"HOOOOOAAAHHH...Let's Roll"
Posted on 06/23/2002 3:52:54 PM PDT by codebreaker
President Bush had a previously undisclosed meeting last week with General Tommy Franks, commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, to dicuss what was described on Sunday as 'concrete' military plans to attack Iraq.
'One of the meetings that wasn't reported this week was a briefing by General Franks in the Oval Office of the President on Wednesday revealed 'Fox News Sunday' panelist Bill Kristol, citing an unnamed administration source.
Kristol said that the Bush-Franks meeting indicates that the administration had decided to take action against Iraq regardless of the status of Middle East peace talks adding, 'Bush may be moving faster than we think in preparing to get rid of Saddam.'
Just wrote the following in a personal email today:
The U.S. needs to go ahead ASAP with a military campaign to expel Saddam. The notion that this will be a quagmire, and that we will be fighting guerilla warriors in the streets of Baghdad is a crock. The Iraqis know better than anyone what a monster Saddam is. They aren’t going to fight and die for him once it is clear he’s going down.
It will take a small number of American lives, and a butload of American treasure, as well as the headaches of managing a transition to democracy, but the effects on the region will be dramatic. A democracy in Iraq will, of a near certainty, trigger the democratic revolution that has been building in Iran throughout the last decade. This could start a chain reaction. The necessary key to peace in the Middle East is to get the Arabs focusing on their own dysfunctional governments, and their prospects for a better future, instead of blaming all their problems on others (America and The Jews).
The Palestinians, for instance, want genuine democracy. With their high educational levels, their penchant for entrepreneurialism and political debate (demonstrated under the relative order and freedom of Israeli military governance -- under the PNA Palestinian businessmen are rolled for protection money by Arafat’s low level thugs, and even killed as "collaborators" for doing business with Israelis), and unique experience in the Middle East of having observed a democracy at close hand, they have excellent prospects of making democracy work. Unfortunately their psychopathic hatred of The Jews (endemic in the Arab world -- see sig) will not let them move toward it. How many more polls do we have to see showing that majorities of Palestinians support nail bombing civilians (~70%) are opposed to the peace process (~65%) support continued fighting with Israel (~80%) and believe the goal should be the destruction of Israel (~50%) before we realize that peace requires A CHANGE IN REGIONAL CONDITIONS leading to changes in attitudes?
Maybe even some of you who despise Sharon will recognize the force of something he has been saying for decades now: There will not be a stable peace in the Middle East, or a successful Palestinian state until the majority of Israel’s neighbors are democracies. We (Americans) can do something about that, and we should get to it. Those who claim that we have to "solve" the Palestinian crisis before moving against Iraq have the cart before the horse; indeed they have the horse pushing the cart backwards.
Large majorities in every Western country, including Israel, support the peace process. (Although 66% of Israeli Jews in a recent poll said they would oppose the creation of a Palestinian state if it could be prevented, most think a Palestinian state is inevitable and want to get on with it and make a reasonable settlement, and therefore favor the peace process by nearly 75%.) Palestinians (and most other Arabs) oppose it by majorities nearly as large. Trying to impose peace on people who don’t want it is more than just absurd, it will lead to more violence and more death and destruction, from which the Palestinians will suffer most. Instead we must create conditions under which Palestinians will want peace, even if only due to jealousy of other Arabs transitioning to freer governance. This is doable, so "let’s roll!"
You are correct! I've watched the History Channel's Saddam biography twice in the past week, so I must be an expert by now. ;^) Here's a brief synopsis of the more interesting points:
Saddam's first job in government was as an assassin, trying to topple his own government. The kill fails, but when the government does change hands, he's the #2 man in Iraq. In the Iran/Iraq war, we were providing Saddam with intelligence from satellites, weapons, and advisors when it looked like Iran overwhelming numbers would make the difference in the war. (Oddly enough, at one point in that war, we were providing intel to BOTH sides!) Once he won, the Kurds in the North and the Sunnis in the South tried to take advantage of the weak post-war military... and paid dearly. Saddam just got his chemical WMD's, and had fun trying them out on the rebel villages, since they worked so well on the advancing lines of Iranians. (The images of the bodies of mothers and children fallen in the town streets were very troubling.)
