Posted on 08/30/2002 9:48:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 08/30/2002 9:56:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A possible U.S. attack on Iraq and legislation to bolster America's homeland security top the agenda for lawmakers when they return from an August recess next week and start the home stretch of the 107th Congress. Continues.
===================================================================
Be careful what you wish for...
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
That's the lesson for Democrats with new reports that the White House intends to seek Congressional support for military action to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power.
A chorus of leading Democrats in recent weeks have clamored for full debate and a vote before any U.S. military action against the Baghdad regime.
House Democrat leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri has loudly insisted on it, arguing that, without explicit Congressional backing, any use of force would lack 'legitimacy'.
Speaking Monday at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn., Gephardt said "the President has to get Congressional approval, he must have a debate on this issue and a vote in Congress."
He added that "this issue is much more than just a legal debate. The President will need the decisive support of the public and their elected representatives in order to initiate and sustain the effort that will be required to eliminate the threat posed by this regime."
Congress must get involved, echoed Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Through a spokesman he urged that "for the good of the country and for the long-term success of whatever approach we take, President Bush should follow his father's lead and support a vigorous and constructive debate on Iraq."
Sen. Robert C. Byrd went even farther, marshaling the views of academicians whom he says affirm the need for fresh Congressional authority.
"There is an emerging consensus among leading scholars", said the West Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, "that the 1991 use of force resolution cased to be effective once Iraq capitulated to U.S. and allied forces in April 1991." (Actually, the resolution said nothing of the kind, but let's leave it that.)
The presstitutes, convinced Democrats had gained the upper-hand politically, were licking their chops, clicking their heels.
The White House had somehow lost control of the debate, losing the public relations battle, they chortled. The administration appears defensive, even indecisive, almost adrift, they crowed.
Indeed, for Democrats, it looked to be the best of all worlds: Calling for debate and a vote allowed them to play both sides of the fence, and avoid taking a stance, one way or the other, on the use of force. With polls showing strong support for military action, Democrats feared getting on the wrong side of the issue politically, especially as November approaches and with terrorism still a top voter concern.
Over the weekend, a report that White House lawyers believe Congressional authority already exists for military action touched off a firestorm among Democrats, prompting them to come out even more forcefully on the "need" for debate and a mandate from Congress.
For the White House, the whole thing worked like a charm.
Eh?
Yep, you heard right -- it worked like a charm.
Bush cunningly laid the bait, Democrats went for it, foolishly.
Think about it: Why on earth give Democrats a pass -- avoid going on the record, up-or-down, for-or-against, war on Saddam Hussein? Where's the downside in forcing their hand? Democrats pay obligatory lip-service on Saddam, conceding he's not exactly your local choir boy, that 'regime change' is a neat idea ... but ... but ... there's always a 'but' there, somewhere.
Bush wasn't about to let these snakes wriggle off the hook, however. Put your money where your mouth is, O boys and girls.
White House strategy hence was to goad Democrats into calling for Congressional debate and a vote, then turning the tables -- on them, the media, the doves, the 'do-nothings'.
That's what the White House legal opinion was all about: Prodding the Democrats to demand involvement.
The new twist likely leaves Democrat strategists scratching their heads, wondering, 'what the heck were we thinking? How could we fall for this trap? This turns our campaign strategy for the fall on its head! Prescription drugs, Social Security, corporate fraud, a limping economy -- those were the things we needed to run on! Now the whole fall campaign will be dominated by Iraq and Saddam -- DRATS!!!'
No, this wasn't 'wag-the-dog' on Bush's part, either. Not a chance.
You see, unlike X42, this President reveres and respects the men and women who serve in uniform. He honors them, treasures them, cherishes them. And they love him back. (Have you notice their glowing smiles whenever he's around?) Under his orders, when missiles are lobbed, one thing you can be absolutely sure of: It's not a dog-and-pony show to distract from scandal.
That's why character counts.
The upshot: Bush gets what he wanted -- everyone on the record as we enter Phase II of the War on Terror.
Democrats have yet to learn a simple lesson: Never come with a knife to a gun fight.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
That petty, sweeping condemnation of all conservatives who don't get with the idea of a status quo held by rabid right wingnuts is really getting to me too.
The other day, I told a poster who using the term "neo-con", shall we say, very liberally, that it sounds too much like the people who killed many of my family in Europe before and during WWII, and I find sich a comparison to be extremely offensive.
He came back with first : "if the shoe fits, wear it" reply, then when that didn't work, said "we should all work together for compromise" (on HIS terms, no less), then third, came out with some goofy definition of the term "neo-con" from some obscure book that no one who was offended by the term "neo-con" had heard of, let alone read in order to justify his overuse of the word. I mean...DUH!
