02-24-2007, 03:50 PM
More on that, Mudy:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070224/2/12j44.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 01:31 PM
<b>US leaves options open on Iran strike</b>
The United States has left open the possibility of a military strike against Iran as Australia warns of the "nightmare scenario" of Iran becoming emboldened by any coalition defeat in Iraq.
"All options are still on the table," US vice president Dick Cheney told a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard in Sydney on Saturday.
Mr Cheney said Washington preferred to work with it allies to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons.
"But I have made the point, and the president (George W Bush) has made the point, that all options are still on the table.
"The next step is now being debated."
Mr Cheney, winding up a three-day visit to Australia, said America was "deeply concerned" by Iran's activities.
"We see a nation that has been fairly aggressive in the Middle East, a sponsor of Hezbollah," he said.
"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements.
"They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.
"It would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power."
Mr Howard, under pressure from Labor Leader Kevin Rudd's resurgent opposition to pull out of Iraq, drew a direct link between the unpopular war and the emergence of Iran.
"I don't think there would be a country whose influence and potential clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran's would be if the coalition was defeated in Iraq," Mr Howard said.
"I don't think you can separate the two.
"Iran would be emboldened if the coalition was defeated in Iraq.
"And that would be seen to have occurred if there was a significant coalition withdrawal.
"Iran would benefit enormously from that.
"For many countries in the Middle East, not just Israel, that would be a nightmare scenario."
The statements by Mr Howard and Mr Cheney followed British Prime Minister Tony Blair's plans to start sending British troops home from Iraq.
They also came after Tehran ignored a UN deadline to stop nuclear work and a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran should stand up to the world and pursue its nuclear program.
"If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they will retreat," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in northern Iran.
The UN Security Council had given Iran until February 21 to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can make fuel for power plants or material for warheads.
The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran had not heeded the demand.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London next week to discuss possible further steps in addition to UN sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how that were imposed in December.
Ahmadinejad has said that when Iran has compromised over a nuclear program, which it insists has only peaceful aims, the West had simply increased its demands.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://au.news.yahoo.com//070223/19/12j02.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 07:17 PM
<b>US Democrats seek to gut Bush's Iraq war powers</b>
Photo : AFPÂ
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Democrats have vowed to handcuff President George W. Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, raising the stakes and risking a constitutional showdown in their battle to bring troops home.
Key senators are aiming to repeal the 2002 congressional authorization permitting Bush to go to war, as they challenge his last-ditch surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, and aim to end US involvement in the unpopular war.
"We gave him the authority to take out weapons of mass destruction which never existed, take down Saddam who is dead, and force compliance to UN resolutions that are already enforced," Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said in a CNN interview Friday.
"This president's policy is driving us into a box canyon, we have got to redefine the mission," he said.
The move was still being finalized Friday and it was not clear if the measure would be officially introduced next week. Draft plans would seek to limit the US mission in Iraq to battling terrorists, guarding Iraq's borders and training Iraqi troops, a congressional source said.
The legislation will also call for a pullout of US combat troops from Iraq by March 2008 -- in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last year, political news website Politico.com reported.
The Senate move is the latest attempt by Democrats, who grabbed control of Congress last year, to curtail Bush's war powers, and end US involvement in a war in which 3,100 US troops have lost their lives.
But it already looked unlikely Friday that Democrats had the votes to pass a measure which could spark an unprecedented showdown between Congress and the president over lawmakers capacity to shape military and foreign policy.
They have already failed to pile up the necessary 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate to enforce debate on a non-binding resolution opposing Bush's surge plan announced last month.
And there was not firm agreement about how to proceed with the new plan.
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia told The New York Times that Democrats had agreed that Congress must reassert its authority, but they had not yet figured out precisely how to do it.
The White House said it would "of course" fight any move to curtail Bush's powers, and argued US forces were in Iraq at the invitation of the government in Baghdad and authorized by the United Nations.
"The authorization in the Security Council resolution is clear," White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell dared Democrats to take the politically dangerous step of withhold funding for the war, even when troops are in combat.
