Key Bush Aide Says Saddam Must Be Dealt With

I don't think I would be underwriting any life insurance policies for Saddam right now.

All posturing. We won't see a damn thing until after elections...

Tick tock tick tock.....
NEWS ON IRAQ HERE...www.targetIRAQ.com

We won't see a damn thing until after elections...

I think you're wrong.

I think you're wrong.

I agree. September, if not by the end of the month.

"Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy," he wrote.

Euros are so amusing. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice are political, military and diplomatic illiterates. I guess we'd all be better off with Clinton's crack team (Albright, etc.)

Earlier threads:

Rice Calls Saddam an Evil Man

Rice: Saddam Will Wreak Havoc

Rice calls Saddam an evil man who will wreak havoc if left to own devices

I would like to believe you are wrong, but . . .

Hey I hope so. But I still think they are going to wait it out a few more months. This is all pre-fight hype going on. We still have the U.N. to hold emergency meetings, more stalling to come, and a bunch of morons visiting Powell and Rumsfeld for weeks to talk about avoiding war. Which puts us near or just after elections. Plus we are still building up our resources for war.

Yes we will go at it alone maybe with some Canadian and U.K. help...but that is it. The only other thing that I can think of that would speed this up would be the use of a neutron or assassination

I thought Reagan was the most intellectually
backwards American president of the current
generation???

Oh I get it! The most current Republican
president is the most intellectually backwards
American prexy!

Yaaaa, Powell and Cheney are pretty much
incompetent boobs when it comes to winning
wars. Yaaa, I guess it does make one long
for the days of Madeleine Albright and
Les Aspin. NOT!!!! Robert Rubin, Hazel O'Connor,
on and on and on.

Mad Vlad

"Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy...

wow, such hatred

Thanks!

Here is an excellent rebuttal to all of the nay sayers and doom and doomers who are probably on Saddam's payroll to try and keep him alive:

Defense Experts Challenge Arguments Against Attack On Iraq
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 8/15/02 | Patrick Goodenough

Posted on 08/15/2002 5:29 AM Pacific by kattracks

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - As debate rages about the wisdom of launching a military strike against Iraq, a leading defense publication Thursday called into question some of the key arguments against an attack, saying that many of the critics had been proven wrong in the past.

Jane's Foreign Report said its access to Bush administration thinking had led it to the view that opponents of an attack may be exaggerating the dangers while underestimating the advantages of a successful operation for the wider Middle East.

That assessment comes at a time politicians in the U.S. and key allies including Britain, Germany and Australia ponder the advisability of mounting a campaign to topple Saddam Hussein.

Arab governments have also expressed reservations about - and in many cases firm opposition to - any such move. Media opinion in the Western and Islamic worlds has been largely negative.

Iraq is accused of violating numerous U.N. resolutions and breaking undertakings to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program as a condition of peace at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, which followed its occupation of Kuwait.

The authoritative UK-based publication's authors listed the main arguments used by Western media commentators and "armchair generals" who say any war would be disastrous.

These include a detrimental effect on world markets and oil prices; the potential for heavy casualties among American ground troops; disintegration of Iraq, threatening regional instability; a future regime that is worse than the present one; a backlash that could topple pro-Western regimes in the region; and even the possibility that - like Osama bin Laden - Saddam may disappear.

Jane's authors pointed out that the same critics had been wrong before - in their predictions about the Gulf War, the conflict in Yugoslavia and the recent campaign in Afghanistan.

Ahead of the Gulf War, they claimed it would last "for decades," that large numbers of Western personnel would be killed, that Saddam's Republican Guards would fight until the end, and that pro-Western regional governments would be toppled.

None of these predictions came true, Jane's said.

Neither did the critics' dire warnings that a war in Afghanistan would last for years and necessitate a lengthy deployment of U.S. troops

"In fact, most American troops are to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban have run away," it observed.

"The doomsters were proven wrong in Iraq in 1991-1992, in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2002. Could the critics be wrong again?"

Saddam 'will be finished'

The oil price will rise, Jane's conceded, but said the U.S. was hugely expanding its strategic oil reserves and OPEC could do little to block it. It also noted that Russia wanted to sell more oil to the U.S.

