Posted on 09/03/2002 8:24:00 PM PDT by blam
Bush speeds up preparations for war on Iraq
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 04/09/2002)
President Bush has summoned congressional leaders for top-level talks in the White House today amid clear signals that the United States is accelerating its preparations for war with Iraq.
Mr Bush's meeting with senior Republicans and Democrats is an indication that the president will try to regain control of the fractious debate over Saddam Hussein.
It was announced last night after Mr Bush returned from holiday apparently with a renewed determination to topple Saddam.
White House officials say it is almost certain that Mr Bush will seek the authorisation of Congress to use force against the Iraqi dictator, even though he is probably not legally bound to do so.
Leading figures in both houses support overthrowing Saddam, and Mr Bush's position is bolstered by stronger public and congressional support than his father enjoyed before the Gulf War in 1991.
Although public utterances indicating policy differences between the hawkish and more cautious wings of his administration have been portrayed as evidence of confusion, Mr Bush's advisers insist they are part of a coordinated plan to "prepare the battlefield" before war.
Publicly, the White House says the decision to go to war has not been taken. Privately, senior officials say military action is inevitable.
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.
Mr Bush, whose "working holiday" at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, ended yesterday, has not spoken about Iraq for nearly a fortnight.
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.
This has been deliberate, officials argue. Allowing senior officials to sketch the parameters of policy allows the president maximum flexibility. The different messages have also been aimed at different constituencies.
Mr Cheney's statement in Nashville that the threat posed by Saddam presented "an imperative for preemptive action" was primarily directed at those loyal to the Iraqi leader.
By convincing Iraqi soldiers that Saddam's removal is inevitable, they are much less likely to fight to the death for him. Hollowing out Saddam's support could cause his regime to implode once the first US-led action begins, officials said.
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.
Many officials argue that it is only by telling allies an Iraqi invasion will happen anyway that they will be persuaded to come on board and reap the benefits in financial contracts and future influence.
Mr Powell's view, expressed to the BBC, that "as a first step, let's see what the [weapons] inspectors find" was designed to reassure the same allies that the Bush administration was being responsible and exploring all diplomatic avenues.
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.
But Mr Bush's Iraq strategy has been complicated by international criticism and the public doubts of Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, national security adviser and secretary of state respectively under President George Bush Snr during the Gulf War.
That's the way the Europeans do the date.
...of course, it is already tomorrow there.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.