Bush ready to declare war

The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 08/04/2002 | Peter Beaumont, Gaby Hinsliff and Paul Beaver

[Pokey78]

President George W. Bush will announce within weeks that he intends to depose Iraq's ruler, Saddam Hussein, by force, setting the stage for a war in the Gulf this winter.

Amid signs of active preparations for a war within six months, senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic have said that war against Iraq is now inevitable.

'The expectation is that President Bush will make a final decision on the timing of a war over the course of August. That would be followed by British-led efforts to get a mandate for action at the UN, either under existing resolutions or a new UN resolution,' said one senior source.

The disclosure came as US Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed an offer by Iraq to talk to the chief weapons inspector of the United Nations. 'Inspection is not the issue, disarmament is, making sure that the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction,' said Powell during a visit to Manila, capital of the Philippines.

'We have seen the Iraqis try to fiddle with the inspection system before,' said Powell. 'You can tell that they are trying to get out of the clear requirement that they have. The goal is not inspections for inspection's sake.'

The escalation of US military efforts comes amid signs of the first serious split between the White House and Britain over the relentless march to war.

That split emerged yesterday after John Bolton, US Under Secretary for Arms Control, admitted that the aim in Washington was to topple Saddam regardless of whether or not he allowed UN inspectors back in to complete the disarmament process.

'Let there be no mistake - while we also insist on the reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the same time insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not,' Bolton told Radio 4's Today programme. He said he 'certainly hoped' Saddam would be deposed within the year.

His words set alarm bells ringing in London, since the legality of any attack on Iraq - already questioned by the Government's own lawyers - depends on claiming to be acting against infringements of the post-Gulf War disarmament pact rather than simply overthrowing a dictator. Foreign Office sources were quick to dissociate the Foreign Secretary from Bolton's comments.

'Jack Straw has always said that the aim of our policy would not be regime change,' said a Foreign Office source.

In a further indication of preparations for war on both sides of the Atlantic, Tony Blair is expected to begin a campaign of softening up public opinion for war in the autumn. Bruce George, chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said the Government 'will have to have started explaining' its case by then to reverse polls now showing strong opposition to war.

Bolton's comments came as new evidence emerged of US preparations for war, including the building up of strategic oil reserves in the US to insulate the economy against an expected hike in oil prices that would follow the opening of hostilities.

Discreet inquiries have also been made about the availability of the oil tankers that would be needed to transport aviation and other fuel to the Gulf for use by US forces.

In a further indication that America is readying itself for war, large numbers of US Army military trucks have undergone rapid servicing by the Oshkosh Truck Corporation and have been seen being delivered by rail back to their bases painted in tan desert camouflage.

Blair yesterday faced new demands from all sides to publish the now notorious dossier of information on Saddam's nuclear, biological and chemical armoury that he has been promising to unveil since spring.

'The British public deserves to be treated with respect. We must know what the evidence is, and the evidence has got to be compelling,' said Tony Lloyd, the ex-Foreign Office Minister.

The long delay in publication has prompted suspicions that the dossier, which relies heavily on satellite pictures, is embarrassingly thin.

'By delaying publication the Government has raised expectations. There would be a political price to pay if this much promised document did not amount to more than a collection of press cuttings,' said Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman.

The determination of Bush and his closest officials to go ahead with a war has also come amid growing evidence of splits within his own administration.

Senior officials, however, anticipate that Bush will bring an end to the debate by ordering the Pentagon to prepare for war. Most in the administration expect a fairly swift victory.

'I'm absolutely convinced the President will settle on a war plan that brings about regime change,' a senior Republican foreign policy specialist told the Washington Post last week.

[thedilg]

Could his rationale be that he is (As I am) certain that Saddam will attack the United States with the most hidious weapons that he can muster? The longer we wait the worse it will be.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[WhirlwindAttack]

Speaking of which, a deployment to Iraq would certainly do wonders for my mid-life crisis!

Me Too! I'm too OFM (old fat married) but my oldest is in Saudi now
and his little brother just came back from afganistan with the 26th MEU.

FReegards

[max61]

Whether sinkspur is at the head of the line or not is irrelevant to whether this is a justified war.