"You can't unring a bell," McConnell told reporters when asked about Democratic plans to adjust the authorization.
"At this point the only thing Congress can meaningfully do ... is decide whether or not to fund the operation," he said.
Bush's Republican backers argue that Bush should be given the chance to see whether his surge plan, sending extra troops into Baghdad and restive Al-Anbar province, works.
But Levin, previewing the Democratic effort last week on Fox television, said the authorization had been overtaken by events.
"It's wide open, telling the president he can go to Iraq and basically carry out any mission that he wants to," said Levin.
"One thought is that we should limit the mission to a support mission -- in other words, an antiterrorist mission to go after Al-Qaeda in Iraq, to support and train the Iraqi army, to protect our own diplomatic personnel and other personnel in Iraq."
The 2002 joint resolution of Congress authorizes Bush to use US troops as he determines necessary and appropriate to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
It also says troops can be used to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
"The second part of that section, on authorization, is still important and envisioned the changing nature there," Fratto argued.
Though Senate Democrats have struggled to rebuke Bush, their counterparts in the House of Representatives have been more successful: a non-binding resolution criticizing Bush's war plan passed last week by a 246-182 vote.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The US government doesn't ever seem to know the right time to do the right thing. (1) T-ban should have been curtailed long ago. But no, they waited until T-ban and their ISI helpers started having bigger plans, including attacking the US. After that attack, they 'suddenly discovered' that T-ban was anti-human rights, anti-women and terrorist. (2) Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Center, but US invaded it anyway. And where are the WMD? (3) But what's done is done. However, now that they've created new wounds in Iraq, they actually ought to continue on there so as to set the country up to make it stable. But Democrats come into power and want to bring their troops home. Effectively leaving an open wound to fester.
Expect - what's that term again - that's right: <i>Blowback</i>.
Presidential candidate thinks now's a great time to play the (currently) wildly popular 'Let's quit Iraq' card:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070224/2/12j3n.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 12:52 PM
<b>Obama ridicules Cheney over UK pullout</b>
US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ridiculed Vice-President Dick Cheney for saying Britain's decision to pull troops from Iraq is a good sign that fits with the strategy for stabilising the country.
Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems cannot be solved militarily.
(Iraq's problems - both the lingering and newer kinds - require a lot of effort to solve. Some of it requires military intervention, to stamp out terrorism, for instance. But most of all it requires people/countries who are truly interested in solving Iraq's problems. But the actual major obstacle is that no one is interested, no one cares about Iraq or Iraqis. Invasion complete, oil secured, everyone goes back to their first world country to forget about Iraq.)
"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, than why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him.
"In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over the heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
A spokeswoman for Cheney, travelling with him in Australia, said they had no comment on Obama's remarks.
Cheney told ABC News earlier this week that Blair's announcement was good news, calling it an affirmation that parts of Iraq have been stabilised.
Obama's Austin appearance was part of a campaign swing across the US to raise money for his two-week old candidacy and build his reputation nationally.
While in Texas, Obama raised money in Houston Thursday night, where he said he would like to see an end to the "tit-for-tat" that dominates politics.
The Obama and Clinton campaigns fired off duelling press releases this week over a top Hollywood donor who was a supporter of Bill Clinton but is backing Obama in this race.
Obama told the Austin crowd that they should try to recruit their friends to support his campaign. "I want you to tell them, 'It's time for you to turn off the TV and stop playing GameBoy,"' Obama said. "We've got work to do."
Tickets to the rally were free, but Obama asked the attendees to give even $US5 ($A6.35) or $US10 ($A12.70)
"I don't want to have to raise money in Hollywood all the time," he said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Doing the right thing for Iraq seems to have become a political question in the US, just like climate change is. They're viewing it all wrong.
How to walk on both sides of the road at the same time (guess this is called diplomacy):
http://au.news.yahoo.com//070224/2/12j4w.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 04:05 PM
<b>US and China can work together, (Australian) PM says</b>
Prime Minister John Howard has emphasised the growing ties between the United States and China after visiting US Vice-President Dick Cheney lashed out at Beijing over its military build-up.
