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.

[dixiechick2000]

WOW! Those were two beautiful posts. You both set a wonderful example for the rest of the forum. Thank you.

And, thank you both for your service and devotion to our country. It is very much appreciated.

[max61]

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

I wonder how many "wars" we would have if modern times were like ancient times when the leaders led their armies into battle.

---max

[CIB-173RDABN]

You are most welcome.

[Timesink]

Actually, I believe the resolution for September 11th gave the president the power to do whatever he feels is necessary to protect the United States. It's not exactly a declaration of war, but it's pretty close.

I think it's unquestionable that it gave him that power:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(emphasis mine) This is why everyone's been trying so hard to find unquestionable proof that Iraq had some direct link to 9/11: just to make things so clear-cut that nobody can claim with any sort of pseudolegitimacy that Bush has no authorization to take Saddam out at his pleasure. But a careful reading of SJ RES 23 makes it quite clear that it doesn't really matter what any leftists, or megalibertarians, or RAT congressmen think. It only matters what the president thinks. And if he were to determine that Canada had something to do with 9/11, he could bomb Ottawa. It is entirely Bush's personal decision as to who played a role in 9/11. If he thinks Iraq did have involvement, then this bill authorizes him to attack. It doesn't matter what anyone else on earth thinks. Not recalcitrant RATS, not even Cheney or Powell or Rumsfeld or Rice. George W. Bush makes the final determination as to who was involved in 9/11 when it comes to planning military action. Period.

[blondee123]

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.

I think "war on terror" is enough of a reason, I don't see why we need to fall back on any infringement of post Gulf War disarmament!

[dixiechick2000]

"...spent over 5 years of my life serving this Nation when she needed me..."

The Greatest Generation...
thank you very much for your service.

[AmishDude]

I wonder how many "wars" we would have if modern times were like ancient times when the leaders led their armies into battle.

You're kidding, right? They were at war all the time. Julius Caesar didn't get to be emperor of Rome by his exploits at the peace table.

[yendu bwam]

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.

Section9 is right on target.

[yendu bwam]

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.

When terrorists brutally kill 3,000 of our men, women and children on our own soil, I think it's about time that we played this game BY OUR RULES.

[willyone]

if the dems. pick up some seats in both houses look for nothing to happen. They will stop any attempt by Bush to oust Saddam. Politics will win over national interest every time with those clowns.

[FreeReign]

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

I wonder how many "wars" we would have if modern times were like ancient times when the leaders led their armies into battle.

So then the reason why you think this war is not justified is because the President is not leading the troops into battle. Come on Maxs that's another non sequitur.

It doesn't follow that...............

[AmishDude]

I believe that the full moon is August 8 (I recall reading that on another post). Either then or the next full moon is most likely. We like to attack at night under a full moon, it is best for giving our military an advantage. We often forget there are troops in Afghanistan and it's unwise to have two fronts going at the same time.

[Mark17]

Libertarians, apparently.

LOL, good comeback.

[MinorityRepublican]

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.

Max reminds me of Chamberlain who tried to appease His Majesty's enemies. We all know how that worked out.

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.

Section9 explained this case of why we have to go to war with Iraq perfectly. If you don't get this, well I'm not going to call you any names.

Let us have peace through strength, but always remember that pacificism is deadly!

[yendu bwam]

There are sources that have stated that there are already significant desertions in the ranks.

The average Iraqi military man prays that he can find some legit way out of the military (any other way means immediate death) before the US hits. Second to that, he prays for a way to appear like he's really fighting, but that gives him a chance to surrender alive to the Americans. They all despise Hussein.

[jwfiv]

Why, thank you.

[Consort]

The full moon....

[MinorityRepublican]

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.

That is correct. The war on terror is about killing fanatics before more Americans have to die.

I must praise you on your writing. You should be a columnist!

[Joe Hadenuf]

But please stop with the personal attacks. They are not welcome here. Thanks, AM

If he and others stop these personal attacks, your going to be out of a job. Not likely to happen, huh?

[section9]

Let us have peace through strength, but always remember that pacificism is deadly!

Peace, in and of itself, is a praiseworthy thing.

The Framers understood this. They did envision a foreign policy without "entangling alliances" and "permanent friendships". They understood the dangers of these.

However, as in 1939 and later with the ascent of Stalin's Soviet Empire, evil needed to be confronted. In those times, the United States was the chief instrument of the destruction of the twin evils of National Socialism and Soviet Communism.

Now, to Baghdad.

Saddam is small fry. But he is a rather wealthy small fry who has great, megalomaniacal, ambitions. He is also a creature of revenge, and he intends to take his revenge on us and on the "Zionists". And he will use whatever weapons are at his disposal so to do.

We cannot afford to conclude otherwise. Our lives are at stake, here.

Be Seeing You,

Chris