Posted on 02/22/2007 5:04:57 PM PST by shrinkermd
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.
Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.
Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the president’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.
The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Mark for later.
Yea Yea Yea - this has been the Democrat's mantra since after 9/11. They can't find anything to impeach Bush over so an imaginary war is as good as they can get.
What is the consensus on Hitlery at Liberty Post, if you've had the spunk to go that far into their site?
One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.
What "senior adviser"? Anonymous source? Good grief times... Even if this is what the "adviser" said, so what? Bush has nothing to lose politcally. I say let's strike Iran, and let the Dems impeach him. Impeachment means nothing. Clinton attacked countries without previous authorisation all the time. Bush would only make use of his constitutional powers. What are the reasons for his "impeachment"? Anyway an Impeachment would only mean massive losses for the Dems in 2008. Bush can't be reelected anyway...
I'll go check.
Yeah, right. I'd love to see 'em try to impeach Bush for defending America. I'll bet deep inside Bush would love it too!
"Covert action" is probably the way to go in Iran.
Now, things are changing. America is speaking up and of its own distemper towards the acts of practical sedition the House has recently taken up and passed in resolution.
This sounds like a coordinated attempt to put some pressure on Iran. Good cop, bad cop.
Eh, let em dream. They're running out of time and lack the votes. Maybe they can have a non binding impeachment.
The military option can never be removed from the table. That would be knuckling under to belligerent threats. We have a madman over in Iran threatening the nuclear annihilation of one of our allies and directing threats to America. The sooner this madman and his nuclear ambitions are taken out the better. Let the Democrats cry for impeachment. Who cares! They're nothing but treasonous cowards anyway. It's the president's DUTY to defend the nation.
Impeaching Bush just takes a majority of the House. They could do that tonight.
To REMOVE him takes 2/3rds of the SENATE: 67 votes. They're nowhere close.
Fact is, the man can do anything he wants now, legal or not, and he's unremovable so long as 17 out of 49 Republican Senators don't defect.
Hell, he could strangle a reporter on national TV with his bare hands while doing a line of coke, and so long as 34 GOP Senators stonewalled, he'd be in office until the end!
He may be unremovable but this President is ridiculously cautious politically and won't risk impeachment. Bush is done. He won't attack Iran. His hope is that he can tidy up Iraq before Hillary takes over.
Bush hits Iran. House (maybe) impeaches Bush. Senate NEVER removes Bush. Who thinks that there are 67 votes in Senate to remove Bush? If you believe this, I have some ocean-front property in AZ for you. Fools.
Its been my tagline since november
Thank god Iran is a peaceful state or I'd be worried...
It's a forlorn hope.
The only way Iraq can be won is by taking sides, specifically, by taking the side of the Iraqi nationalist Shi'ites and the Kurds over and against the pro-Iranian Shi'ites and the Arab Sunnis. There's a civil war on, between five different sides: Kurds, Arab Sunnis, Nationalist Shi'ites, pro-Iranian Shi'ites and Ba'athist dead-enders. We're choosing to be neutral against all but the Ba'athists, who are spent.
It's dumb.
But we're entrenched in the dumbness.
Anyway, it's too depressing to talk about.
Hillary doesn't have to win.
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.