Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of State Powell (SAYS NO!)

SOURCE: Newsweek via Drudge Report ^ | Sunday September 23, 10:53 am Eastern Time | Editorial Staff

[vannrox]

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

[vannrox]

I'm speechless.

[dighton]

</marquee up></marquee up></marquee up></marquee up> On the bright side, it's NOT Powell's call.

[NYS_Eric]

Surely Powell must realize that it does no good to build up a broad-based coalition of nations to fight terrorism if the price you pay for it is inaction.

Iraq was behind this, make no mistake. They will be behind many more in the future unless we act. I pray that our President is heeding the counsel he gets from Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others with a more realistic sense of what needs to be done.

[tazman3]

I heard a rumor...

Ben Laden is in Iraq. Pass it on.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Dear Mr. Powell,

Buh-bye.

Sincerely,
W

[LS]

Try acting with less knee-jerk and try thinking: do you see the dilemma here? On the one hand, Powell is trying to get Arab states such as UAR, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan and Pakistan to help us. They have access to information that is critical. On the other hand, you have Saddam who is a pretty easy target.

He can wait until you are sure that you have the principal terrorist cells at least identified. If you march in now and get distracted in Bagdad, then you are NOT going to get the main nest of vipers.

Saddam is the most vulnerable and easiest to get of ALL these people. He should be on the list, but well down the line.

[chatham]

Last I heard, Poweel was Sec. of State, Not commander in Chief.. It is not his call, Thank God. Besides he had his shot and wussed out.

[FReethesheeples]

Bump.

See FR post:

"Why Taking Out Saddam is Essential to Winning War Against Terrorism." (Approx. Title.)

[OldFriend]

Powell is the perfect foil.....isn't he! Or is it fool! Either way this keeps them guessing so I'm okay with his wussiness.

[George W. Bush]

I'm not surprised. Powell does not compare favorably to the ability of Secretary Baker. I don't think Powell can assemble the coalition. Perhaps Baker had some advantages, for instance the other Arab states fearing Saddam's aggression. But somehow, I don't picture any sort of Gulf Coalition assembling now. Especially under Powell. He's a great guy and we should respect him. But I still just don't think he's got what it takes.

George Sr. had an easier time of things. Baker and Cheney made him look very good. Junior only has Cheney.

[Enlightiator]

I saw Al Haig tonight smile at this "story." He said the story was wrong and indicated that this would not be a "selective" war, that it would a one step at a time deal (not his words). First Bin Laden, then the other terrorists...

Still, it would be typical Powell, whose lack of courage I have never been a fan of.

[hchutch]

I think that Iraq can wait. There are worse vipers tohandle first, ones that pose more of a threat.

Furthermore, our military cannot handle a broad action just yet. We only have ten divisions TOTAL (plus three Marine divisions). Plus we're strecthed thin.

No, we need to set priorities, and get information. Then, we go after the most dangerous target each time.

[Rockinfreakapotamus]

Let 'em finish following the money and when it is soon revealed to all point to Iraq, Colin will be wearing his foot in his mouth.

[Hillary 666]

Agreed, this is not Powell's decision.

[fightu4it]

Saddam has to be replaced by a freely elected candidate. Americans do not like to see Iraq's people suffer. We have held hopes of a popular uprising against him, however his brutal grip on the country is simply to strong. Iraq needs our help; as does Afganistan.

[RickyJ]

Powell has no say in who we strike and when we strike them.