Unlike bin Laden who had spent years operating effectively from hiding, Saddam was a despised dictator propped up by security forces who would be "finished" once his regime began to collapse.

"Dictatorial regimes are brittle: as long as the population fears them, they appear strong; but when the fear dissolves, they collapse."

With Western support - which had been missing last time -anti-Baghdad rebellions, once they start, may well prove fatal for Saddam, Jane's predicted.

It also doubted that Iraq would disintegrate into a Kurdish state in the north, a Sunni entity in the middle and a Shi'ite one in the south. "In similar circumstances in Afghanistan, the country held together."

Regional benefits

As far as the nature of any future government goes, Jane's acknowledged that the anti-Saddam opposition was "divided and ineffective." But the situation in Afghanistan had been worse, "yet a government of sorts was put together very quickly, and it is still holding together."

A new government may lack stability, but it would be pro-Western and "infinitely better than the present one." Oil wealth would make economic reconstruction much easier to achieve than in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan.

Jane's also dismissed the view that Islamic extremists could assume power, saying the chance of that happening was virtually nil.

"The population of Iraq is highly educated and resourceful ... a reborn Iraq will show it is possible to avoid the trap of Islamic fundamentalism, while reforming from inside."

This, in turn, would have a beneficial effect on the wider region.

Other dictators, like those leading Syria and Libya, would have been severely warned; Kuwait would emerge from the threat of a belligerent Baghdad; Jordan's stability would be assured; Iran would be kept in check by a pro-Western Iraq; and Saudi Arabia would be "cut down to size."

Taking into account these arguments, Jane's concluded, it "might be a suitable moment for the critics to take a second look at President Bush's ideas."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday that Iraqi opposition groups had agreed in talks last weekend that a post-Saddam Iraq should not be divided, should not have weapons of mass destruction, should be under the rule of law, and should "not impose its will on its neighbors" - thought to be a reference to the longstanding territorial claim to Kuwait.

The Administration has made it clear no decision has been taken on attacking Iraq.

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll released this week, 69 per cent of respondents said they approved of military action to overthrow Saddam.

Saddam's paid buddies and his butt buddies are doing the same old song and dance they did before Afghanistan.

I will believe Janes anytime over these maggots.

Kick Saddam's A$$ and Take his Gas!

December.

Yeah, lets see....Didn't Cheney and Powell already pound Iraq once? Who would be more qualified?

Euros are so amusing.

They're also entirely too arrogant for their own good!

I'm thinking October.

Bush has been entirely too smiley-faced at all of the slander that's been spewing forth from the opposition party of late. And they've been leaving holes in their lines of attack big enough to drive trucks through. I have to believe that Bushie is just giving the dems rope with which to hang. And an October surprise might be just the thing. Actually I have this vision of a Godfather type sweep. Rubin and McAulliffe indicted, maybe Torricelli to boot. War in Iraq. How about a round-up of traitors on the left?

I don't know what his moves are going to be so please don't argue me point for point. I really don't know! But like he said: "I'm a deliberate guy", and like he told King Abdullah: "What I told you before? I haven't forgotten. And I haven't changed my mind."

I think he's got some moves up his sleeve.

D-Day for Iraq is September 11, 2002.

All posturing. We won't see a damn thing until after elections...

If true a big mistake.... Phase one of this war should start before the elections. This move on Iraq is crucial. The economy and demographics are moving against conservatives in this nation. This will be the last chance to re-arrange the furniture in Arabia. If a DemoCRAP was in charge all you would see would be mumbling worlds of surrender and cowardice. Just like you get from Europe. Arabs are squatting on a crucial world resource and need to have their arrogant attitude overhauled.
It's now or never.

". . .are doing the same old song and dance . . ."

They are so predictable.

Thanks for the article post. I had seen it in the past, but had just skimmed it. Good outline of the arguments.

The naysayers have a different agenta, and the good of the country is not the primary goal for most of them.

Bush is one of the best poker players I have seen in a long time. It's great to watch him work, though frustrating to wait for it to play out.