Posted by Lilly from ? (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 at 2:02PM :
So, here goes the Associated Press (that remarkably unbiased news source... note the sarcasm), saying Congress speaks for the American people (esp. now that sneaky tactics have been employed to oust certain incredible & humane individuals from Congress...) & that UN approval isn't necessary...
Here's a run down of what the Iraq "debate" in the news here in the States is like, as I explained the 2 "arguments" to my sister the other day:
1st side: "I think we should attack Iraq."
2nd side: "NO! I think we should attack Iraq!"
1st side: "You're wrong. We should definitely attack Iraq."
2nd side: "What do you NOT understand about what I'm saying, you dumbass?? We should attack Iraq!!!"
Note the lack of real argument. *Sometimes* one side will mention how important it is for the US gov't to remember its allies before moving...
If only the other side - the REAL other side, the people who really want to avert this unnecessary war & who give a damn about the Iraqi people & the wonderful heritage of all mankind that has yet to be uncovered there - was given a voice in the media...
DeLay Expects Bush Iraq Consultation
Rep. Tom DeLay Says He Expects Bush to Consult With Congress on Iraq, U.N. Approval Not Needed
W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 25 — A House leader who has said "the sooner, the better" for military action against Iraq made clear Sunday that he expects President Bush to consult with Congress before ordering any invasion.
Rep. Tom DeLay, the third-ranking House Republican, also rejected a suggestion by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III that Bush should get U.N. authorization before moving to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"I don't agree with that at all," said DeLay, R-Texas. "I think the president certainly needs the support of the American people. Congress speaks for the American people."
"The president says he's going to consult with the Congress, and he has. The president has taken the advice of many of us in Congress; he wants input from Congress," DeLay said.
"He has said he's going to come to Congress when he decides what needs to be done and when it needs to be done, and I expect him to do that.
DeLay said Bush properly "is trying to keep the coalition together" for action to remove Saddam, but showing moral leadership is more important.
"When he walked out there and said, `You're either with us or with the terrorists,' that was a very real signal to the world that we need to get rid of these terrorists, ... and he's been leading the country, and the world, for that matter, ever since," said DeLay, now majority whip and in line to become majority leader if the GOP retains its edge in the House after the fall elections.
"So, I think this is a time to lead. Others will join when you show strong leadership, like President Bush has shown," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
DeLay stuck to the strong pro-war theme he outlined in a speech last week in Houston. "America can't wait. We can't afford the risk," DeLay said in the speech. "Saddam must go."
The Bush administration's policy is that Saddam is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and is refusing to allow international inspectors to find and destroy them, as Iraq agreed to do after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Baker, writing in Sunday's New York Times, advocated a U.N. Security Council resolution as political cover for any U.S. military action. It was the latest counseling caution from leaders of the GOP's old guard, including high officials such as Baker from the administration of Bush's father.
"The only realistic way to effect regime change in Iraq is through the application of military force," Baker wrote.
"Although the United States could certainly succeed, we should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing to. The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks."
Baker was secretary of state in the first Bush administration and was a key Bush strategist during the legal battle that led to the Supreme Court decision that gave Bush the presidency over Al Gore in 2000.
Opposition to an early military solution also came Sunday from Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector. He said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that inspections should be given every chance to succeed before force is used.
-- signature .
Post a Followup