2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
...before I realized the normally admirable Ron Paul has lost his marbles concerning Iraq. Just that line alone puts him with Dasshole's "Wait until they can destroy us before we attack" mode.
Actually it is you who are in Daschle's camp (and Gephardt's as well). They have both indicated enthusiasm for this war. Next...
To forestall what he anticipates, he throws out this.
Ron's time will come soon. He can ask the real questions, ON THE RECORD, and then vote, again, on the record.
If the Congress doesn't want to declare war, then they can vote it down if presented. The Executive, may then sit in a defensive posture and await the actions of the Iraq demogogue or a similar fellow and the Congress can own the glory for that position.
But, in the mean time, Bush has been made responsible for responding to Terrorism in a pro-active manner by the September 14, 2001 resolution. He would be a fool if he wasn't preparing all his options and pro-actively searching to topple our active and cloaked enemies.
That is not what he said.
We know that several countries have the ability to attack us. China for one. But we play kissy face with them.
Last week a hundred planes bombed Iraq, I am sure I read the reason but I forgot.
Is that like when the tanks were pokin holes in the Branch Davidian's house and church and our Government were saying, on their loud speakers, "This is not an invasion!?