American people are being had (PROJECTILE BARF ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | January 31, 2003 | JUAN ANDRADE

[Chi-townChief]

I believe it is now safe to say that President Bush made up his mind a long time ago about attacking Iraq. He needed time to activate national guard units around the country, time to transport the necessary equipment into the region, time to develop a strategy for a solid military victory, and time to get the country ready for war. So he outwardly gave in to the doves of the world, led by Colin Powell, while inwardly sticking with the chicken hawks, led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. But as we saw this week, Bush always intended to go to war. And even though he now claims to be ''sick and tired'' of playing the game, that's all he's been doing too.

Besides, taking the time to seek the support of the UN Security Council, consult Congress and reach out to our allies for support made Bush appear to be less of a warmonger than he really is. It made him appear to be more presidential and less like a cowboy; more mature and less impetuous. It made him appear to be more deliberate and less like one who shoots from the lip; more methodical and less illogical. Or so he thought. But more important, it gave him time to get ready to attack Iraq--something we weren't prepared to do a year ago, much to Bush's chagrin.

At first Bush didn't want to wait because he thought that for at least one year after 9/11, Americans would be in a retaliatory mood and wouldn't care who was hit or why. Indeed, he wanted to strike last September, when 68 percent of Americans favored war. War was Bush's first option, and he didn't bother coming up with a second option because, given his popularity, he didn't need one. He wanted desperately to avoid what is happening today, as more and more Americans begin to question the need to go to war against Iraq with each passing week.

But to Bush, public opinion doesn't seem to matter. Bush figures that if he can't muster sufficient American support for war before he attacks Iraq, he can get the support he needs after he attacks. While Americans may not want war, Bush figures that once the shooting starts, everybody is going to rally around the flag, whose protective shield will be neatly wrapped around him. After all, to Bush's way of thinking, popularity trumps policy.

In other words, if people like you, it's easier to get your way with them. Mark my words: Somebody is really being had, and I'm afraid it's the American people. We'd better start asking Bush and ourselves, will he respect us in the morning?

Three things stood out in Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday. One, he's determined to go to war. Two, many Americans remain unconvinced as to why. Three, Bush intends to liberate, stabilize and democratize the world. I've got three things to tell the president.

One, attacking Iraq would be wrong--especially if we have to do it alone. Bush needs to get real and then level with the American people. Bush the fear-monger is almost as good as Bush the warmonger. Instead of just telling us the risks involved if we don't attack, tell us the risks involved if we do attack. In the long run, the risks involved in attacking Iraq outweigh the risks involved if we don't.

Two, get American conviction on your side before you attack. When so many Americans are unemployed, financially ruined and uninsured, have lost their home and unemployment benefits, can't afford to go to school or buy prescription drugs, and their country is about to squander $100 billion to $200 billion and put 150,000 American men and women in harm's way while giving the wealthiest Americans the biggest tax break in history, conviction will make up for the lack of enthusiasm your approach engenders.

Three, you're turning your father's half-baked New World Order into your own overheated New World Odor. Get off this nonsense of making the world's 190 nations as free as America. Less than half of our allies and none of our enemies want the freedoms we have, or used to have.

Get real, Mr. President, before you become a bigger threat to world peace and stability than Saddam Hussein.

[Chi-townChief]

"I believe it is now safe to say that President Bush made up his mind a long time ago about attacking Iraq."

And I believe it is now safe to say that this pinche cochino Mr. Andrade would hate President Bush regardless of what action he takes

[goodnesswins]

HEY, Juan, may I call you Juan? HERE IS the only PUBLIC OPINION that matters.....those for FREEDOM!!!

WHO has joined the ALLIES FOR LIBERTY & FREEDOM?

THESE ARE the 19 ALLIES for IRAQI FREEDOM

U.S., Britian, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Polish, Italy, Portugal,

Slovakia, Denmark, Czech, Spain, Quatar, Jordan, Albania, Kuwait, Israeli, Australia and Japan

FREE the IRAQI people!!!

	UK	JAPAN
AUSTRALIA	BULGARIA	What OTHER country wants the IRAQI citizens FREEDOM?
ROMANIA	ISRAEL	POLAND
SPAIN	CZECH	PORTUGAL
KUWAIT	HUNGARY	QATAR
ITALY	ALBANIA	JORDAN
DENMARK	SLOVAKIA

[anniegetyourgun]

Get real, Juan....before you actually have an intelligent thought.

