Posted on 02/22/2007 5:04:57 PM PST by shrinkermd
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.
Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.
Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the president’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Congress didn't have the guts to complain then. The country wanted blood. It took them six years of constant sniveling and carping by their treasonous media pals for them to muddy the waters enough to work up the courage to start talking about impeachment. Dubya should make some of them disappear just as he's attacking Iran. We have to go into Iran. We have no choice. We have to stop them.
Hillary will destroy the military, hand over US force protection to the UN, and approach all actions as police issues.
Hillary Clinton will say and do anything to get elected. If faced with Iran, she would kowtow. She may even agree with Persian and Arab opinion, given her past words and actions toward Palestinians and Jews.
In my opinion, not only we, but also the whole world knows this.
All options are on the table and I seriously doubt that President Bush is too overly worried, if at all, about being impeached, especially where issues of national security of this magnitude are concerned.
To REMOVE him takes 2/3rds of the SENATE: 67 votes. They're nowhere close.
Just like when Clinton was President.
What would the Dems rather have President Bush or President Cheney
They were complaining that the US was going to attack Iran in the 2004 campaign. Bush won't do it. It's too bad.
(I do not want a nuclear Iran either, but if cautionary principles are thrown out the window due to Bush's political time frame, more harm than good will come from the strike.)
I agree its too bad. I guess old Nostrils Henry Waxman isn't getting what he wants yet. He's the one that is trying to bring impeachment proceedings against the president.
If it were David Gregory, I'd want a Constitutional amendment allowing a third term.
I'll bet they try it in Sept/Oct 2008 just to please the moonbats.
This is my prediction, and I really have nothing to back it up except for a gut feeling.
The US will not make a preemptive move on Iran. Not during the Bush Administration.
It should be noted: We are doing EXACTLY what the Left wants in Iran. Let's see what the results are, shall we?
True. Seems to me they aren't satisfied. It seems like they are provoking Bush to do something. Hmmmm??? Warmongers? LOL!
Precisely!
And Clinton knew that.
Once it was clear he was going to be impeached, he didn't give a damn.
His approach was "Never complain, never explain!"
There was no contrition, no backing down, no guilt, and no slowing down. After the impeachment, he did things just to stick it in people's eyes. My favorite was during the Bush/Gore debacle, Clinton flew out on a Friday and came back on a Monday morning, and did a weekend state visit...to the Sultan of BRUNEI! LOL! Clinton had balls. He couldn't keep them in his pants...even went on STATE VISITS to be a horndog!...but once he knew he was going to be impeached, he blew it off and did what he wanted. Impeachment don't mean crap if you can't REMOVE me!
Resign? Go suck eggs. I'm here to STAY, and I'm BULLETPROOF, because you ain't got 67 Senators.
Recall that the Dems picked up seats in the Congressional elections during the Clinton impeachment.
Me? I love "save Darfur". How, peaceniks?
Impeach away.
It means NOTHING.
Clinton proved that.
An impeachment is merely an expression of displeasure by the majority party in the House.
YAWN.
Get 67 votes in the Senate, where the Democrats have precisely 49 - THAT'S what matters.
An impeached President is called Mr. President and he's still the Commander in Chief with perhaps even greater powers, because once he's impeached, he's got NOTHING to lose, really, so long as 18 Republican Senators don't flip.
And there is zero chance of 18 Republican Senators flip him.
The Democrats could impeach Bush 50 times, and it is irrelevant because they can't remove him ONCE.
Clinton taught us that an impeachment does not mean CRAP. Removal is what matters.
The President is essentially unlimited in his power if 34 Senators will stand with him and refuse to remove him from office. If he defies Congress and goes to war, arrests political opposition leaders, you name it, the only way to stop him is to REMOVE him. Impeachment's nothing. And if 34 Senators refuse to remove him, and the executive branch continues to obey him, a botched impeachment can actually end up neutering Congress. Clinton was emboldened by his impeachment, not chastened at all, but even he didn't see the full potential of his power. Though he did see some of it.
Pardon Marc Rich in exchange for influence, sexual favors from Rich's wife, and probably some money for the library?
That's Bribery! Heh, heh, then IMPEACH me, ya bastards! Ha ha.
If Bush attacks Iran without Congressional authority, the House might impeach him. The Senate doesn't have the votes to remove him, and the war goes on.
No. Bush has said long ago after 9/11 he won't leave such matters unresolved for his successor.
He also said he's a very patient man. As the old saying goes, "beware the fury of a patient man."
No, that is HER hope.
fyi
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.