Whatever you say slick, 5 minutes ago, I was on the line, literally.

IMO max61, your statement reminds me of a propaganda invoked non sequitur from the "Kumbaya" 60's.

The 60's produced over 58,000 casualties. Wonderful track record. At least then, it wasn't over empire.

---max

[Timesink]

we used to call them "yellowbellies"--what are they now?

Still yellowbellies. Or simply "scum."

And don't go pointing fingers at me, any of you Granolas. I'm 32 and have no kids. If they had drafted me in 1991, I would have gone. If they have any need to draft me now, I'll go. But they're going to have to bother to tell me first; I can't read minds.

I have no qualms - zero zip nada - about calling for "other peoples' kids" to go to war. It's an ALL-VOLUNTEER armed forces. They joined of their own free will, knowing that they stood at least some chance of being called into an actual war, instead of merely spending their entire tour of duty just playing with guns at Camp Borgnine.

[bat-boy]

It may well be a psyop sham - Make Saddam think it is coming, he has spend money on preparing further weakining his economy.

My sentiments exactly, except for a different reason. If it was me, I'd be trying to manipulate Saddam into making a first move. This may help the administration in a number of ways. 1st, it may increase international support. Although personally I could give a sh*t less what the international community thinks, it seems to be important to politicians. 2nd, it may increase support for the attack at home. Although Bush has high poll numbers, the media is working overtime to decrease support of an attack on Iraq.

Just my thoughts

[sinkspur]

Pay attention to sinkspurt, it's a legend in it's own mind and bases most everything on that assumption.

God help us all if you're in the Marines.

[FreeReign]

15 of the 19 pigs come from Saudi Arabia. We have TANGIBLE, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of Saudi state involvement as well. Going after Iraq right now doesn't make sense. Getting the Saudis does.

What is the " TANGIBLE, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of Saudi state involvement"?

[yendu bwam]

I think Bush IS going for the sneak attack - any day now. The rest is to throw Saddam off guard.

[AmishDude]

slinks onto FR, usually on weekends when he can't get a date

Just swing that cat around the room, why don't you?

[eno_]

Horses for courses. The CIA is busy doing Iran. Saudi would be a snack, a weekend jaunt, after Iran. Everyone who needs to get it will get it.

[max61]

President Bush was not interested in "nation-building" that Bill Clinton was so fond of. We are in the business only because of terrorism that affect American lives.

Nice to know coherence does exist. What would you consider Afghanistan?, not much different than Bosnia. And we are in the business as a result of our own short sightedness. Where is Osama bin Laden BTW?.

Saddam is using the money to build presidental palaces and on his army.

What would you do if you were in his position?.

So please don't give me the bull about how we are starving Iraqi children.

Nah, wouldn't insult your intelligence.

There's no doubt that Americans made some mistakes with our foreign policy in the past. But all we can do right now is to correct our mistakes and get rid of crazy dictators such as Saddam so the rest of the Arab World will get the message before Israel or USA nukes them.

Why waste the time and potential American lives, if we're gonna nuke them, let's do it and move in when the fallout clears. For that matter, why not start in Baghdad, then take out Tehran, Mecca, Damascus and every other Arab population center. And if we are going to do either, can we for once follow the Constitution and declare war?.

It is "we" who have yet to get the message, because it is we who insist on measuring the Arab world by our yardstick. Different world, different rules.

---max

[FreeReign]

Whether sinkspur is at the head of the line or not is irrelevant to whether this is a justified war.

Whatever you say slick, 5 minutes ago, I was on the line, literally.

Your answer implies that we should let the people on the "line" descide if we should go to war.

[section9]

The 60's produced over 58,000 casualties. Wonderful track record. At least then, it wasn't over empire.

So then, if it wasn't over empire, what was it "over"?

The war in Southeast Asia had less justification for it than the coming enterprise. Bush has rightly pointed out that this is a war between the United States and the Terrorist International. This International includes, mind you, states that support outfits like Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda and Saddam have had relations for some time. Indeed, Iraq has proven a hospitable R&R station for Al Qaeda since they were driven out of Afghanistan. There have been reports of Al Qaeda operating in Kurdistan as early as last December. Indeed, Saddam and Bin Laden have had conversations going back to 1998. Finally, the United States confirmed the story the Czech Intelligence never backed off of: to wit, that Mohammed Atta met with a Colonel Al-Ani of Iraq's Mukhabarat in April of 2001. But what's more, in Iraq the Al Qaeda have access to all of Saddam's goodies.

