You conclusions are tragic, but true I'm afraid. It appears that the decision for military action to disarm Iraq was made a long time ago. I think the only thing that could prevent war with Iraq now is if Saddam immediately started to completely disarm by either bringing nuclear technology, biological, and chemical weapons to a single location for the inspectors to observe their destruction or for him to give the inspectors valid locations for the inspectors to travel to and oversee the destruction of these weapons. It appears the question as to whether or not the WMD even exist was answered (or assumed) long ago and hence he is not disarming afterall. Somehow I feel everything after the congressional hearings and voting was 'show.'

>Tracy;
>
>Thank you so much! From this I think the following is true:
>
>1. Iraq is living on borrowed time.
>2. UN Resolution 1441 has no importance in this issue as previous Resolutions have been denied by Iraq.
>3. The conclusion expressed by the Congress and the President is war.
>4. War can occur at any time.
>
>Well, I guess I will have to pray harder and more because I see no delay that may occur in having a war other than full compliance on the part of Iraq, which has not occurred. There is no room for debate because the conclusion is foregone. It is now a simple matter of "action - reaction" or in this case "improper action will be met with war"!
>
>I have this image of two railroad locomotives racing towards each other on the same track. The outcome seems inevitable.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
>>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraq021011.html
>>
>>>Tracy;
>>>
>>>The support President Bush received from Congress was interesting. I am not sure if the Congress gave the President the right to go to go to war with their approval. How about someone pointing me to some dialogue on that topic?
>>>
>>>Unions will have the membership give what is termed “a strike vote” before negations begin with an employer for a new contract. This is done so the bargaining committee can approach the company with the threat of a strike, if that was the outcome of the vote. Give us what we demand (and negotiate) or the membership walks! I have represented both sides of that table during my working career.
>>>
>>>Giving the President the approval of Congress to go to war (if that was the true outcome without additional discussion and agreement from Congress being necessary) would seem like a similar tactic and an interesting one. It puts the words of the President at a point whereby he can clearly state if there will or will not be a war. Comply or else!
>>>
>>>It is difficult to imagine the Congress approved to go to war but it is possible. Again I do not fully remember these important details. I think I am still in shock about this and a few other things in my life. This is no minor detail to me.
>>>
>>>I know the Congress declares war and not the President. However the President can engage in military actions he sees fit for a limited time. Then Congress can cut off funding and shorten such military excursions. We have many examples of this type of activity during the last few decades.
>>>
>>>Tom