Clinton's planned attack on Al Qaeda. Check out drudgereport.com.
There will be a war even if Iraq does let the inspectors back in. So I don't see this as a "bombshell".
Ahhhh, thank you dc rock! Kagy, that was the report I was referring to a couple of weeks back when we had that liberal-media debate thingy. But I think Major's wrong about there not being much opposition to this. We'll have a terrible time getting multi-national support for this kind of thing, especially with the unrest in Israel. Even Tony Blair's expressed misgivings. I'm not sure about this. I agree there will be plenty of opposite to a unilateral-type action, but I think if Bush can come up with a comprehensive argument and get away from the "they are evil" thing, Europe at least will back us. This is, in some ways, similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis situation. The world was a bit skeptical about supporting our actions until the administration made a very clear case to the U.N. - at that point, things turned a bit. Similarly here, I think Bush needs to make a very clear case with our evidence (which I have no doubt we have) if he wants world support. By the way, anyone seen Time? There's an advance look at the Drudge Report site. Seems the Bush administration postponed Clinton's planned attack on Al Qaeda. Check out drudgereport.com. There's some interesting stuff there. To be fair, I think any new administration is going to review the previous administration's reports before doing anything. I don't think its fair to blame Bush for the delay. It does, however, counteract the whole "9/11 was all Clinton's fault" argument.
Tony Blair has gone on the record stating that the British will back any military action the US takes against Iraq. There may be misgivings, but that does not equate to lack of support. As for the rest of Europe, I think you're right. But France has strong anti-Semitic feelings and this is viewed as backing Israel. So the French sentiment is biased and irrelevant.
not really caught up on my foreign policy so forgive me, but why does France have strong anti semitic feelings?
Here are a few articles on Anti-Semitism in France. http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/france.html http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/348474899?ts=1028507545&sign[partner_userID]=412227888&sign[memberID]=412227888&sign[partnerID]=1 http://www.brook.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/dreyfus_20020514.htm
Lieberman has supported military action against Iraq since the debate surfaced immediately post 9-11. He and McCain actually organized a petition of senators last year that urged Bush to act on Iraq. Not exactly a bombshell. Congress will overwhelmingly pass any such resolution. I would bank on it. I also think it would be a very good idea, as it would send a strong message to any Iraqi military personnel who are having doubts about our resolve, and who aren't sure they want to fight for Saddam... As for our support overseas, only the Brits will actively support us. No one but the Iraqis will actively oppose us. Everyone else falls somewhere in the middle, and is therefore irrelevant (except for a few Arab "allies", who after a little persuasion will allow us to use their land and airspace...). No worries here, as long as the American people support it - and they do by a significant margin. I truly couldn't care less what the French in particular think. You shouldn't either, unless you're French. They stand to be the most irrelevant actor of them all in this whole ordeal. Something about that makes me smile.
I find it very sad that everybody makes every discussion about the Palestinians into a 9/11 discussion. There were no Palestinians on those planes. Most of the were Saudis...our "ally."
So you trust FAIR to objectively analyze FOXNews, but the MRC can't be trusted to do likewise towards CNN and company? Why don't you go to fair.org, poke around for a while, and tell me how objective you think that group is?