Mr Cheney and Mr Howard discussed China, along with several other international political issues, during their one-hour official meeting in Sydney on Saturday.
Their talks came a day after Mr Cheney sparked controversy with his stern rebuke to China over its rapid military build-up.
When asked whether he agreed with Mr Cheney's comments, Mr Howard sought to emphasise the ability of the US and China to work together, especially on getting North Korea to suspend its nuclear program.
"We have no false illusions about the nature of China's society but we see positive signs in the way in which China and the United States have worked together, particularly in relation to North Korea," Mr Howard told reporters.
"Nothing is more important to the stability of our own region at the present time than resolving the North Korean nuclear situation and I think the way in which China and the United States have worked together on that is wholly positive and is, obviously, to the credit of both of those countries."
Mr Howard said Australia had striven in the past decade to build a close relationship with China while at the same time strengthening ties with the US.
But he said Australia had "no illusions that China remains an authoritarian country".
On Friday in his only public speech during his four-day visit to Sydney, Mr Cheney said Beijing was sending mixed messages, highlighted by its decision last month to deploy a satellite-killing missile and the rapid increase in the size of its military.
"(They) are not consistent with China's stated goal of a peaceful rise," Mr Cheney said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->China makes its intents quite clear, I thought. When it's ready, it <i>will</i> fight. Meanwhile, all other countries are giving China the time to get ready.
Wish China weren't communist. But that's one of those wishes, isn't it: wish christoislamism would cease to exist, wish China wasn't a power-hungry communist country but a Taoist-Buddhist-Confucian country again, wish communism would cease to exist, wish the US wasn't trying to destabilise/breakup other countries, wish psecularism would cease to exist, ...
Who's the scientist that said something like: 'Whatever weapons are used to fight in WWIII, one can be certain that thereafter (in WWIV?) humanity will be fighting with sticks and stones again.' So true.
Nice to know that the countries able and willing to initiate a world war are all of the trigger-happy or power-hungry kind. One can really rest easy knowing that the planet's future is secure in their hands.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070224/2/12j44.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 01:31 PM
<b>US leaves options open on Iran strike</b>
The United States has left open the possibility of a military strike against Iran as Australia warns of the "nightmare scenario" of Iran becoming emboldened by any coalition defeat in Iraq.
"All options are still on the table," US vice president Dick Cheney told a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard in Sydney on Saturday.
Mr Cheney said Washington preferred to work with it allies to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons.
"But I have made the point, and the president (George W Bush) has made the point, that all options are still on the table.
"The next step is now being debated."
Mr Cheney, winding up a three-day visit to Australia, said America was "deeply concerned" by Iran's activities.
"We see a nation that has been fairly aggressive in the Middle East, a sponsor of Hezbollah," he said.
"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements.
"They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.
"It would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power."
Mr Howard, under pressure from Labor Leader Kevin Rudd's resurgent opposition to pull out of Iraq, drew a direct link between the unpopular war and the emergence of Iran.
"I don't think there would be a country whose influence and potential clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran's would be if the coalition was defeated in Iraq," Mr Howard said.
"I don't think you can separate the two.
"Iran would be emboldened if the coalition was defeated in Iraq.
"And that would be seen to have occurred if there was a significant coalition withdrawal.
"Iran would benefit enormously from that.
"For many countries in the Middle East, not just Israel, that would be a nightmare scenario."
The statements by Mr Howard and Mr Cheney followed British Prime Minister Tony Blair's plans to start sending British troops home from Iraq.
They also came after Tehran ignored a UN deadline to stop nuclear work and a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran should stand up to the world and pursue its nuclear program.
"If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they will retreat," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in northern Iran.
The UN Security Council had given Iran until February 21 to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can make fuel for power plants or material for warheads.
The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran had not heeded the demand.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London next week to discuss possible further steps in addition to UN sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how that were imposed in December.
