Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Iraq Plan Hits Snag In Senate
Associated Press ^ | 8 October 2002 | Jim Abrams

Posted on 10/08/2002 1:02:41 PM PDT by Asmodeus

WASHINGTON –– Saddam Hussein's apparent policy of not resorting to terrorist attacks against the United States could change if he concludes a U.S.-led attack against him was inevitable, CIA Director George Tenet said as President's Bush bid for congressional support to use force hit a snag in the Senate.

Tenet, in a letter read before a joint hearing of the House and Senate intelligence committees Tuesday, said that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons."

But Tenet went on to say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action."

Both the House and the Senate were debating the Iraq war resolution.

But while it appeared to be clear sailing for the measure in the GOP-led House, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., served notice on other Democrats at a party luncheon that he intended to use parliamentary tactics to delay a final vote, according to those who attended the session.

That could delay the vote well into next week, suggested Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-W.Va.

Byrd, widely respected for his deep knowledge of the Senate rules, has emerged as the primary Senate opponent to the president's war resolution.

The House began a fateful three-day debate on the measure on Tuesday. The Senate, which has been debating the measure since last Thursday, resumed its debate.

If forced into war, "We will prevail," President Bush told a Tennessee audience.

"At this moment, the people's house begins debate on one of the most difficult questions we will ever face," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.

The House hoped to conclude by Thursday night. The measure before both chambers provides the president wide latitude to take military action to disarm Saddam of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and, if possible, depose the Iraqi leader.

Anticipating an overwhelming vote of support in Congress, Bush told a Knoxville, Tenn., rally on Tuesday, "Military option is my last choice, the last choice. But should we commit our military, we'll be ready. We'll be prepared. We'll have a great plan and make no mistake about it, we will prevail."

Secretary of State Colin Powell, meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, said the congressional resolution "will definitely strengthen my hand as I try to do the diplomatic work up in New York to get a United Nations Security Council resolution" requiring unimpeded weapons inspections in Iraq.

Powell said there was increasing support at the U.N. for a new inspections mandate. "All of my colleagues at the United Nations and others I've spoken to around the world clearly see the threat," he said.

At the Pentagon, a Defense Intelligence Agency official told reporters that Saddam is actively making biological and chemical weapons – and trying to hide that fact from the world.

Iraq is "taking steps to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in anticipation of new inspections," John Yurechko said.

In a somber address to the nation Monday evening, Bush said the threat from Iraq was unique and imminent and there was no time to wait for final proof that Saddam had developed a nuclear capability – "the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place," the president said.

Bush told a Cincinnati audience in his televised speech that Saddam was "a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction," and that if he succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons to add to his biological and chemical stockpiles, he "would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression."

In Baghdad, the government of Iraq on Tuesday described Bush's speech as an attempt to justify an attack.

"The speech contained misleading information through which Bush is trying to justify an illogical and illegitimate attack on Iraq," said Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Sabri.

On Tuesday, a Pentagon official reiterated U.S. warnings that Iraqi military officers should refuse orders to use chemical or biological weapons. Any Iraqis involved in such attacks would be treated as war criminals after the conflict ended, said Douglas Feith, undersecretary for policy at the Defense Department.

The House has allotted 21 hours to debate what House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a chief sponsor of the White House-backed resolution, called "one of the most consequential questions we will deal with for years to come."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; mideast; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Asmodeus
The bottom line is that Bush doesn't need the resolution. The resolution passed on 9/14/01 and the UN resolutions already in place are sufficient grounds on which to act. Acting without the congress will not cost him any votes, and waiting for the resolution won't gain him any votes. However, waiting will cost American combatants' lives, something that's meaningless to RATs (except for political purposes) but will mean a lot to Bush, who actually has a brain, a conscience and a heart.
21 posted on 10/08/2002 1:28:21 PM PDT by clintonh8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Is it possible that they've really gotten this stupid???
22 posted on 10/08/2002 1:28:24 PM PDT by marktuoni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
From the article (direct quote):
That could delay the vote well into next week, suggested Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-W.Va.

Dolts. Daschle from West Virginia?

23 posted on 10/08/2002 1:31:14 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., served notice on other Democrats at a party luncheon that he intended to use parliamentary tactics to delay a final vote

Thanks, lets keep you folks tied up in DC while the campaigns start the ads showing the RATS side by side with Saddam.

24 posted on 10/08/2002 1:31:47 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
"...This looks like the same confused and inept CIA prior 9/11...

no changes have been made since clinton left...its his agency and i don't understand why changes haven't been made...