That is virulently venemous. Also stupid.
"Yeah, don't forget that subverting the Constitution is always high on their aganda."We could discuss the nuances of the word "subversion" and whether this is a cause or effect; a clearer understanding of U.S. politics requires that we step back and appreciate that the Liberals truly believe in the U.S. Constitution.
They have to, for they have relied on it too long. Current Liberal hysteria centers on the "right wing" court. They have used that court to interpret the Constitution since 1938, and they're not about to drop it now. Their issue is with current construction not the Constitution itself.
You cannot fight an enemy without good understanding of it. There is no Liberal Conspiracy. They're a very organized, motivated, and effective lobby that has deep influence on U.S. policy, particulary as concerns the meaning of the Constitution.
When convenient, Liberals are constructionists. When not, they plead "living document." We do the same, and correctly so. The brilliance of the Constitution is its ability to meet and adapt to novel and changing circumstances. The question is who rides it and when.
It's just as dangerous to over- as to under-estimate your enemy.
|
Man, the more cr** the DIMocRATS try to pull the more I don't understand them. (See below!)A chorus of leading Democrats in recent weeks have clamored for full debate and a vote before any U.S. military action against the Baghdad regime.
House Democrat leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri has loudly insisted on it, arguing that, without explicit Congressional backing, any use of force would lack 'legitimacy'.
Speaking Monday at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn., Gephardt said "the President has to get Congressional approval, he must have a debate on this issue and a vote in Congress."
He added that "this issue is much more than just a legal debate. The President will need the decisive support of the public and their elected representatives in order to initiate and sustain the effort that will be required to eliminate the threat posed by this regime."
Congress must get involved, echoed Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Through a spokesman he urged that "for the good of the country and for the long-term success of whatever approach we take, President Bush should follow his father's lead and support a vigorous and constructive debate on Iraq."
|
Democrats are a strange bunch especially their leaders. They complain about politics of personnel destruction when that is how they try to divide the country. They have little pride in America, it seems that the American people serve for their pleasure only. If you don't cotton to the democratic line, you aren't American. They used the surplus for other countries and other people when there was much to do here at home. They take our best technologies and sell them to nations that will use the knowledge against us. They lack an enormous amount of integrity and don't seem to care as they flaunt sleazy ethics and morality in our faces.
We didn't have a government for the people under the Clinton administration, what we had was a Democrats Only need apply type of government and now they are attempting to replace a People's Government with their tired old arguments about an education system they didn't fix in 8 years, a health care program they messed up and couldn't fix in 8 years, a social security system they say needs fixing and did nothing about it in 8 years when in reality that system is fine as long as lawmakers don't spend the money that social security is meant for; they spent 8 years hiring federal workers with no qualifications as long as it meant a democratic vote leaving behind a dumbed down, bloated army of sleazy federal laborers who have plundered their departments of millions in dollars and equipment.
Democrats seem to have no respect, no real base from which true justice can spring, only justice that bends for them. They have no enthusiasm for country/nation, no pride, just the spoils from a rich nation for the DNC. They continue to huddle with shady and corrupt people both here in America and abroad for reasons that only benefit them. They are elitists and exclude the real Americans as they race for the Marxist Utopia they have dreamed about...where individual successes are discouraged in favor of a commune like population. They have learned nothing from failed socialism or failed communism; they still want to live like kings all the while painting a glowing picture of togetherness for the masses who work for them. It is called Slavery, servitude to a few at the top, domination over the people through higher taxes and rules and regulations. Democrats want a Unionized nation/world of bondage and they can surely have it by dividing the country with the deceptive lies they and the press propagandize with daily.
Stand tall Americans and stand firmly for the principals of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, both of which are like the fabled Vampires silver cross or spike to the leading democrats, they don't want you to have either; it is these people who would return this country to the quagmire of corruption of the Clinton/Gore/Reno years.
Little Dickie Gephardt was one of those who were practically wetting their pants and whining at the president to do sdomething...we the congress leave it up to you...just SAVE UP, PUUHLEEEEZE!!
Things getting too hot for you Dickie? Ashamed of your cowardice?? Take a hike, Dickie.
UHhh...that's supposed to be "SAVE US"...and it was just after 9-11...forgot that too...tired, I guess.
They've tired of that for now, because there was nothing there. They've moved on to the next bit of BS on the list...
They'll wait a few months, and THEN go back to Harken.
Particularly if Ashcroft releases the leak data on Leaky Laahy just before......be still my heart
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.