Sources: U.S. one vote short on resolution

CNN.com ^ | 3/12/03

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution giving Iraq an ultimatum to disarm, two senior U.S. State Department officials said Wednesday.

[theFIRMbss]

>The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution giving Iraq an ultimatum to disarm

What's the point? Russia
or France will just veto it.
One veto does it.

[Argus]

US one sandwich short of a picnic if we don't get out of the UN pronto.

[mewzilla]

Bush had better not cave to Fox's demands.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

What's the point?

The same thing as the entire U.N. process was from the very outset -- Political cover. Bush would like it, Blair is desperate for it. Now the political cover will have to be enough votes to pass if even the veto stops it.

But this needs to be taken out of U.N. jurisdiction by Bush in the worst way. The further resolution game, with further opportunities for Saddam to meet some standard, with further arguement and disagreement as whether or not Saddam is making progress toward meeting them, is a losing game. A game that's set up to never end.

Regardless of whether or not he does anything else, if Saddam goes on TV and some kind of half-assed statement about not having WMD and never wanting them, that will be enough to bind up the U.N. for another month arguing over it. The Blair proposal just gives him the ability to do big publicity stunt on TV and delay this thing at least into the summer.

It was a bozo, desperate idea, by a desperate politician.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Bush had better not cave to Fox's demands.

Even before that, he'd better not cave to Blair's needs.

[YOMO]

Dear President Fox,
Thank you for your anticipated support of our UN IRAQ Position Paper. You know you can count on my support for opening up the boarders and not using troops to patrol the Rio Grande.
Sincerely,
GWB

[Republican Red]

What's the point? Russia or France will just veto it. One veto does it.

A nine vote majority will be looked upon as a success. The French will veto (I think the Russians will abstain) and look like the obstructionists they are. The French will also be isolated even more. The "majority" would back the resolution and go without UN approval.

[TLBSHOW]

GET US OUT OF THE UN.......don't help make it stronger!

[Maeve]

Unfortunately, Scott, it is the sort of thing that just might stop a veto, and then we will all be stuck for more spectacle, frustration, and misery.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list