Ahmadinejad has said that when Iran has compromised over a nuclear program, which it insists has only peaceful aims, the West had simply increased its demands.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://au.news.yahoo.com//070223/19/12j02.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 07:17 PM
<b>US Democrats seek to gut Bush's Iraq war powers</b>
Photo : AFPÂ
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Democrats have vowed to handcuff President George W. Bush's power to wage war in Iraq, raising the stakes and risking a constitutional showdown in their battle to bring troops home.
Key senators are aiming to repeal the 2002 congressional authorization permitting Bush to go to war, as they challenge his last-ditch surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, and aim to end US involvement in the unpopular war.
"We gave him the authority to take out weapons of mass destruction which never existed, take down Saddam who is dead, and force compliance to UN resolutions that are already enforced," Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said in a CNN interview Friday.
"This president's policy is driving us into a box canyon, we have got to redefine the mission," he said.
The move was still being finalized Friday and it was not clear if the measure would be officially introduced next week. Draft plans would seek to limit the US mission in Iraq to battling terrorists, guarding Iraq's borders and training Iraqi troops, a congressional source said.
The legislation will also call for a pullout of US combat troops from Iraq by March 2008 -- in line with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last year, political news website Politico.com reported.
The Senate move is the latest attempt by Democrats, who grabbed control of Congress last year, to curtail Bush's war powers, and end US involvement in a war in which 3,100 US troops have lost their lives.
But it already looked unlikely Friday that Democrats had the votes to pass a measure which could spark an unprecedented showdown between Congress and the president over lawmakers capacity to shape military and foreign policy.
They have already failed to pile up the necessary 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate to enforce debate on a non-binding resolution opposing Bush's surge plan announced last month.
And there was not firm agreement about how to proceed with the new plan.
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia told The New York Times that Democrats had agreed that Congress must reassert its authority, but they had not yet figured out precisely how to do it.
The White House said it would "of course" fight any move to curtail Bush's powers, and argued US forces were in Iraq at the invitation of the government in Baghdad and authorized by the United Nations.
"The authorization in the Security Council resolution is clear," White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell dared Democrats to take the politically dangerous step of withhold funding for the war, even when troops are in combat.
"You can't unring a bell," McConnell told reporters when asked about Democratic plans to adjust the authorization.
"At this point the only thing Congress can meaningfully do ... is decide whether or not to fund the operation," he said.
Bush's Republican backers argue that Bush should be given the chance to see whether his surge plan, sending extra troops into Baghdad and restive Al-Anbar province, works.
But Levin, previewing the Democratic effort last week on Fox television, said the authorization had been overtaken by events.
"It's wide open, telling the president he can go to Iraq and basically carry out any mission that he wants to," said Levin.
"One thought is that we should limit the mission to a support mission -- in other words, an antiterrorist mission to go after Al-Qaeda in Iraq, to support and train the Iraqi army, to protect our own diplomatic personnel and other personnel in Iraq."
The 2002 joint resolution of Congress authorizes Bush to use US troops as he determines necessary and appropriate to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
It also says troops can be used to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
"The second part of that section, on authorization, is still important and envisioned the changing nature there," Fratto argued.
Though Senate Democrats have struggled to rebuke Bush, their counterparts in the House of Representatives have been more successful: a non-binding resolution criticizing Bush's war plan passed last week by a 246-182 vote.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The US government doesn't ever seem to know the right time to do the right thing. (1) T-ban should have been curtailed long ago. But no, they waited until T-ban and their ISI helpers started having bigger plans, including attacking the US. After that attack, they 'suddenly discovered' that T-ban was anti-human rights, anti-women and terrorist. (2) Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Center, but US invaded it anyway. And where are the WMD? (3) But what's done is done. However, now that they've created new wounds in Iraq, they actually ought to continue on there so as to set the country up to make it stable. But Democrats come into power and want to bring their troops home. Effectively leaving an open wound to fester.
Expect - what's that term again - that's right: <i>Blowback</i>.
Presidential candidate thinks now's a great time to play the (currently) wildly popular 'Let's quit Iraq' card:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070224/2/12j3n.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 12:52 PM
<b>Obama ridicules Cheney over UK pullout</b>
US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ridiculed Vice-President Dick Cheney for saying Britain's decision to pull troops from Iraq is a good sign that fits with the strategy for stabilising the country.
Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems cannot be solved militarily.
(Iraq's problems - both the lingering and newer kinds - require a lot of effort to solve. Some of it requires military intervention, to stamp out terrorism, for instance. But most of all it requires people/countries who are truly interested in solving Iraq's problems. But the actual major obstacle is that no one is interested, no one cares about Iraq or Iraqis. Invasion complete, oil secured, everyone goes back to their first world country to forget about Iraq.)
"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, than why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him.
"In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over the heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
A spokeswoman for Cheney, travelling with him in Australia, said they had no comment on Obama's remarks.
Cheney told ABC News earlier this week that Blair's announcement was good news, calling it an affirmation that parts of Iraq have been stabilised.
Obama's Austin appearance was part of a campaign swing across the US to raise money for his two-week old candidacy and build his reputation nationally.
While in Texas, Obama raised money in Houston Thursday night, where he said he would like to see an end to the "tit-for-tat" that dominates politics.
The Obama and Clinton campaigns fired off duelling press releases this week over a top Hollywood donor who was a supporter of Bill Clinton but is backing Obama in this race.
Obama told the Austin crowd that they should try to recruit their friends to support his campaign. "I want you to tell them, 'It's time for you to turn off the TV and stop playing GameBoy,"' Obama said. "We've got work to do."
Tickets to the rally were free, but Obama asked the attendees to give even $US5 ($A6.35) or $US10 ($A12.70)
"I don't want to have to raise money in Hollywood all the time," he said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Doing the right thing for Iraq seems to have become a political question in the US, just like climate change is. They're viewing it all wrong.
How to walk on both sides of the road at the same time (guess this is called diplomacy):
http://au.news.yahoo.com//070224/2/12j4w.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Saturday February 24, 04:05 PM
<b>US and China can work together, (Australian) PM says</b>
Prime Minister John Howard has emphasised the growing ties between the United States and China after visiting US Vice-President Dick Cheney lashed out at Beijing over its military build-up.
Mr Cheney and Mr Howard discussed China, along with several other international political issues, during their one-hour official meeting in Sydney on Saturday.
Their talks came a day after Mr Cheney sparked controversy with his stern rebuke to China over its rapid military build-up.
When asked whether he agreed with Mr Cheney's comments, Mr Howard sought to emphasise the ability of the US and China to work together, especially on getting North Korea to suspend its nuclear program.
"We have no false illusions about the nature of China's society but we see positive signs in the way in which China and the United States have worked together, particularly in relation to North Korea," Mr Howard told reporters.
"Nothing is more important to the stability of our own region at the present time than resolving the North Korean nuclear situation and I think the way in which China and the United States have worked together on that is wholly positive and is, obviously, to the credit of both of those countries."
Mr Howard said Australia had striven in the past decade to build a close relationship with China while at the same time strengthening ties with the US.
But he said Australia had "no illusions that China remains an authoritarian country".
On Friday in his only public speech during his four-day visit to Sydney, Mr Cheney said Beijing was sending mixed messages, highlighted by its decision last month to deploy a satellite-killing missile and the rapid increase in the size of its military.
"(They) are not consistent with China's stated goal of a peaceful rise," Mr Cheney said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->China makes its intents quite clear, I thought. When it's ready, it <i>will</i> fight. Meanwhile, all other countries are giving China the time to get ready.
Wish China weren't communist. But that's one of those wishes, isn't it: wish christoislamism would cease to exist, wish China wasn't a power-hungry communist country but a Taoist-Buddhist-Confucian country again, wish communism would cease to exist, wish the US wasn't trying to destabilise/breakup other countries, wish psecularism would cease to exist, ...
Who's the scientist that said something like: 'Whatever weapons are used to fight in WWIII, one can be certain that thereafter (in WWIV?) humanity will be fighting with sticks and stones again.' So true.
Nice to know that the countries able and willing to initiate a world war are all of the trigger-happy or power-hungry kind. One can really rest easy knowing that the planet's future is secure in their hands.