25 posted on 10/08/2002 1:34:19 PM PDT by Bill Davis FR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
Robert Byrd couldn't even deliver West Virginia for Gore despite the fact that he moved 1/2 of Washington there, and now he thinks he can stop the resolution all by himself?

Gives a whole new meaning to "Robert's Rules of Order!"

This guy used to be one of the shrewdest operators in the Senate. Now he has no idea. The man is a horrible example of someone who is so September 10th. He'll end up a old white-haired bug on the windshield of this joint resolution.
26 posted on 10/08/2002 1:35:52 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
But while it appeared to be clear sailing for the measure in the GOP-led House, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., served notice on other Democrats at a party luncheon that he intended to use parliamentary tactics to delay a final vote, according to those who attended the session.

Bobby (The Klansman) Byrd has a long history of delaying Senate votes.

June 10, 1964
Civil Rights Filibuster Ended

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.

Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached "Mr. Engle," there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California's mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it. When Delaware's John Williams provided the decisive sixty-seventh vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the twentieth century's towering legislative achievements.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/learning/min_6h.html

27 posted on 10/08/2002 1:38:35 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktuoni
Is it possible that they've really gotten this stupid???

We are talking about The Party of Gore, after all.


Tony

28 posted on 10/08/2002 1:43:32 PM PDT by TonyInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
Everyone prior to this administration needs to get another job outside of the govt..
29 posted on 10/08/2002 1:44:10 PM PDT by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
Tenet needs to go. He has ineptitude written all over him.
30 posted on 10/08/2002 1:44:31 PM PDT by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
Someone needs to email Hannity, O'Reilly and others so they can hound that on tv and radio.
31 posted on 10/08/2002 1:45:36 PM PDT by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
These democrats are unbelievable. They stall, and stall. I remember a saying from when I was a kid. "Nero fiddles while Rome burns."
32 posted on 10/08/2002 1:47:54 PM PDT by BulletBrasDotNet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
"Saddam has never attempted terrorist or WMD attacks against the US..."

True, perhaps.

But that's because proxies are doing it for him.

"an unprovoked invasion of Iraq threatening to derail the President's admirable just war on Islamicist terror."

Do you perchance have any Joan Baez records in your attic? Time to get'em down! For old time's sake, I mean.

33 posted on 10/08/2002 2:07:21 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
So according to you, we should just throw away all our weapons because if we're nice to our enemies, they'll be nice to us!?

How many innocent people have to die before you realize that there are real enemies of the US that will kill you for no other reason than you are an American? How many innocent people have to die before you realize we have the obligation to protect ourselves from those who try to kill us and the people that enable them?

Was your grandfather's name Neville Chamberlin?

34 posted on 10/08/2002 2:12:58 PM PDT by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nogbad
Saddam Hussein's apparent policy of not resorting to terrorist attacks against the United States could change if he concludes a U.S.-led attack against him was inevitable.

Sounds like Tenet wants us to allow ourselves to be blackmailed.

If we cave over this threat, what will we do when Saddam can hold A-bomb over our heads?

35 posted on 10/08/2002 2:16:03 PM PDT by MTRatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Tenet is an imbecile. I do not understand why this Clinton holdover was retained after the 9/11 debacle.
36 posted on 10/08/2002 2:19:43 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
The Democrats have pushed the American people against the wall. The American people know now that they have no choice but to elect a Republican Senate.
37 posted on 10/08/2002 2:25:04 PM PDT by Photo2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
You know, just yesterday I was defending Tenet, on the admittedly flimsy basis that his earlier inanities may well have been simply in response to administration policy; in other words, Tenet was just carrying out Clinton policy objectives which he may not have agreed with.

And now, this. Blows me right out of the water.

Combined this with Louis Freeh's comments from a couple of years back, which were just reprinted, where he says that the greatest threat to the US is not, Muslim extremism, but rather American rightists.

Gee. So Clinton's appointees actually agreed with Clinton policies. OK, so we got rid of Freeh, why is Tenet still hanging around? Is it to keep him from writing any books until after GW leaves office?
38 posted on 10/08/2002 2:45:18 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com


STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.
VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794



39 posted on 10/08/2002 2:51:13 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Well, Byrd-turd obviously wants something. More highway funds maybe. That is one Senator that can be bought. Kinda like Al Gore and his Gulf War speech.
40 posted on 10/08/2002 2:52:30 PM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson