Some advisors seek sweeping U.S. response-Disagreement is emerging among President Bush' advisors

The Miami Herald ^ | 9-18-01 | Warren P. Strobel

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

There has been so much disinformation put out in the name of news. I am going to start keeping score. I agree with you, Bush people do not leak. Many people still do not get it--Bush is a very deliberate, cautious man. He must be one damned good poker player--no one dares call his bluff, I wouldn't.

[PogySailor]

I for one am happy that nothing is being played out in the media. The type of ops that will need to happen to root out Bin Laden and crew would not be advertised in 48 point font on the front page of the NY Times or Washington Post. A frontal assault on his home turf would, IMHO be a catastrophe.

I do think in the very near future there will be a very public operation. It just may not happen at the locations being hyped in the media. OTOH, if they wait too long, they will start losing some of the solid support they have now. Especially if the leftist media return to their usual harping on the administration.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"The Taliban declared holy war on us today."

LOL! I see what I'm dealing with here.......a coward. The taliban does not intimidate me!!

[porte des morts]

That line of reasoning,which is now about 15 years old; is proving to be damaging and deadly.

[AC86UT89]

I have my doubts about Powell, too. On one hand, let's remember his coutious attitude left Saddam in power. On the other hand, maybe now he sees a change to rectify the first mistake.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Nothing wrong with having diverse opinions on the staff! This is what Bush needs...not a bunch of yes men! Hash out the best ideas to go with!

[AC86UT89]

Political correctness helped get us into this mess, my firend.

[okie01]

You believe everything you read by a left-wing reporter in a left-wing newspaper, quoting from "current and former U.S. officials"?

Would you care to guess just who appointed those low-level "current and former U.S. officials"?

Hint: it wasn't George W. Bush.

Clue: You have responded exactly as Strobel, the Herald and the people who planted this piece want you to respond.

[Anonymous2]

i'm not buying the vacuum argument. if taking out iran and syria is necessary too, then so be it.

[Nick Danger]

I, for one, am all for toppling terrorist sponsoring states like Iraq. Once we topple a few, it will give the new leaders, as well as some old leaders, a moment to reflect on the hazards associated with sponsoring, funding, sheltering, or in any other way, enabling terrorists to carry out their cowardly war on us.

Bingo. There is nothing else that will get that message across.

[Jim Noble]

>>said Kenneth Pollack, a Persian Gulf specialist at the White House National Security Council until earlier this year.<<

Earlier this year?

Like, before January 20?

Thought so.

[Rome2000]

Great, I'm a coward. Now go sleep it off.

[owen_osh]

I don't think gaining global support and cooperation for a measured response would be appeasment. Appeasment is giving a terrorist what he wants, but Bin Landen does not want the Middle East to cooperate with us. In fact, he specifically wants to purify Muslim contries by ending the western presence in those countries.

Also, I think global cooperation is the best approach to this problem. The terrorists themselves have established world-wide networks to attack us, and I think we should use a world-wide network to fight back.

Michael

[Timmy]

If they limit this to Bin Laden, then Bush is little (make that no) better than Clinton. And many more Americans will die because of our weakness. I sincerely hope that when Bush strikes, the world is stunned by the force of it.

[piasa]

Time is to our advantage. The targets have to wait, and the wait does things with their heads.

[RGSpincich]

``We're trying to build a coalition and people are lining up to join us, and they [Pentagon officials] want to blow it all to hell by bombing Iraq tomorrow,'' said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity

The question from the reporter probably was "Does the military have plans to bomb Iraq tomorrow?"

The answer was a question back to the reporter meant to question the reporter's smarts. Put a question mark at the end of the officials statement and it makes sense.

This guy isn't a former official, he is a current official.

That's right Bush's guys don't leak. But the press can't deal with it.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Great, I'm a coward. Now go sleep it off."

Nice gratuitous slam, but it won't work. You stated that the Taliban declared a holy war today......What was your purpose in stating that? Please explain........

[piasa]

Good catch... until early this year

Fuzzy-headed lib agitprop.

[Rome2000]

Clue: You have responded exactly as Strobel, the Herald and the people who planted this piece want you to respond.

You know, the way I respond doesn't mean squat.

It's the way that the President responds that is important.

I posted this article to illustrate that there is a division in the advice the President is getting from the Pentagon and the State Department,
and for no other reason.

If you choose not to believe it, that is your right.