[Bernard Marx]

As late as Monday there were reports that President Bush had sought means to retract the signature of former president Clinton, who signed the treaty on his last day in office. A signature indicates a nation's intent to seek ratification. However, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not bring the treaty to the Senate for a vote.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm a little puzzled how Bush is to blame when a Senate committee won't even allow a vote by the full Senate -- Pickering style. How can you blame Bush when Democraps on the Foreign Relations Committee, led by that walking advertisement for hair transplants, Joe Biden, kept the request bottled up? A vote by the full Senate, even if it went the wrong way, would put prominent anti-American Democraps and socialists like Sanders and Jeffords on the record --something they avoid like vampires avoid dawn.

Can anyone here suggest a course of action Bush could have taken that would have avoided this outcome?

[sheltonmac]

BUMP

[steve50]

It is my understanding that Bush had the option of removing the official signature of the President of the United States from it, removing the possibility that Congress could enact it if it wanted to. So you have no problem with this, like CFR, getting thru our so-called conservative president?

[Askel5]

Can anyone here suggest a course of action Bush could have taken that would have avoided this outcome?

Begged and pleaded with his Dad and Bob Dole NOT to stand up and "send a message" during impeachment that Clinton's actual removal would have sullied the decorum of the semen-stained office?

This might have had the additional advantage of obviating entirely the "Mad Bomber's" moral war in Serbia, the use of the "New" NATO to legitimize the Euro Soviet's collectivized security system and the US's being charged with sussing out and bribing the hostile witnesses -- and agents of "genocide" -- necessary to seal Milosevic's show trial and hand-deliver a critical win to Carla Del Ponte.