[freedumb2003]

Rightwing wackos, the lot of 'em. < /sarcasm>

[Congressman Billybob]

The writer of this screed has a blistering ignorance about the history of totalitarian dictators with the capacity and the taste for mass murder. His ignorance is of a piece with the "1,000 historians against war in Iraq" who were thoroughly discussed in a prior thread on FR.

For a discussion of this kind of historical ignorance and political bias, see my latest on UPI, which was just posted on FR. (And, major thanks to FReepers for the thread here which inspired that article.)

Congressman Billybob Click here for "Historians against History (HAH!)

[marron]

Bush has been clear from the beginning. He was going to take Saddam down.

Bush's supporters expect this of him. We don't want to simply react after the fact as our enemies take their shots and then disappear into the crowd. We expect to take the fight to our enemies. If they are coming for us tomorrow, we are going to meet them today, now, on our terms and at a place of our choosing.

But Saddam could have confounded us at any time. He could have simply surrendered. He could have simply opened his bases to a delegation of US military, he could have established a joint US/Iraq military commission to arrange the disposal of his weapons. He could have simply handed them over. Then there would be no invasion. There would be no occupation. Saddam would remain in power. The sanctions would be dropped.

But that isn't what happened. He did not disarm. Our supposed allies are selling him what he needs to break out of containment, which means that containment is doomed to fail.

So rather than wait passively while he confounds us with the help of countries who were once our allies, but who are now his allies, we will act. We will not withdraw and leave him to continue his rampage, we will confront him and finish him. And then we will move on to the next item of our "things to do" list.

This is what we expect of Bush, or any other so-called leader, and if we are supportive of him it is because he is doing what we expect him to do.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I may have figured out something......I think the left's love affair w Saddam Hussein may be based on the striking resemblance between Saddam and the ultimate hero of the left, Joseph Stalin

If you ever see photos of both of them...they look almost alike. Note that Stalin is ethnically a Georgian (the nation, not the US state).....Georgian's (they are Christians) more resemble Middle Easterners in appearance than Euros

Maybe Saddam is the second coming of Stalin, in the leftist's eyes

RWK

[TXranger]

This has nothing to do with the history of totalitarian dictators. Pre-emptive strikes is not the way this country operates. Nor should it ever.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are exactly right that preemptive strikes has not been, in the past, the way that "this country operates." As I noted in my last UPI column, the separation of the United State by 3,000 miles of oceans from any significant hostile powers, fully justified George Washington's admonition in his Farewell Address to the nation that we "avoid foreign entanglements."

But after 9/11, that changed. Small groups of people using weapons that can destroy entire cities, or at least kill most of the people in a city, are now possible. We know who wants to do that in America, and we know who is producing or seeking to produce the kind of weapons they would use for such catastrophic harm.

Whether we like it or not, the only way that Americans can be safe in their homes, schools and offices, is if we clean up the world. And that means the use in rare instances of preemptive strikes. The alternative is to say that we will do nothing, until someone causes 30,000 deaths, or 300,000 deaths, rather than the "mere" 3,000 killed on 9/11. No competent American President should fail to act, when presented by that choice.

Congressman Billybob

[FITZ]

Where was this guy's outrage when Clinton attacked Iraq just to keep Monica's testimony off the front pages?

[FITZ]

I doubt Mr Andrade complained about Clinton bombing the Christian Serbs or bombing the Somalis....or taking over Haiti.

[gcruse]

This has nothing to do with the history of totalitarian dictators. Pre-emptive strikes is not the way this country operates. Nor should it ever.

Welcome to Integrity 101.  The classroom is not overcrowded, as you can see.

[Chi-townChief]

Agree - that's why Hussein has continually been given chances to adhere to the '91 peace agreement and every possible warning of the consequences. But he appears to be so blinded by his own imagined power that he won't take the way out. Things should get more interesting for many of our liberal scribes when the "dove" Colin Powell makes his presentation next week.

[Chi-townChief]

Haiti - now there was a real success story!

[SuziQ]

Get real, Mr. President, before you become a bigger threat to world peace and stability than Saddam Hussein.

What is most amazing is this writer's seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of Pres. Bush's inmost thoughts! Gosh, aren't we fortunate to have such a skilled person writing for one our major newspapers?