Bush may be sitting on Iraqi WMD evidence, FOX analyst says

Jerusalem Post ^ | Jul. 10, 2003 | Erik Schechter

[mommadooo3]

What's a commiting?

Two mites living together?

[Cacophonous]

Oh it's been de facto policy, but not official policy. Important distinction.

[Filibuster_60]

We went after Saddam because unlike our other stated enemies, the military option was guaranteed to work - at acceptable cost. We knew most of Saddam's troops wouldn't fight for him and sure enough, they didn't. The Iraqi people clearly hated their regime more than they distrusted us.

We won't invade Iran, North Korea or even Syria for the simple reason that they probably won't be such pushovers.

[Cacophonous]

So you don't know either huh? Well, you could have saved yourself some trouble by saying it at the outset.

[cyncooper]

is Bush addressing the nation next week?

Tony Blair is coming to the U.S. next week to meet with President Bush AND address a joint session of Congress.

The way the media is behaving we'll be lucky to see it on tv since they are ignoring it----but I'm sure when the time comes the cables will cover it.

I find this address to Congress by Blair very significant since the latest "get Bush" tactic is taking after him for his reference to British intelligence.

[AntiGuv]

Isn't that what you've done? You claim you speak for the American people. You do not.

Um..no.. I've cited public polling. If the polls indicated otherwise, then my speech would indicate likewise..

You claim the American President is elected by referendum. This is absolutely not true.

Oh please, gimme a break. If it's not obvious what I'm doing in that remark, then look up over your head...

You have a stake in this argument just like anybody else. Your stake (altough you have declined to name it to me) will inevitably drag your objectivity down.

Whatever my stake would not extend so far as dismissing poll results simply because they disagree with my preferred version of reality. I could cite innumerable polls that contradict that which I wish were true about public opinion...

[new cruelty]

LOL,... Perhaps I do know. Perhaps I am just sitting on the information, enjoying you barking.

[Cacophonous]

We went after Saddam because unlike our other stated enemies, the military option was guaranteed to work - at acceptable cost. We knew most of Saddam's troops wouldn't fight for him and sure enough, they didn't...

...We won't invade Iran, North Korea or even Syria for the simple reason that they probably won't be such pushovers.

Wow. That's huge. What's the distinction between that and a bully?

The Iraqi people clearly hated their regime more than they distrusted us.

Not sure I agree here, but anyway time will tell.

[Cacophonous]

And maybe I'm the Czar of all the Russias...

[Damagro]

He's following orders you imbecile, whether he likes them or not, and will continue to do so. Doesn't mean he can't have an opinion, does it?

---

If the Army wanted him to have an opinion, they would have issued him one

[Prodigal Son]

Oh it's been de facto policy, but not official policy. Important distinction.

Well that's fair enough. If we want to get into semantics. The sun doesn't rise until officially announced? I don't mean to be sarcastic, but our policy in Iraq hasn't been exactly super top secret or anything. It matters not whether Congress passes an "Official Act" and reads Saddam the riot act before the news cameras. Our policy has been fairly overt to all but the willfully blind.

Call it what you will, this has been our policy whether one acknowledges it or not. Congress authorizes the funds and the President commands the troops. Both those branches have been involved with this policy for years and years. That's the way it is. Saddam is gone. That was inevitable. It's silly to quibble. This isn't a courtroom where either of us are looking for some "letter of the law" loophole to wriggle free with.

[lawgirl]

"The administration is willing to take the heat for now," McInerney yesterday told The Jerusalem Post, "then release the information next August." Doing so would put the Democrats who have been critical of the US president's policy on Iraq at a distinct disadvange in the run-up to the presidential election in November 2004.

I think this is spot on. I also think they won't wait until August---just until every viable Dem nominee has raised their voices to a fever pitch and tried to make the race about WMD. Then, W comes out with the evidence and totally sinks their boats. Suddenly all Dems are left with their pants down going "Uh... what did I do with that medicare idea I had...." It's going to be brilliant.

[Filibuster_60]

Wow. That's huge. What's the distinction between that and a bully?

That's not the way to look at it. We're bullies as far as dictators who bully their own people are concerned. But not all bullies can be dealt with like Saddam, because the American people won't tolerate casualties beyond a certain point. Furthermore, not all dictators are hated enough by their people to the extent that most of them would prefer foreign occupation as the lesser of two evils. But with Saddam, that was exactly the case.

[Pukin Dog]

Your research seems to be nothing beyond your own opinions. Opinions are like a__holes. Every one has at least one, and it usually stinks.

[Cacophonous]

Well, then what HAS been the official policy?

[AntiGuv]

Your research seems to be nothing beyond your own opinions.

My research has been duly cited, and the statement was the polling indicates what it indicates. That is not an opinion, the evidence of my veracity is posted for all to see.

Opinions are like a__holes. Every one has at least one, and it usually stinks.

Then by all means spare me any further insight into yours.

[Cacophonous]

...not all dictators are hated enough by their people to the extent that most of them would prefer foreign occupation as the lesser of two evils. But with Saddam, that was exactly the case

Again, I'm not sure this is the case.

[Prodigal Son]

If it's not obvious what I'm doing in that remark, then look up over your head...

Wasn't obvious to me. Direct election of the President is a specific democratic platform.

Whatever my stake would not extend so far as dismissing poll results simply because they disagree with my preferred version of reality.

The polls mean squat and you know this. You knew in 1991, that whether you wanted us to or not- we would eventually have to take Saddam down. This was obvious. It's just like going to work in the morning, wanting to or not is a side issue.

I'm sure if I were the head of one of the leftist media and given any amount of time, I could manipulate public opinion any way I wanted. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. We don't run this country based on one of Dan Rather's latest polls. Show me in the Constitution where it says the latest opinion poll has any bearing whatsoever. We are not a democracy and hopefully we never will be. Mob rule has no place in America.

I still reject your assertions. I believe America is reflective enough to know that Saddam had to go. I believe they knew it even more so after 9/11 and I believe they would supported this President in this mission with or without the WMD. The WMD have always been a foregone conclusion though. It's a silly argument. Everybody knows Saddam had these weapons. Everydody (you included) knows that it is only the opponents of the war or opponents of Bush that are clamouring for the weapons now. You know this. Saddam had them. Those weapons are out there somewhere. They will turn up. And when they do, people using them for their own little petty arguments are going to look awfully stupid.

[Cacophonous]

Direct election of the President is a specific democratic platform.

Republican actually. If we still did not retain the last vestiges of the great Republic, Al Gore would be President.

[AntiGuv]

My personal view is that all of the above is irrelevant. Voters next year will vote based on their perceptions of the economy. If they perceive economic growth & stability, President Bush will win in a landslide and any Iraq issues will be a trivial sideshow. If they perceive economic decline & uncertainty, President Bush will likely lose and whatever focus on Iraq will be simply one more way of channeling their discontent.

My comments have not been intended to address the justification or wisdom of intervention in Iraq, but rather on the implications toward the political fortunes of the White House.