So, apparently we're gonna go blow some stuff up

[LavenderMenace]

awesome. I cant believe people are listening to that jackass. How can we let the stupidest president in history lead us into war? I'm dumbfounded.

And Hillary is gettin a STERN letter from me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Force Against Iraq

By ALISON MITCHELL and CARL HULSE

ASHINGTON, Friday, Oct. 11 - 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.

After the House voted, President Bush said the support showed that ``the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally.'' He added, ``The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.''

While the votes in favor of the resolutions were large and bipartisan, they highlighted a sharp split in the Democratic party over how and when to use force. This was particularly true in the House. Even though Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, put his weight behind the force authorization, more House Democrats voted against the resolution sought by the president than for it, splitting 126 to 81. Only 6 Republicans opposed it.

The opponents cited a host of reasons for their vote, including doubts that Iraq would imminently develop nuclear potential, fears that military action would take away from the war on terrorism, and sentiment against war among constituents.

In the Senate, as the debate stretched on, some prominent Democrats announced they would support the president, including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had proposed a more restrictive resolution and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who called the vote ``probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make.''

Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations ``more likely and, therefore, war less likely.''

Other Democrats, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, were determined to vote against the measure, saying there were still many questions about how a war would be waged, what its costs would be and how long it would last.

``We have very little understanding about the full implications in terms of an exit strategy,'' Mr. Kennedy told reporters.

In the end, the Senate Democrats split, with 29 for and 21 against the measure. One Republican and one independent opposed it.

Most Republicans stood behind the president, including Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the majority leader, who had been one of the Republicans skeptical about the president's Iraq policy. Despite his differences with Mr. Bush on the issue, Mr. Armey closed the House debate with a plea for authorizing force. Mr. Armey, 62, who is retiring at the end of this session, cried as he spoke of the troops who might be sent to war.

``Mr. President,'' he said, ``we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, `Sleep soundly, my baby.''' He choked up and walked out of the House chamber.

The Senate was also on track to approve the use of force. It voted 75 to 25 to cut off the delaying tactics of Democratic dissidents who had been trying to force the chamber to hold a far lengthier and more deliberative debate. With that vote, final passage was assured. It was just a matter of when, as the Senate defeated a handful of Democratic amendments.

Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, gave Mr. Bush his backing, saying, ``I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment.''

He alone among the four senior Congressional leaders had not signed off on the final wording when a compromise on using force was struck at the White House a week ago.

The actions came after long days of debate in the House and Senate over Mr. Bush's decision to confront Iraq. The president argued that in the post-Sept. 11 world, Mr. Hussein could provide terrorist groups with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or use them himself.

The resolution authorizes Mr. Bush to use the armed forces ``as he determines to be necessary and appropriate'' to defend the nation against ``the continuing threat posed by Iraq,'' and to enforce ``all relevant'' United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It requires him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.

The resolution was far less broad than the initial resolution put forward by the White House, which members of both parties said was too open-ended and could conceivably allow military action throughout the Middle East. In a concession to Democrats, the resolution encourages the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone. Still, it leaves him with broad latitude.

Mr. Bush has said his powers as commander in chief already permit him to act in defense of the nation. Without seeking a formal declaration of war, however, he wanted Congress to be involved in the issue, he said, so he could argue to the United Nations that he was expressing not only his own view but that of the American electorate.

Most Republicans stood solidly with the president and many echoed the call to oust Mr. Hussein.

``The question we face today is not whether to go to war, for war was thrust upon us,'' said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip. ``Our only choice is between victory and defeat. Let's be clear: In the war on terror, victory cannot be secured at the bargaining table.''

Still, the fight fractured the Democratic Party. In the Senate, an array of Democratic presidential hopefuls stood behind the president. Mr. Gephardt, who is a likely presidential contender in 2004, joined Republican leaders in making the case for the president instead of standing in opposition to Mr. Bush.

As one of the last speakers in the House, Mr. Gephardt, who opposed the last gulf war, argued that Sept. 11 had ``made all the difference'' and that Mr. Hussein had to be stopped from developing weapons of mass destruction.

``The events of that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad, but to strike us here at home,'' he said.

