A day in the life of President Bush (photos): 9/18/02

Thought you might find this interesting. I excerpted the article in accordance with the legal settlement between FR and the source.

washingtonpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36735-2002Sep18?language=printer

Bush to Seek Broad Power on Iraq

Hill Resolution Would Let U.S. Strike if Added Diplomacy Fails
By Jim VandeHei and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writers
... September 19, 2002; Page A01

President Bush plans to ratchet up the threat of military action against Iraq on both the domestic and international fronts this week, beginning today by formally asking Congress to grant him authority to strike unilaterally if Saddam Hussein does not comply soon with United Nations mandates to forfeit his weapons of mass destruction, White House and congressional sources said yesterday.

Bush's proposed congressional resolution would give him "maximum flexibility" to carry out any war plans, regardless of U.N. actions, said a senior White House official.

... the administration is preparing ... a U.N. Security Council resolution to be introduced as early as Friday declaring that Iraq is in "material breach" of international law for its failure to comply with a series of U.N. mandates. The phrase has been used in the past as international authorization for military action.

Should the Security Council reject Bush's proposed resolution, the administration is prepared to make clear it believes it has authority to act unilaterally under a "self-defense" clause in the U.N. charter. Senior U.S. and British diplomats are working on the draft text, to be introduced jointly or by Britain alone. ...

Bush's plans to request broad, open-ended authority from Congress and his willingness to risk an open breach with U.S. allies in the United Nations are designed to make clear that he will brook no conditions on his ability to do what he sees fit in Iraq, sources said.

... Congressional leaders predicted swift passage of the proposed resolution ... .

Daschle ... predicted the resolution will pass with "strong bipartisan support," perhaps by early October. ...

Bush is [taking these steps] after the administration's goals seemed undercut by Iraq's offer on Tuesday to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. Aides said Bush wants overwhelming, bipartisan congressional support to show skeptical world leaders and ordinary citizens here and abroad that he's not acting alone.

... Rumsfeld ... and Myers [told Congressional] committee members that the Pentagon was considering all the risks. They said U.S. forces could manage a war with Iraq without diminishing the global war on terrorism. They expressed confidence that other Arab nations would join a U.S.-led war effort even in the absence of a U.N. resolution. And they said the U.S. government was working on the challenge of reconstructing Iraq and establishing a new government if Hussein is overthrown.

Hoping to box Democrats in, Bush is modeling the congressional resolution after the one the House passed in 1998, at President Bill Clinton's request. Approved 417 to 5, the resolution reaffirmed the U.S. policy of supporting efforts to remove Hussein from power.

... Since [Bush's speech to the UN], senior administration officials have repeatedly made clear that U.S. willingness to work with the international organization extended only as far as it agreed with the U.S. approach.

The United States and Britain['s] ... proposal will call for a newly toughened inspection regime with a tight timeline and unequivocal benchmarks for judging Iraqi cooperation, spelling out the consequences if Iraq fails to comply.

Hoping to head off an open fight in the Security Council, U.S. and British diplomats are continuing preliminary talks with their French, Russian and Chinese colleagues....

Once Security Council deliberations begin, the administration is expected to make clear that if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, it will reserve the option to act on its own under Article 51 of the U.N. charter based on the threat Iraq poses. The article recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." End excerpt

Article summary: All their base are belong to US.

But I'm still praying daily for God's wisdom and will to prevail. The nations are in confusion, but W isn't.

I said you misread my post.

You replied:

You said: "But if the one year U.N. resolution that's being reported is passed"

... what's not to understand.

The rest of the sentence, that's what. Notice the if. And notice the other half of that thought, which was roughly "then the U.N. would be totally irrelevant":

... then this is icing on the cake. It makes them so totally irrelevant that any pretense they are involved will be lost.

In short, I said "if they do this, then they are fools", and you looked at the part saying "they do this", and took it to mean that (1) I thought they would do this, and (2) I presumed Bush and America would be bound by such foolishness.

I don't know if they will do this (if the U.N. will pass such foolishness), but either way, I am confident that it won't stop Bush from putting Saddam down.

I'm half hoping they do pass it, however. It would further show them up for what they are -- fools. It won't matter to Saddam -- he's a dead man walking. But it might help more Americans come to an understanding of how irrelevant the U.N. is.

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.