Shrub doesn't have the votes to bomb another country!

[BR_Parkway]

Sitting here reading through the "Iran is dangerous" & "Syria is out to get us" threads and realized something critical.

The UN knows they've been duped and won't vote to go along with any of this BS again. And we're so far in debt to China, we can't even bribe our way to another UN resolution (especially with our great diplomat Bolton) through massive foreign aid packages.

In the Senate, the Dems are pissed and finally found their voice. The ReThugs are running scared to be associated with Shrub's toxic political fallout - they won't dare vote along any more invasions.

And 6 out of 10 American's think the admin is full of BS, they won't be led down this "sky is falling, we must bomb them first" path again.

[skylarmae]

1. with all due respect - get a grip

this * will do anything he wants to. Doesn't he have 60days after bombing to get congress approval. But if they don't give it, Sooooo

[Mika]

2. Does he need another vote? I thought he's already been given..

.. the authority to bomb anyplace that BushCrime sees as a threat to the USA or US allies and interests (Al queda, Bin Laden, 9-11 terraists, etc).

[Inland]

3. Sure he does.

He's the only one who gets a vote. All he has to do is pick up a phone and Damascus is dust.

You're confusing Bush's ability to win a war with the ability to start one.

[wtmusic]

11. Ha!

"You're confusing Bush's ability to win a war with the ability to start one."

:thumbsup:

[Inland]

15. No laughing matter, I'm afraid.

Bush has all the practical ability to intiate hostilities with anyone. If there are legal restrictions, they will be made moot by the creation of the war, or made impossible to apply by the Bush administration announcing that Syria or Iran started it.

All that Congress can do is, post hoc, vote to defund the war, thereby losing the fight Bush has picked. And we all know what happens when anyone tries to stop a war.

[Brundle_Fly]

4. I think if he can link...

any intervention by another country, into the Iraq war, he can hold whomever he attacks under the same banner. So congress is not needed to pass anything for him to do as he please.

The UN is a different story, but they didn't exactly try to stop the Iraq escapade, I think Annan even said the war from international standards was illegal, but did nothing to prevent this madman from continuing.

[flyarm]

5. condi already said in congress * doesn't need anyones vote

to start another war!!

we are fucked!!

fly

[yurbud]

6. Bushies could lash out trying to save their sorry asses

[patrice]

7. We MUST keep Our EYE on him or he will do it.

Hopefully, People will Rise Up and DEAL with his LIES!

[spindrifter]

8. If he did start another one

he would be so f*cked. It would be the beginning of Am. Revolution II. And he knows it.

[Brundle_Fly]

12. American Revolution part duex.

65% of population overweight and glued to television sets taking steady dose of Paxil.

15% indifferent.

30% freeper, and possibly in the 65% first category.

Don't expect too much.

[donkeyotay]

14. We're a force to be reckoned with all right

Now, if they canceled the football season a few Lazyboy recliners could snap to the full upright position, but the problem with a popular uprising is that Washington is just too damned far away and most of us can't afford to miss work.

[SOS]

9. The Iraq War Resolution of October 2002

allows Bush to use the armed forces against anyone he chooses, so long as Dick Cheney can create another phony Al Qaeda connection.

[driver8]

13. How could anyone have voted to give the idiot that kind of power?

WTF?? Didn't anyone even think that the dipshit would abuse it??

Shrub is a desperate man and is really feeling pressure right now. He will do anything if he thinks it will help him.

[Brundle_Fly]

17. you have to go back to 911

the feeling of vindication you wanted and needed....

the americans (on the whole, minus some fine brains here) wanted payback, he could have gotten congress to attack mexico if he wanted.

This was a play right out of the Neo-Con playbook, I am surprised the Dems, still don't point that out, regularly.

[kywildcat]

10. They have been planning this for some time

the pre-emptive nuclear strike policy announced out of Cheneys office this summer. The press build up of 'Iran nukes' and Syrian terrorist enablers' They are simply preparing the American population for a strike against Iran, much the same way they did in the build up to Iraq.
As for approval; They only nominally requested approval from the UN and congress to not tip their hand. Now, they no longer need approval. What's scary is, they do not even want to put a pretty face on it to cover their lies anymore. Bomb them and the world be damned.
I think the biggest threat to their actual strike on Iran was China, and Rummy and now Bush are working that angle pretty hard.

[donkeyotay]

16. As insane as expanding this war seems to us

I agree with kywildcat: they sure look like they're planning it. As stated upthread, there's a difference between starting a war and winning it. Besides, it depends on who the winners and losers are. In Iraq, for example, the American people are big losers, but the folks who got us there are doing just fine. So, before we decide they won't expand this war into another country(ies), we might think about what "losing" would look like from Halliburton's perspective. I'm thinking that if they American people got fed up with private contractors and corporate governance that Cheney would be a loser. I'm thinking he is MUCH more likely to get what he wants than what I want.

[rosesaylavee]

18. If they can find a way to make money at it or if it

serves one of their many other purposes (power, distraction, revenge), they will do it. I think it sure would distract most people away from the indictments of Libby and Rove's investigation, don't you?

[donkeyotay]

19. That is a legitamate worry. As the crime and lies become public,

war will look like more and more like a winning propositon. And, we'd be fools at this point to think they are concerned with our welfare.

I think it sure would distract most people away from the indictments of Libby and Rove's investigation, don't you?

I agree. We have to stop them, or we will wind up in some as-yet-unforeseen circumstance that makes us put everything but the new chapter in the war on terror aside.