For Those Who Think Americans Can't Wait For War

City Council Set To Approve Anti-War Resolution
(New York-AP, March 11, 2003) — After months of behind-the-scenes wrangling, the city council in the place hardest hit by terrorism is prepared to approve a resolution opposing a war with Iraq, an action already taken by some 125 other city councils across the nation.
The anti-war resolution became entangled in the politics of fine print almost immediately after it was drawn up last October, due in large part to the city's unique position as a symbol in the war on terrorism.

So what might normally have been a slam dunk for the Democratic-dominated panel - only three of its 50 members are Republicans - became an issue fraught with emotion in a city with lingering scars and a daily existence in a heightened state of alert.

"New York City was attacked by terrorists a few blocks from where this resolution is being debated," said Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr., a Queens Democrat, who is opposing the resolution. "I can't forget that."

"We can't be quiet just because we were attacked by terrorists Sept. 11," countered Councilwoman Christine Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat, who favors the resolution. "It is more important for us to act now, to be vocal once we have reached a consensus, than it has ever been."

The debate heated up after 100,000 to 350,000 people turned out in the city last month for one of the nation's largest anti-war demonstrations. Recent polls show that some 75 percent of New Yorkers do not believe the U.S. should attack Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations.

The first draft of the resolution opposed a war "without the authority of the United Nations," saying such a war "could bring with it the most devastating consequences imaginable, not just in the Middle East, but to our own shores as well."

Those lines have been since scratched, replaced by softer language that allows for a pre-emptive attack if "other options for achieving compliance with United Nations resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the means of their development have failed."

The latest version has 31 sponsors - five more votes than is needed for passage.

"No resolution is necessarily going to speak for all Council members," said City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a Manhattan Democrat, who supports the resolution.

Since last September, anti-war resolutions have been approved in cities across the nation, including Los Angeles; Kalamazoo, Mich.; Chicago; Portland, Maine; and Milwaukee.

The New York City Council's resolution has been rewritten at least three times since it was drafted in October when 17 members signed on to sponsor it.

A final version will likely not be ready until a few hours before the scheduled vote Wednesday afternoon. All three Republican members say they oppose the resolution because a local body should not be involving itself in international affairs.

"This is the City Council, not the Security Council," said Councilman James Oddo, a Staten Island Republican.

But for some members whose constituents are decidedly anti-war, Wednesday's vote will not come soon enough.

"This is a council that's been out front on a lot of things, and we should have taken care of business a long time ago, so that New York was one of the first cities to oppose the war," said Councilman Charles Barron, a Brooklyn Democrat, who called the delays "frustrating and embarrassing."

He added: "Saddam Hussein has not been linked to the World Trade Center tragedy and he has not adequately been linked to al-Qaida. What's so wrong with this council saying that the president has not proved his case?"

Unfortunately that was blown out of the water by the US saying they were gonna go to war without the UK....

A quick call from best mate Blair changed that though

Mike

LOL

To be honest, I think it litteraly is a question of just waiting now. I've said this for weeks, but it was the marches in Manchester that really made me think once and for all this war is going ahead without a shaddow of a doubt. Bush can't back down now, neither can Blair..... If either did, it would end them as polititions.....

I've never thought American's wanted war, just that the numskull who's leading them does.

In God we trust

Tom, Keith Emerson is a bloody good keyboard player, but he's not going to be able to do anything about this situation!

i read the newspapers for the first time in ages this morning... so all this blair's political carreer thing being over unless they find warheads when/if they invade was a shock to me

I'm just speculating..... It would look so bad for him to be saying for months and moths, 'I truely believe this, and will fight, and try to convise everybody I'm right', and then to say, 'oh well, I was wrong, everybody back home'...... I don't think he could worm his way out of the situation....

I havn't heard anything today, is this what has now been said?

in the guardian

i deliberately went for the bit with the tv page in but it was talking about labour resignations and lack of party support etc yadayadayada