What do you expect? He doesn't have any material.
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --does it makes any sense for the world to confront him as he grows stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" Bush asked, seemingly addressing those who have questioned his policy on Iraq.All weapons are, by definition, "dangerous". Saddam could have a stick and it would still be a "dangerous" weapon.
If he wants to make his case, he needs to avoid the rhetoric and state the facts.
The president called on Saddam to disarm or said Iraq would face a world coalition led by the United States, forcing it to do so.Hmmm, if by "world coalition" you mean "unilateral action by the US", I guess he could be correct. Isn't one of the PROBLEMS Bush is having that NO ONE ELSE (except for Blair) will follow him in this war?
"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable," Bush said, adding that the resolution signals that the United States speaks with "one voice."But we don't. That's why there is debate on this very issue. If Bush wants a war, he has to go to Congress to get them to declare it. It's all written down. Simple instructions.
Even before the speech, Bush picked up some support Monday from House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who had questioned the wisdom of a U.S. attack."leadership"? Where? Afghanistan? We lost Osama. Hell, for the money we've invested in this "war" so far, we could have BOUGHT Afghanistan. The Iraqi army WAS the 4th best in the world. Afghanistan wasn't even rated.
"No American wants to go to war," Armey said. "But the president's proven leadership has shown that the conflict may be our only option to defend freedom."
Armey, R-Texas, said in August that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would violate American principles. But after "a very intense, personal confrontation with the facts," he said Monday, he has concluded that Iraq poses a "clear and present" threat to the United States.Right. I'm guessing it's more like "support Bush or lose the backing in your next election".
Because Iraqi gunners have fired on U.S. pilots patrolling the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq and Saddam is violating U.N. resolutions ending the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Armey said, "I don't see this as a pre-emptive action."Repeat the lie often enough and people will believe it.
"Rather than hearing more about Saddam Hussein -- we knew enough about him -- what we need to hear from the president are answers to our questions about what he plans to do in Iraq," Byrd said. "We need to know why the president is demanding that Congress act now."Bingo. Why is Iraq such a threat NOW? Also, what is our strategy for going into Iraq and GETTING BACK OUT.
Oh, sorry, there isn't an exit strategy. Once we're in, we're staying in.
Most Republicans have been solidly behind Bush. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said the United States "cannot wait until we are sure Iraq has a nuclear weapon and is about to use it."That is called "anarchy". And it isn't the good kind.
Bush has told the United Nations that if it does not act to enforce its resolutions requiring Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction, the United States and its allies will.Saddam is BAD for violating UN resolutions.
The US is GOOD because we don't follow UN resolutions.
Iraq denies having weapons of mass destruction. Its U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, suggested Sunday his country could allow inspectors access even to the presidential sites not covered by last week's agreement with the U.N. weapons inspection team.Okay, bad news for the US.
Saddam is SMARTER than Bush.
Bush is going to bet all of his credibility on this invasion and Saddam is going to let the inspectors walk any where they want to RIGHT BEFORE IT IS SCHEDULED.
Bush will look like an idiot because all of his claims of "weapons of mass destruction" will be shown to be excuses for an invasion to acquire control of the oil fields.