They also had his only American-educated nuclear physicist to interview extensively, with amazing details about Saddam's intense demands to get one working nuclear device at any cost (to quickly and effectively end the Iran-Iraq war). He expertly uses fear as a tool to deal with both his supporters and his opponents. He knows that once he's out of power, his life is worthless, and will take as many people down with him as he can.
"HOOOOOAAAHHH...Let's Roll"
Doesn't anyone else find our current news media's activity to be treason?
Did Patton ever have a press like this?
Did Mac ever have his landings spilled by the press?
Did Ike ever have his activity monitored by CBS, NBC, or ABC?
Shheeeeshhh! With people like this in our news corps, who needs spies?
He keeps a circle of organizations close to him, and they are quite cutthroat with one another. As cagey, as you may give him credit for being, he operates 2 levels (at least above that...)
He is quite the master gamesman.When he goes it will , in all likelyhood not be from within.
It wont matter. The simple unannounced fact is, without Iraq, Bin laden, is not the threat he is made out to be
To fully comprehend that statement, you need to look closely at the historical view of terrorism, in the last say, 20 years.
Prior to 1993 (1st WTC Bombing) ALL terrorism was known to be State sponsored. ALL.
What made 1993 different, the nature of the terrorism, or, the Administration, wanting to have it's cake and eat it too? TO wit: Announcing a loose band of confederates, so that when some were caught they could be tried, and jailed, and the Administration would look good, without having to pursue the state sponsorship, that inevitably necessitates war. Why do you think between 1993, and 2000, we averaged about one extraordinary incident per year ?
And every one of them has Iraqi Fingerprints on it. EVERY.
That is why if you pay close attention to President Bush's rhetoric, he is reversing the Individualist B.S. and equating Terrorism, with State Sponsored action.Yes, they still Babble about Bin Laden, But they have no viable alternative, yet while they chase around these AlQueda A*holes, the real objective is to go after the States that make such terrorism possible. (These Desert dwellers DO NOT HAVE the Intelligence, Scientific, Acquisition, or Delivery systems in place to perpetrate the Huge acts that have been taking place. This can only come form State Resources.
Just what good would battleships do in that situation? They're less effective strike platforms than carriers, and they wouldn't get the Straits of Hormuz reopened in a hurry.
Contrary to what everyone seems to think, the Iranian government is not a bunch of yokels impressed by obsolete and unsustainable technologies.
Right now, the Iranians' hope is that we just pass them by for the time being--and ticking us off while we settle accounts with the Iraqis doesn't achieve that goal.
Any task is easy if you don't have to do the work yourself.
Gimme a break. Sheesh
Oh, sure, Hobbes, I figured that. You rotate the bodyguard unit and play favorites with those around you, so that they're too busy engaging in backstabbing and infighting to gain your favor instead of cooperating to sieze power themselves. But remember, as the IRA said to Margaret Thatcher after the bombing/assassination of her Northern Ireland Minister, Airey Neave, "...you have to be lucky all the time. We have to be lucky only once."
Someone will get to him. Saddam made a mistake by floating the non-idea that Qusay Hussein will "take over" and that the Old Man will retire. Those around him will detect that as a sign of fear and weakness, no matter how he tries to spin it to his fellow thugs as a "maneuver".
For a decade, the Saddam gang has survived by being able to, Castro-like, outlast American Presidents Bush and Clinton. Now along comes this dumb cowboy from Texas who is deadly serious about Saddam's removal and the entire Arab world in general, and Saddam in particular, is groping for a way to counter someone who knows exactly what he wants to do. All the Qusay Hussein story tells me is that for the first time since the closing hours of the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein is very afraid.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I think the Balloon was floated to see if some of the dis-loyal opposition would be fool enough to jump out, and say...>Well..maybe we don't need to go to war...
That didn't happen.And what is worse, there was already an attempt on Qusays life....
We're going to Baghdad, Militarily, not surreptitiously.
Guess you're right. I forgot that all the coup plotters who tried to make a go of it during the Clinton years failed and were executed.
It may be that there aren't that many disloyal officers left. Perhaps they've decided to take their chances with the New Regime and sit tight until Saddam is overthrown.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
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.