Democrats hope to stop short of blanket approval

Boston Globe ^ | 9/18/02 | Anne E. Kornblut and Glen Johnson

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Senate Democrats indicated yesterday that they would schedule a vote on Iraq before the November midterm elections, but they also suggested the resolution be limited to expressing support for the Bush administration, instead of granting it sweeping authority to use military force.

[adam stevens]

In other words they wnat everyone to know they still don't favor America defeating our enemies.

[KC Burke]

''We could do it 100 to 0, and it would be a powerful statement,'' Kerry said. ''Condi Rice, week after week, appears on these national shows saying, `The president hasn't made up his mind what he wants to do.' It seems to me the president ought to ask the Congress to vote on what he wants to do. I don't think we should give some open-ended approval.''

Earth to Kerry!
Earth to Kerry!

You need to be real careful what you wish for.

[cubreporter]

Yes, "Ok guys, here's the plan. We'll vote but we won't vote overwhelmingly so it doesn't look like we are supporting Bush and his plan. OK now, so and so you vote no and you vote no and I'll vote yes and so and so you vote yes and on and on"...can't ya just see it?

They'll probably send out a memo regarding this beforehand like they always do so they can all talk the same like zoids they are.

I had more intelligent and common sensed friends when I was in grade school. Geeezz

[adam stevens]

BUMP!

[jjm2111]

Permit me to rant for a moment:

We suffer the largest attacks on our soil against civilians EVER, and these moral cowards have to debate on whether to go to war with the perpetrators and their supporters.

Daschle, Kerry, the Clintonites (Mineta!!) in the Bush Administration et. al. should all just chant. "Peace....peace in our time." ad infinitum.

Un-f*ckin-believable!

[Wright is right!]

"Senate Democrats who hope to postpone a politically sensitive vote specifically on military action until after the Nov. 5 election."

"Politically-sensitive" is The Globe's way of saying "brutal to the Democraps."

Here's what I think is going on. The Dems internal polling showed that their political stalling was fooling NO ONE - and that they were getting a really big black eye from it. So now, they do a quick 180 and quit the stall. Their NEW new tactic is not to stall the vote per se, BUT vote on some invertebrate and meaningless "resolution of support." Something along the lines of, "Yeah, we support ya, big boy, and we'll stand WAY back here and out of harm's way and let you do your thing - only, we ain't payin' for it."

Frankly, I think that Saddam's "gesture" (read: sham offer) will anger the Amurrican Pipple even more. Even people with room-temp IQ's don't like to be bamboozled repeatedly, and by now it's pretty clear (that's "KLAR" to you CB-er's) that this is only Saddam's latest bamboozerly. Even the editorial in the lib-rag "Tennessean" here in Nashville laid it out in no uncertain terms - Saddam's done nothing but lie in the past, so his latest missive is just as fraudulent as everything else he's done. When even the liberal papers get the message, the writing is on Daschle's wall.

The resolution that passes the Congress will be within 1% of what Dubya wants.

Michael

[mwl1]

The sound you hear is a kick to Tom Daschle's groin, but not sure if anything was found there.

[mwl1]

The Administration is drafting the resolution... it will say what Bush wants it to say, not Daschle, Kerry or any of the clowns. The House will take it up immediately. There is no room for compromise with the Senate - they can vote it up or down.

[princess leah]

Remember when Bush issued the ultimatum for the Taliban to turn over Bin-Laden "this is your last opportunity" and then it was only weeks later that we saw the planes dropping bombs, etc...I think Bush will only allow so much CLAP-TRAPPING to go on and then he'll stand up and say ENOUGH - it's time to ROLL! Dems are in big time trouble and you watch, come October, it's Saddam that's getting the October surprise!

[ldish]

Little tommy dasshole doesn't what to do but he doesn't want to commit to anything because he has no b a - - s!

Boy the demos are real jerks and they can go to ----!

[Wright is right!]

"The Administration is drafting the resolution... it will say what Bush wants it to say, not Daschle, Kerry or any of the clowns."

Uh, yes, that is precisely what I said. Perhaps your reply should have been directed at the gentleman who wanted to know "why."

Michael

[Wolfstar]

In other words, the Dems want to PRETEND to vote to authorize force, while not actually doing so. They want to fool the people once again for the most cynical of reasons: to move the issue off the table before the congressional elections. However, the congress passed and Clinton signed an act in the late 1990's that made regime change in Iraq the law of our land. The Dems were all hot to trot over that back then when a fellow Dem was the prez. Now that they have a Republican president actually willing to implement that law, the Dems turn to jello.

[mwl1]

Sorry for any misunderstanding or confusion.

[WOSG]

Here's what I think is going on. The Dems internal polling showed that their political stalling was fooling NO ONE - and that they were getting a really big black eye from it. So now, they do a quick 180 and quit the stall. Their NEW new tactic is not to stall the vote per se, BUT vote on some invertebrate and meaningless "resolution of support." Something along the lines of, "Yeah, we support ya, big boy, and we'll stand WAY back here and out of harm's way and let you do your thing - only, we ain't payin' for it."

Good analysis ... for the French (UN sec council) and the 'Rats, the jellyfish approach wont work ... The admin has enough SPINE to ask for more that yet-another-resolution demanding what we demanded years ago, and will not express agreement to such meaningless "resolutions" --- they will want something with TEETH in it.

[Wait4Truth]

Just saw a RAT on tv saying they want to "express support" for the President. They are not going to give him what he wants so I pray he goes on TV and says, "Express support??? NO! I want the same resolution that former President Clinton received at a time when Saddam was a lot less dangerous than he is now. Former President Clinton received a resolution to use force from this Senate. And former President Clinton did NOT wait for the Security Council to agree."

[Stultis]

''We could do it 100 to 0, and it would be a powerful statement,'' Kerry said. ''Condi Rice, week after week, appears on these national shows saying, `The president hasn't made up his mind what he wants to do.' It seems to me the president ought to ask the Congress to vote on what he wants to do. I don't think we should give some open-ended approval.''

So, Senator, you are saying that we should limit our options and tell Saddam up front exactly what those limitations are?

And you wanna be President?!?!?!