Bush Speeds Up Preparations For War On Iraq

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 9-4-2002 | Toby Harnden

[blam]

What's going on that we don't know?

[areafiftyone]

I am getting tired of the New York Times and the Euroweenie papers creating all this hype and feeding it to Saddam for his reading pleasure.

[SamAdams76]

According to the date, this article was written five months ago.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

I have read that the E weapon is available that will send a gigantic electromagnetic pulse that cripples all communication and electrical services so if Sadaam retreats into Baghdad.The city will sit with no way for the troops to communicate with each other.Just wait them out like a seige.No need to go house to house.Let the Iraqi's either implode or go after their own leadership for getting them into this mess.

[blam]

"According to the date, this article was written five months ago."

That's the way the Europeans do the date.

[SamAdams76]

Yes, that is always confusing.

[Edmund Burke]

The article was written tomorrow 4 Sept 2002 = 04/09/02

[Edmund Burke]

The Iraqis don't use electonics to communicate. They have a length of string, wax, and two tin cans.

[blam]

"The article was written tomorrow 4 Sept 2002 = 04/09/02"

...of course, it is already tomorrow there.

[Uncle George]

And just think it all started with that Demorat LEAK that was planted by the DNC to try to label GWB as a WARMONGER. It has mushroomed to a point that even is deviding the GOP. That Clinton as DNC advisor really knows his onions huh?

[The Vast Right Wing]

"Instead, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld have been left to make hawkish pronouncements, while Colin Powell, the secretary of state, has struck a much more conciliatory note."

While there are some that dislike Powell and say he is not hawkish enough or not a team player, in reality he doing EXACTLY what President Bush wants him to do. Powell is a loyal soldier and will do what his commander in chief wants. It is clear that there is a bit of good cop-bad cop going on. It's called strategery

[kayak]

President Bush has summoned congressional leaders for top-level talks in the White House today ...

Unless I am badly mistaken, President Bush has a breakfast meeting with Congressional leaders every Wednesday morning ..... in which case this one might not be any more significant than any of the others.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said yesterday that it was safe to assume the Iraqis had "not been playing tiddlywinks" since weapons inspectors left the country in 1998, but had instead been seeking to develop a nuclear capability.

He also hinted that in due course Mr Bush would provide "documentation" proving that Saddam has access to weapons of mass destruction.

I do believe that this administration does indeed know something that hasn't put out for mass consumption. Say what you will about this President, I don't believe he is of the character which allows him to embark on such a campaign for mere political reasons, as some of our other "leaders" have done.

When Mr Rumsfeld said in San Diego that "it is less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decision and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome", he was telling America's allies that their views were largely irrelevant.

This is a wonderful thing; it demonstrates a willingness to put America first. Even if the fruits of such policies are not apparent initially.

The White House is determined to avoid a protracted debate on arms inspectors. Mr Cheney's contention that their readmission would "provide false confidence that Saddam was somehow back in his box" underlined this.

We've been having a protracted debate on this issue. He lost the Gulf War, and yet even to this day still refuses to comply. For a reason.

The reason is that he has been very busy developing weapons of mass destruction, and intends to use them someday, whether it be literally using them, or using them as a blackmail tool.

His plan is to buy more time to put into place what he wants. He is counting on the weak resolve of his opponents in this regard.

[kayak]

It's also true that Powell's stance is appropriate for his position .... after all, he is Secretary of State, not Secretary of Breaking Things and Killing People. His role in the administration is to use diplomacy. Once a decision has been made, I feel sure that he will support the President ..... if not, I feel equally sure that he will be out on the sidewalk in a hurry.

[Physicist]

I think we should go back to inspections, but do it by American rules. The rules are these: Inspectors show up unannounced. Inspectors go where they want to go, when they want to go, and see what they want to see. You don't say no to inspectors. At the first sign of resistance, the inspectors ask for clarification. If no means no, the inspectors leave the site, and move on to the next one. The moment the inspectors leave the site, the patrolling combat aircraft commence its destruction, which continues to our satisfaction.

I think it would take about three such inspections--particularly if well chosen--for Iraq to go into compliance mode. Alternatively, they could kick out the inspectors and face imminent invasion, but in that case more of our erstwhile allies might creep back on board. In this way we can neutralize Iraq while claiming to do everything "by the book", and at the same time move sufficient men and gear into the theater to take on Iran or Syria.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

What's going on that we don't know?

Probably a great deal. And it is especially important that we (in the large sense of that word) don't know. The fog of the many and apparently contradictory commentaries creating a great controversy, that had the press' attention over the past many weeks, could have pried that attention away from other preparations -- preparations that are much more important to the coming operations than the largely academic "debate".

I suspect that the Europeans, at least, are quite true to their appeasing positions, in which case they have been played as well.

It is important to remember that all this great controversy has been conducted in the absence of hard data. The hard data may have been the ace in the hole kept just to trump the "debate" once true preparations have been brought to near-completion. I suspect what is about to occur is the presentation of the hard data, information that has been in existence, but held in abeyance for just this moment.

[fooman]

good idea. But the iraqis have already said that we can not look in the palaces where much of this stuff is being hid

[PianoMan]

LET'S ROLL!

[PianoMan]

When Mr Rumsfeld said in San Diego that "it is less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decision and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome", he was telling America's allies that their views were largely irrelevant.

No, he wasn't! He was saying that as important as allies are, doing the right thing is still more important!

No matter how hard you try, the press just asserts you said what they want you to say. More swill from the commie Guardian. Bleah.