Replies

My guess is that Bush will just up the ante a bit. He did this before the September 11 anniversary last year. Exactly one month before the anniversary, "person of interest" Steve Hatfill broke his silence and held a press conference denying any role in the anthrax killings. Around the same time, a top administration official leaked to the LA Times that the administration would be "talking more" about Mohammed Atta's meeting with a known Iraqi spy in Prague. The FBI announced a sudden and unexpected return to American Media, scene of the first anthrax killing, telling the press that the purpose was to look for the letter(s) which contained the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens -- letters whose public description has been suppressed by the FBI, by the way. The unexpected and, indeed, inexplicable, return visit to the crime scene was scheduled to end on 9/11/02. On September 8, a few days before the anniversary and Bush's UN speech, Dick Cheney brought up the topic of anthrax out of the blue on Meet the Press:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who did the anthrax attack last fall, Tim? We don’t know.

Meanwhile, Bush was dropping a few hints himself. On August 11:

"But I do believe the American people understand that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for us and our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail and that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the concept of terrorist groups but of nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors."

While all this was going on, Tony Blair's government was building up the suspense by promising the release of a dossier on Iraq's WMD.

And yet, although he took it took the brink, Bush blinked. The Amerithrax charade -- written by and starring Steve Hatfill -- was not retired: it lumbers on, ever more ludicrous, to this day. The administration is still playing peek-a-boo with the evidence of Atta's meeting in Prague. And Saddam still hasn't taken exile. The bottom line is, Saddam can still kill millions of Americans if we take him out -- that's what the anthrax letters signify -- and there's still nothing we can do about it. So, you can expect these gambits from time to time, to put the pressure on Saddam, make him consider the virtues of exile. But I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. The ultimate determining factor here is how much pain can Saddam inflict on the American people if we take him out. His destruction of the WTC on 9/11/01 will seem like a tiny pin-prick compared to the destruction implied in the Daschle letter. I'm highly doubtful that Bush will go all the way in the State of the Union speech. Expect things to be ramped up a notch, expect the heat to be kept on, but don't expect the truth. Some truths are too hard to handle.

Why do you think SH would kill millions of us if we strike vs. not killing millions of us if offered exile?

I mean, you say: The ultimate determining factor here is how much pain can Saddam inflict on the American people if we take him out.

Do you think his ego will differentiate between being crushed in Iraq as opposed to being castrated in Russia?

And how can he personally inflict pain posthumously? Or are you saying his minions will kill less of us if he is not dispatched but rather granted exile?

What are you saying?

Some truths are too hard to handle.

Thats what nuclear weapons are for. Instant annihilation. No truths or falsehoods to decipher. But clearly, Bush is doing far more then just ratcheting the pressure up on Saddam. He is placing far more military assets into the region then is required to conquer Iraq. It looks like 150,000 just from the US. Thats one large badass army. Have you seen any of the videos of Saddams recent Military parades. Its hard to look at his 'military personnel' without laughing. You are correct in noting however that the UN charade and the delayed build up are being slowed for some reason. BTW - The possible Iraq and Anthrax connection was finally talked about in the mass media. Better late then never I suppose.