Author Topic: Pop your corn, the President speaks the nation tonight (Read 359 times)

hawk220 · « **on:** March 17, 2003, 01:00:53 PM »

8pm ET

we know what he is going to say, I can't wait to hear the responses on this board!

Rasker · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2003, 01:06:19 PM »

Give Em Hell, George! [prepositioned modular response]

Toad · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2003, 01:31:59 PM »

Yeah, I don't think there'll be any suprises tonight.

I sent my letters and E-Mails to my representatives in the Executive Branch and the the Legislative Branch. Actually, I sent a bunch to people who don't actually represent me in the Legislative Branch.

I had my say, I made my protest. There are some I'm near certain I won't vote for next time.

Now that door is closed..... until the next elections.

Now our sons and daughters, friends and neighbors are going into battle, SENT BY OUR REPRESENTATIVES.

If you have a beef, it's with the Representatives; the troops are just doing what they've been ordered to do.

From here on out, I'm leaving the should we/shouldn't we stuff behind. I'm totally focused on their fast success and getting them the heck out of there and back home as fast as possible with as few casualties as possible.

Whatever that takes.

Debate is over. Time to close ranks and support the troops, IMO.

Nifty · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2003, 01:34:28 PM »

actually, what I want to know is, will Dubya ask Congress for a declaration of war on Iraq before committing our troops? If not, I'm guessing he doesn't plan to adhere to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

If he doesn't, how can writing my Congressman do anything? He (or she) is not being given the option to declare war.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2003, 01:47:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
actually, what I want to know is, will Dubya ask Congress for a declaration of war on Iraq before committing our troops? If not, I'm guessing he doesn't plan to adhere to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

If he doesn't, how can writing my Congressman do anything? He (or she) is not being given the option to declare war.

If congress declares war, all their authority is handed over to the President to conduct war for the duration of hostilities. Sure, whatever wets your whistle

Nifty · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2003, 01:53:11 PM »

yes, but is it also not the case that the President cannot place the military in an active engagement for more than 60 days as per the mentioned resolution? Or is that just resolution something that is completely for show?

Eagler · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2003, 01:58:13 PM »

didn't our reps hand over any so last October ....

they at that time, in an attempt to keep their jobs, already approved any action this admin will take against Iraq..

Rasker · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2003, 02:00:31 PM »

actually thats the War Powers Act, which has never been tested in court, to the best of my knowledge. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed in 1975, I believe, by the same Congress that cut off military supplies to our allies in South Vietnam and gutted the CIA's human intelligence capabilities,

Toad · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2003, 02:46:26 PM »

Yes, YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.

Quote

Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Force Against Iraq, Creating a Broad Mandate

WASHINGTON, Friday, Oct. 11, 2002 - The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.

The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers of both parties returned to Washington from summer recess expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. It reflected weeks of lobbying and briefings by the administration that culminated with a speech by the president on Monday night.

The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military ``against the continuing threat'' posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

Dowding · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2003, 02:52:07 PM »

I'm sorry Toad, but how is starting a war, creating a hotbead of potential for a civil war and then pulling troops out going to help in the war on terrorism?

Bush has thrown the dice. America is going to be involved with Iraq for a long time to come... even if they pull troops from the region.

Rasker · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2003, 03:18:18 PM »

"The First Week" from today's Time magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030317/nmilitaryA.html

The first Gulf War was as relentless and predictable as the tides— waves of warplanes, followed by thousands of U.S. troops, destroyed much of the Iraqi military. The second Gulf War, if it comes, would be more like the Big Bang—hundreds of towering explosions all across Iraq all at the same time. The Pentagon buzz word for this is simultaneity. The plan would have unprecedented numbers of smart, satellite-guided bombs attack a multitude of targets over a great sweep of territory, swiftly followed by U.S. troops seizing key objectives.

Call it the doctrine of inevitability. The U.S. military wants to capture 75% of Iraq, a country the size of California, in the war's first week and convince the Iraqi military that resistance is futile. The Pentagon is betting that most of Iraq's 400,000 troops would not fight. The diehards—led by the 20,000 members of the Special Republican Guard and the Special Security Organization, which would be suspected of hiding banned weapons—would be expected to hole up in greater Baghdad, which includes Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, 100 miles north of the capital. The Pentagon believes that the Iraqi dictator's 24-year reign would come to an end, one way or another, somewhere in that vicinity

Toad · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2003, 03:44:43 PM »

Read it again, Dowding.

It says "as fast as possible".