But only a minority in his caucus followed his lead and his second-in-command, Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority whip, took the other side. Ms. Pelosi, a senior member of the intelligence committee, pointed to a C.I.A. letter declassified this week that judged that Mr. Hussein was not likely to use his weapons against the United States but could lose his restraint if faced with an American-led force.

She said attacking Mr. Hussein would turn the country away from what should be its true national security focus - the terrorist threat. ``There are many costs involved in this war, and one of them is the cost of the war on terrorism,'' she said.

Many Democrats said they agreed that Mr. Hussein was a dangerous tyrant. But they expressed fear of giving Mr. Bush so much power, or argued that by striking a nation that has not struck first, America could lose its moral standing. They also said Mr. Bush had not presented a definitive case that Iraq was an imminent threat.

In the end the vote was not all that different from the House vote on the gulf war. At that time, 86 Democrats voted to grant Mr. Bush's father, President George Bush, the right to use force, and 179 opposed him.

On Thursday, the opposition was particularly strong among House Democrats from the urban Northeast, the West Coast and among minority members.

House Democrats rallied around an alternative by Representative John M. Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina, that would have authorized force in conjunction with the United Nations. The president would have had to return to Congress for a second approval to act unilaterally.

If Americans do not act in concert with allies, Mr. Spratt said, ``This will be the United States versus Iraq, and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world.'' The measure was defeated by a vote of 270-155, but attracted 147 Democratic votes.

Senate opponents were thwarted in several attempts to alter the resolution. One alternative was written by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who proposed a two-step process similar to what was defeated in the House.

Mr. Levin said pushing the president to build an international coalition would mean that Mr. Hussein ``will be looking down the barrel of a gun, with the world at the other end rather than just the United States.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/national/11IRAQ.html?pagewanted=1

[Xpander]

This belongs in the Current Events Forum...*AHEM*MODERATOR*

But that aside, THIS is even better, we're just gonna take it over...

Now it's just funny...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/international/11PREX.html

U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

ASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.

The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders and a transition to an elected civilian government that could take months or years.

Advertisement

In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American military commander — perhaps Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates — who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945.

One senior official said the administration was "coalescing around" the concept after discussions of options with President Bush and his top aides. But this official and others cautioned that there had not yet been any formal approval of the plan and that it was not clear whether allies had been consulted on it.

The detailed thinking about an American occupation emerges as the administration negotiates a compromise at the United Nations that officials say may fall short of an explicit authorization to use force but still allow the United States to claim it has all the authority it needs to force Iraq to disarm.

In contemplating an occupation, the administration is scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition forces in a post-Hussein government. Until now it had been assumed that Iraqi dissidents both inside and outside the country would form a government, but it was never clear when they would take full control.

Today marked the first time the administration has discussed what could be a lengthy occupation by coalition forces, led by the United States.

Officials say they want to avoid the chaos and in-fighting that have plagued Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban. Mr. Bush's aides say they also want full control over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their principal mission: finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.

The description of the emerging American plan and the possibility of war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders could be part of an administration effort to warn Iraq's generals of an unpleasant future if they continue to support Mr. Hussein.

Asked what would happen if American pressure prompted a coup against Mr. Hussein, a senior official said, "That would be nice." But the official suggested that the American military might enter and secure the country anyway, not only to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but also to ensure against anarchy.

Under the compromise now under discussion with France, Russia and China, according to officials familiar with the talks, the United Nations Security Council would approve a resolution requiring the disarmament of Iraq and specifying "consequences" that Iraq would suffer for defiance.

It would stop well short of the explicit authorization to enforce the resolution that Mr. Bush has sought. But the diplomatic strategy, now being discussed in Washington, Paris and Moscow, would allow Mr. Bush to claim that the resolution gives the United States all the authority he believes he needs to force Baghdad to disarm.

Other Security Council members could offer their own, less muscular interpretations, and they would be free to draft a second resolution, authorizing the use of force, if Iraq frustrated the inspection process. The United States would regard that second resolution as unnecessary, senior officials say.

"Everyone would read this resolution their own way," one senior official said.

The revelation of the occupation plan marks the first time the administration has described in detail how it would administer Iraq in the days and weeks after an invasion, and how it would keep the country unified while searching for weapons.