We know this. The Iraqis know this as well. We simply cannot afford to leave Iraq in the hands of Saddam. The fact that he could give these kinds of weapons to Al Qaeda, have them act as a cutout, then watch as they are used against us is a condition that we cannot tolerate.

This isn't about Empire. The last thing we want to do is to seize and hold a Middle Eastern country as a satrapy, especially when the Russians are pumping oil furiously and OPEC can't keep a price level worth a damn. The minute those Iraqi fields open up, the price of oil is going to go through the floor. We don't need the territory, we don't need the oil, but we do need to kill Saddam. Dangerous psychotics who have enough money to acquire nuclear technology should give one pause. And should spur the sane among us to action.

The appeasement of evil has many sirens, and the arguments for inaction are legion. These arguments are no less fatal for their being numerous, however, as the world found to its dismay in 1939.

Arguments about the sixties are irrelevant to the present situation, as are arguments about right and justice. This is about killing them before they get the chance to kill us.

Period.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[max61]

Damn, what a sick and demented creature you are!! Crawl back under your rock or back down your snake hole!

Evidently, you failed reading class.

---max

[AmishDude]

5 minutes ago, I was on the line, literally

Is that the expression these days? I always thought it was "doing a line".

Learn something new everyday.

[yendu bwam]

I hope you have kids and I hope they all die in that war you so relish. Why don't you volunteer.

The alternative is to have them die when a nuclear bomb goes off in New York City. The danger is real and growing and will be realized if we don't take action first. A couple of my personal friends died in the World Trade Center attack. On the question of volunteering, 1) our armed forces are volunteers; no one forced them to join the armed forces; 2) if I were younger and without a family, I would volunteer. But unlike you, I don't hope that people die - especially your kids. I hope that the actions taken by Bush save their lives.

[max61]

Could his rationale be that he is (As I am) certain that Saddam will attack the United States with the most hidious weapons that he can muster? The longer we wait the worse it will be.

Well, if that were the case, we would've nuked Moscow back in the 50's, they certainly had far more means to destroy us then than Saddam has now.

For that matter, do you really think Saddam would attempt what amounts to suicide?.

---max

[jenny65]

GO ANY TIME BEFORE THE NOV. ELECTION 2002!!!!

I keep wavering on this. In general I would agree, but if the war starts on, say, October 15th, and then it turns out Saddam had already managed to smuggle some WMDs into the US and uses them in a couple of large cities and kills 10,000 people, it might not be the best thing for the GOP's poll numbers. On the other hand, if we bet right and he hasn't managed to smuggle jack into the country, and we really kick ass 1991-style, it's pretty much a guaranteed recapture of the Senate and meaningful gains in the House.

Personally, I hope they DON'T go before the elections. If they do, it could be construed (by some) as a ploy to gain a political advantage and it could backfire. It's too risky. I'm not even sure I wouldn't question it. After the elections, there will be no questions regarding the reasons because nothing can be gained except militarily. Besides, I'm sorry, but the lives of our troops and even innocent Iraqi lives aren't worth a few seats gained in an election. I'm not a peacenik. I just want to be absolutely sure that the reasons are legit and that we are truly prepared.

[bat-boy]

we used to call them "yellowbellies"--what are they now? Libertarians, apparently

I'm a libertarian and I served for nine years, medically retiring as an 11B4V. I spent almost my entire career in the 3rd Ranger Battalion at Ft. Benning, GA. I am also a proponent of invading Iraq.

You have every right to paint all libertarians as cowards. More power to you. However, you are as wrong in your assumption as those that claim that all republicans are racist. You make yourself look about as intelligent as those folks also.

Semper Suo

[max61]

Is that the expression these days? I always thought it was "doing a line".

Assumptive ignorance is a common malady. Fret not, it can be remedied.

---max