We the people aren't buying it
Post-Bush speech...
Poll: Americans oppose Bush Iraq plan 2 to 1...
Poll: Americans oppose Bush Iraq plan 2 to 1...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq by a two-to-one margin, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday.
Two-thirds of Americans also say Bush has no clear plan for Iraq....
Nearly half those who saw the speech say their minds were not changed, while the rest are evenly split over whether they'd be more or less likely to support his policies....
Asked their positions on sending more troops to Iraq, 66 percent said they oppose the move, while 32 percent said they favor it.[..]
Here's more polls showing America's disappointment in Bush:
It doesn't seem to bother Bush one bit that we the people are not backing him. During hearings yesterday a senator asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to wait 10 days before implementing the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq so that the Senate can determine "if the American people are behind it."
Gates said he'd pass the message along to Bush, but he made it clear that the answer would probably be no. "Quite honestly," he said, "I think [Bush] believes that sometimes the president has to take actions that contemporaneously don't have the broad support of the American people because sometimes he has a longer view."
Well, we already knew Bush would go ahead and do what he dang well pleases ..
AND:
Sen. Jim Webb decided to ask Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if the president thinks he has the authority to launch an attack against Iran "in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval." Rice declined to answer:
Sen. Jim Webb decided to ask Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice if the president thinks he has the authority to launch an attack against Iran "in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval." Rice declined to answer:
"Senator, I'm really loathe to get into questions of the president's authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. So let me answer you, in fact, in writing. I think that would be the best thing to do."
What? Can they *really* be considering duking it out with Iran?!! Maybe they think attacking Iran and Syria would be another slam-dunk .. requiring no troops and comparatively little money. Just drop bombs from 20,000 feet...
But Iran is not Iraq, Iran is a well-defended country. Think of Hezbollah, only with *real* weapons .. such as surface-to-surface, surface-to-ship missiles, and most of them mobile, hidden away in the mountains. I've read that missiles in the mountains are very difficult to locate and take out.
And yeah Condi .. like I should listen to you and your boss, who have proven to be so unreliable and incompetent.
Some people say that most recent administrations have claimed the authority to launch military action without congressional authorization. Other people say Bush absolutely does not get to make that decision by himself .. that he can do what he thinks is necessary inside the borders of Iraq, but for anything in Iran or Syria, he is *required by law* to get the permission of Congress.
Then they argue back and forth about the War Powers Act .. and throw around terms like "repel invasions" .. "launch attacks" .. "invade" .. "make war" ..
To me it's very clear -- attacking another nation (that didn't attack us first) is very clearly an act of war .. and declaring war is very clearly the duty of Congress.
Ah well .. it also very clearly seems to be out of our hands, we'll just have to wait and see what Bush does next. Can you say "nukular"?