It would put an American officer in charge of Iraq for a year or more while the United States and its allies searched for weapons and maintained Iraq's oil fields.

For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 percent of the total. A senior administration official said the United Nations oil-for-food program would be expanded to help finance stabilization and reconstruction.

Administration officials said they were moving away from the model used in Afghanistan: establishing a provisional government right away that would be run by Iraqis. Some top Pentagon officials support this approach, but the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and, ultimately, the White House, were cool to it.

Advertisement

"We're just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside," an administration official said. "There would also be differences among Iraqis, and we don't want chaos and anarchy in the early process."

Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the military occupations of Japan and Germany. But they stressed a commitment to keeping Iraq unified, as Japan was, and avoiding the kind partition that Germany underwent when Soviet troops stayed in the eastern sector, which set the stage for the cold war. The military government in Germany stayed in power for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a half years.

In a speech on Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the special assistant to the president for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African affairs, said, "The coalition will assume — and the preferred option — responsibility for the territorial defense and security of Iraq after liberation."

"Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "But we do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a democratic transition and then through democracy over time."

Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council, would assist an American-led military and, later, a civilian administration, a senior official said today. Only after this transition would the American-led government hand power to Iraqis.

He said that the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized," and that senior Baath Party officials who control government ministries would be removed. "Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he added.

Some experts warned during Senate hearings last month that a prolonged American military occupation of Iraq could inflame tensions in the Mideast and the Muslim world.

"I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country," said the former secetary of state, Henry A. Kissinger, who as a young man served as a district administrator in the military government of occupied Germany.

While the White House considers its long-term plans for Iraq, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, arrived in Moscow this evening for a day and a half of talks with President Vladimir V. Putin. Aides said talks were focused on resolving the dispute at the United Nations. Mr. Blair and Mr. Putin are to hold formal discussions on Friday, followed by a news conference.

Mr. Blair has been a steadfast supporter of the administration's tough line on a new resolution. But he has also indicated that Britain would consider France's proposal to have a two-tiered approach, with the Security Council first adopting a resolution to compel Iraq to cooperate with international weapons inspectors, and then, if Iraq failed to comply, adopting a second resolution on military force. Earlier this week, Russia indicated that it, too, was prepared to consider the French position.

But the administration is now saying that if there is a two-resolution approach, it will insist that the first resolution provide Mr. Bush all the authority he needs.

"The timing of all this is impossible to anticipate," one administration official involved in the talks said. "The president doesn't want to have to wait around for a second resolution if it is clear that the Iraqis are not cooperating."

[joeg]

son of a bitch.... I just fucking signed up for the selective services last week... (mind you its been a year and a half since i was supposed to...)

[mikiebphonk]

pump it up loud

cutn and scratchin, uh uh

[phuturephunk]

. . . you know, the last time I went through the drive thru here, I didn't get the Schitzo-shake I ordered . . . I was upset to say the least . . .

[mikiebphonk]

dont worry i left pleanty of vanilla and strawberry shakes for yah.

and happy meal toys...

and extreme nuttiness sunday's

[barvybe]

i promise that i won't blow anything up.

besides, according to our president...this isn't a declaration of war, just a little reminder to our iraqi friends that if they don't cooperate mr. bush is gonna set up a good old boys rodeo in the middle of their desert.

of course...he also said all that other shit i posted last night

[charrails]

Pro-Taliban/anti US gov't in Pakistan

the world's becoming a safer place every day....

[cintron]

I'm glad we're doing something about Iraq. They've used biological/chemical weapons on thousands of people before, and for nearly a decade they've flipped the bird to the UN on getting weapons inspections done effectively - a condition they agreed to at the conclusion of the Gulf War.

While i'm sure the entire arab world will unite and chant anti american slogans, burn flags and set Effegies of Bush on fire... we can't just stand by and do nothing.

Granted Bush isn't exactly the sharpest tack in the box... but he's motivated and [thank god] isn't the one planning the mechanics of getting the job done.

I just wish he'd say something to us all about it instead of "he's evil, we must defeat him and {insert other epic bulllshit here}"

Kind of sounds like the Waterboy's mama...

"We've got to stop him... why? Because Saddam Hussein is the DEVIL"