Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RobFromGa
I heard this too.

This means that Pres. Bush needs no additional congressional approval.

7 posted on 09/14/2002 3:08:23 PM PDT by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Gumption
He may or may not need it, but he'll seek it and get it just the same. Politically, it's smarter.
10 posted on 09/14/2002 3:15:02 PM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Gumption
Maybe...but won't it be fun to watch Little Tommy and Byrd vote "no"? Maybe they'll have some Kennedy's, Leahy's and Feinstein's to keep them company, but it going to be awful lonely on the wrong end of an 80-20 vote.

And even lonlier when Sadaam is deposed and Iraq liberated, against their well-recorded and remembered objections.

22 posted on 09/14/2002 3:27:53 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Gumption
This means that Pres. Bush needs no additional congressional approval.

He didn't need it anyway. SJ Res 23 is quite clear. Bush, and Bush alone, gets to decide who's responsible, and order appropriate military action against them.

44 posted on 09/14/2002 3:52:46 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Gumption
Yeah!!!!!!!!
61 posted on 09/14/2002 4:23:41 PM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Gumption
Yep. It means that an attack on Saddam will not be preemptive but retaliatory.
126 posted on 09/15/2002 12:33:10 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson