Skip to comments.
US warns Syria not to provide haven for wanted Iraqis (Eagleburger impeach gwb if we attack syria)
uk independent ^
| 14 April 2003
| Ben Russell
Posted on 04/14/2003 5:38:06 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
whats up with eagleburger
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
what's up with you ... talk about "jumping the gun"
2
posted on
04/14/2003 5:40:44 PM PDT
by
Steven W.
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
I'd say the man "sold out", or that he likes French wine and German sausages to an extreme, or maybe both.
3
posted on
04/14/2003 5:41:24 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: All
STOMP OUT FREEPATHONS !
|
|
BECOME A MONTHLY DONOR TODAY!
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD!- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
4
posted on
04/14/2003 5:41:47 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
If there's anything worse than muddled retired generals expounding on TV, it's muddled retired secretaries of state.
Leni
6
posted on
04/14/2003 5:43:25 PM PDT
by
MinuteGal
(THIS JUST IN ! Astonishing fare reduction for FReeps Ahoy Cruise! Check it out, pronto!)
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
>>>whats up with eagleburger
who knows. this guy is all over the map.
Congress gave Bush the authority to pursue terrorists anywhere. They need to vote to take it back.
However I think it unlikely we will attack Syria, unless provoked. We will squeeze them every way we can. Listen to Ollie as he reports the attackers are largely Syrian. Wonder who sent them.
7
posted on
04/14/2003 5:47:51 PM PDT
by
snooker
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
I suspect that LE was trying to explain that the US was not going to act precipitously,
but by going to an absurd extreme, the comment came out sounding like an attack.
8
posted on
04/14/2003 5:48:44 PM PDT
by
polemikos
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Huh?
Mr. Eagleburger should take a closer look at what Congress authorized. The original post-9/11 declaration gives the President wide latitude in the conduct of this war. The subsequent declaration on Iraq was not needed. All the President needs as "probable cause" is to show a nexus between the target and terrorism. Such a nexus exists in both Syria and Iran. Bush would be allowed by law to go after either.
9
posted on
04/14/2003 5:49:20 PM PDT
by
Redcloak
(All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Villepin was, for once, right when he said: "The time is not correct." Or at any rate, it's clear that the U.S. is
Not Going to Attack Syria Soon
We are right now pulling out 2 aircraft carriers from the Gulf, apparently to return to the U.S. That means we're giving Syria et al about 6 months before we'd be prepared to attack them. Of course, Syria knows what we're doing with the carriers, so they may feel emboldened to keep on with their terrorism. But if you see carriers moved to the Mediterranean, then you'll know that we're seriously leaning on Syria and/or seriously considering an attack.
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Bush does in fact need Congressional authorization to militarily engage Syria. That authority was granted by Congress for Iraq by
House Joint Resolution 114, on October 10, 2002. He's going to need something similar to go after Syria with military force.
11
posted on
04/14/2003 5:51:06 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
The still-unrepealed congressional resolutions for the War on Terror authorize President Bush to use whatever force he deems appropriate to pursue terrorists and the states that harbor them. He still has the power, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
12
posted on
04/14/2003 5:51:09 PM PDT
by
Argus
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Eagleburger should sit down and shut up!
If they (including Eagleburger) hadn't been so weak in 1991 and we had gone to Baghdad then, we would not have had to take this action now!
13
posted on
04/14/2003 5:52:55 PM PDT
by
PhiKapMom
(Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US)
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
...if President Bush were to try that now...
the operative word is "now" which was left out of the subhead.
And within that limited context, LE is correct.
Now as a significant causus belli is found...
Well, GWB is a patient man. New target, new allies, new weapons, fresh troops, new plan, fresh resolutions, etc.
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Whats up with Eagleburger?-----Don`t believe everything you read in the funnypapers
15
posted on
04/14/2003 5:55:13 PM PDT
by
bybybill
(first the public employees, next the fish and, finally, the children)
To: PhiKapMom; All
Not to metion his stellar conduct up to the beginning of the war.
Who can forget those moronic editorials?
Anywho, he's on Hannity&Colmes tonight. Someone should tell Hannity to ask him about this treasonous quote.
16
posted on
04/14/2003 5:56:35 PM PDT
by
TD911
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Eagleburger is not a team player, also he has other personal "interests" in the Middle East, as do a lot of former ex government people.
17
posted on
04/14/2003 5:59:44 PM PDT
by
cynicom
To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Larry, ever over-rated, is (as I am told by my cousin -- a Harvard Medical School neurologist) showing subtle, early but real signs of a demential syndrome. Sad as he was, in his day, good.
By the way, my cousin notes a similar decline in Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
18
posted on
04/14/2003 6:03:13 PM PDT
by
dodger
To: DWPittelli
"We are right now pulling out 2 aircraft carriers from the Gulf, apparently to return to the U.S. That means we're giving Syria et al about 6 months before we'd be prepared to attack them. " We don't need the Navy planes for this, we have the AF in the Iraqi bases.
19
posted on
04/14/2003 6:07:31 PM PDT
by
blam
To: Argus
What resolutions are you referring to? Senate Joint Resolution 23 authorizes attacks only against those who were specifically involved in the 9/11 attack, and those nations that harbor such organizations or individuals.
I think the only way that could be applicable was if there was a pretty clear line drawn between the specific Iraqi officials believed to be harbored in Syria and 9/11.
20
posted on
04/14/2003 6:07:40 PM PDT
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson