StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What's gonna happen if the UN weapon's inspectors turn up to the Security Council on 27th of Jan, and say that they have found no evidence of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? I mean should they be ordered back and find out the same thing again, what would Shruby do?

Would this hurt his chance of re-election?

Shrubby would still attack Iraq, just with the idiotic idea that Iraq was covering up.

*US sends inspectors over*
*inspectors find nothing*
OMFG TEH AYRABS ARE HIDING SOMETHING!11111ONEONE!1 AXIS OF EEVIL!1
*US receives weapons report and cuts out portions it doesn't want people to see*
MUST KILL EVIL!!11 (insert buzzword here)

Will it hut him? yes. But Bush will still go to war because the US is already at war and the cease-fire become void back in 1998 when Iraq, the US and UK all began to shoot at each other.

suppose the war takes longer than W. expected and someone else is elected president in 2004 with the intention of ending the war? That would make for a great scandal

why would the war take that long?

and it will happen regardless. . .

jaeger115 wrote:suppose the war takes longer than W. expected and someone else is elected president in 2004 with the intention of ending the war? That would make for a great scandal

Here is what's likely to happen :

During or before the 2004 elections, another 'terror' attack occurs in a populated area, resulting in massive death, and of course, it involves people from Saudi Arabia that have ties to Bush and other terrorists. Bush blames Iraq (if they havn't been attacked yet) and other nations that had nothing to do with the attack. Falwel, Robertson, and other rightwing fundies blame the homosexuals, abortionists, etc. Utilities and corporate entities artificially raise prices, using the excuse that they're beefing up security.

The elections are put on hold indefinately, because the president somehow reserves the right to do so in a time of 'war' or whatnot.

*insert more media takeovers by the right, more war rhetoric, more loss of rights, more anti-US sentiment here*

I think there's something in the Constitiution that blocks the delaying of elections

There's also something in the Constitution that prevents the President from declaring war. That didn't stop Shrubby in Afghanistan.

I highly doubt he would delay the election. That would most likely lead to his arrest.

What happens is simple.

Bush reveals information which shows he DOES have WMDs or shows that he has tried to do so recently.

Anyway doesn't matter he has violated the treaty so many times it would take a liar greater then clinton to deny it.

Besides Stratfor has the invasion begining early febuary, with it going into full swing in march.

Bush still goes to war with Iraq. Even if their evidence is no more evidence than you would find if you looked to see if Canada was making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush will go to war unless something really big happens. ie) Massive protests against war in Iraq or North Korea invades the south.

The Dark wrote:There's also something in the Constitution that prevents the President from declaring war. That didn't stop Shrubby in Afghanistan.

He didn't declare war. He sent military forces to attack Afghanistan, thus instituting a de facto but not de jure state of war.

Secondly, this use of force is legal under the War Powers Act of 1973. In no way is his use of force unconstitutional.