In response to this article on Yahoo! news...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20021010/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc_7

I posted the following to the message board:

>>>Ari Fleischer: "The president hopes that this will send a strong message to the world and to
Iraq that if Iraq does not obey the U.N. resolutions that the United States is prepared to enforce
the peace."

Yes, the USA will "enforce the peace" by initiating a war. Orwellian Newspeak in pure form.

>>>Tom Daschle said the resolution was "a statement of American resolve and values."

Since when is it an "American value" to initiate pre-emptive strikes and overthrow governments
that fail to comply with our unequivocal demands? Which god died and appointed us as the
world's security enforcers?

>>>Daschle again: "Because this resolution is improved, because I believe that Saddam Hussein
represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice
at this critical moment -- I will vote to give the president the authority he needs."

Translation: "I am caving in here and endorsing Bush's reckless unilateral power and oil grab
because it's politically inexpedient to oppose him. If the war on Iraq is 'successful,' I'll be on the
right side of the issue, and if it turns into Vietnam in the Desert or World War 3, people will blame
Bush, not me."

>>>Barbara Lee: "What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international
relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation
and security."

Unfortunately, I don't think that 2002 will set the tone for the 21st century any more than 1902 set
the tone for the 20th. We're still carrying over from the old era. This century will be characterized
after the failure of 20th century methods of managing international affairs will be completely
manifest, just as WW 1 initiated the end of the 19th century style of governance, colonialism, etc.
My belief is that the West is in the process of "blowing it" and that Asia will eventually emerge as
the world's power center over the next few decades. Bush is just hastening the USA to its demise,
but Gore would probably have not been much different.

>>> Henry Hyde: Lee's amendment was "like slipping someone an aspirin who's just been hit by
a freight train," and would fail to confront the threat posed by Iraq.

Colorful but meaningless rhetoric. What is the freight train? What is the aspirin? All I see in that
comment is disparaging nonsense. It has no relevance to what Lee was trying to accomplish other
than to say that Hyde doesn't like it. That's predictable, so what?

Our elected leaders are messing up big time! We are screwed, folks!