Posted on 09/07/2002 5:26:42 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
The concern is that someone, somewhere, might actually support the President.
Bah! My daughter was trying to encourage me to teach at the university part-time. I am not known as being diplomatic, and told her I wouldn't last very long. I rpobbly would end up in the newspaper...HA!
You seem to have more of a temperament to deal with this type of stuff. I guess the wise thing to do it is ignore it, stay out of politics until you establish your credentials, and be pleasant to the students.
Truth is, I'm a chicken. I don't get into conflict...especially when I'm outnumbered a gazillion to one.
After 109 in Death Valley, all temps now seem cool.
Bush decided to get authority from congress to do what it took to take out terrorist or terrorist harboring nations. He got that shortly after 9/11. That is all he needs. That is the authority we used to go to war in Afghanistan. It will be all we need to go after Sadam. The key word is harbor.... Afghanistan harbored bin Lauden.
With the cease fire still in effect in Iraq and a no fly zone etc, I think Bush has decided to increase in a gradual manner what Clinton was doing during the 90's. That is bomb some Iraqi air defenses now and again. I would emphasize that Bush will greatly increase the again component. Over a period of weeks Bush will likely destroy Sadams entire air defense system. I suspect shortly Sadam will have no air offense or defense. Even when Iraqi units are in public areas, they will be taken out. Perhaps Bush will have our British friends take out the more sensitive sites that will produce large amounts of collateral damage.
Next we will up the anit totake out Sadam's ground forces. Make Sadam disperse his army into the civilian population. But anytime 10 or 12 get together to practice at war, we should kill them. A dispersed army is not much of a force. It would have problems preventing an overthrow of Sadam.
A campaign of destruction of Sadams military forces, would put the Iraai military in a bad position. Lots of them would be dying, but they would not be at war with us... They could only die, they could not shoot back. Getting killed when you can't shot back destroys moral. A few Colonels might decide to do somehting to end the destruction of their domain.
All Bush needs to do to gain public and congressional appproval for this action is to effectively accuse Sadam of harboring terrorists who have acted or will act against the USA. Bush needs to identify some, Demand Sadam give them all up (all or none) and rain death and destruction on Sadams forces when Sadam does not.
Perhaps this will give us a clue as to why Abu Nidal was killed in Bagdad a couple of weeks ago. The between the lines reports said Sadam had it done. This may be a clue as to why. Perhaps Sadam figured that we would demand that he not harbor this and other terorists and use his refusal to attack. If Sadam had refused to turn Abu over, we could have attacked with full national support. But we don't have that case to use if Abu Nidal is dead. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
But if we had demanded Abu, and Sadam had refused... then...boom. I doubt that fact is lost on Sadam or his advisors. I think Sadam will go to some lengths to not openly harbor known terrorists. If I were Bush I would capture some and let them 'escape' to Bagdad . If Sadams policy is to kill terrorists so we can't use them as an exuse to attack him, then perhaps we should let some escape to Iraq. That would be a nice win/win situation for us.
All Bush has to do is find someone or 3 in Bagdad that had a major planning or funding role in 9/11. Then demand Sadam turn them over. Then the question is, "Are you in favor of Sadam's Iraq being a haven for people who kill Americans or not?" Bush doesn't have to prove Sadam had a role before 911. He only prove that Sadam is harboring them afterwords.
The Democrats are playing the prove Sadam had a role in 9/11 before 9/11. That will not be what the game is about. It is a pre-play red herring.
Daschle does not want to get in on opposing the final game. That is why the Democrat mantra is "Show US the proof." The democrats know what is comming. Bush will play the we can't prove he did 911 game to make Democrats look cowardly, and then win the game with the he is harboring the bad guys and bad guys to be.
Bush does not need to show that Sadam had anything to do with 9/11. He just has to show that Sadam is protecting people that did it or are planning to do more.
Democrats and the Media look like people playing cards with a lousy hand. Keep the faith. There is an election coming up and in elections, timing is nearly everything.
I have often felt that if Barabara Bush had been president in 1992, Clinton would be behind bars for rape and other crimes. Barbara Bush is not president.. but you can't prove she isn't president by examining the deeds of her son.
We're starting to cool off here in the Commonwealth. September is one of my favorite months as the heat has usually subsided and the days are warm and nights cool. May, in the springtime, is my other favorite - for the same reason.
I would not be surprised if they already have. We don't know everything they know.
The thing I need the most help with is dealing with the half-truths that the NY Times seems to be majoring in these days. I mean, that front-page article about the Republican "opposition" to president Bush for example. It just makes me wonder whether the main guiding principle for your "newspaper" is embarrassing or bashing our president, especially when you construe Henry Kissinger as being "opposed" to taking out Saddam Hussein and ending the threat of Iraq in the region.Well, I guess I shouldn't lament that the gray lady has gone down the toilet. There are many other more reliable news sources than yours so no big deal.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Mulliner
I saw that Steyn thread ......was going to help out MadIvan.....but he handledpaulklenk well...Ivan on a TKO in the sixth round.
Who raised W? Who was in the home 24/7 for those kids? The father, estimable man though he is, was busy starting a business. W is is MOTHER'S son, as you have pointed out, and those on this forum who say "he is just like his daddy" are missing the truth.
I still am interested about this concentration of American troops on the Afghanistan/Iran border. Watching reporters show up there has made me curious.
I think you have outlined a serious plan, and it would not surprise me. Here is a clue. Last week the President had a press briefing after meeting with the Congress. A couple of times he had slips of the tongue and started to use the word "harbor" and then stopped and substituted another word.
I think they have the proof. I will be glad to see Daschle once again outfoxed, not to mention Saddam.
Glad to see you here. Hope you have had a good summer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.