US Orders Oil Reserves Filled

PR Newswire ^ | 4 Aug 2002

[JPJ1]

NEW YORK, Aug. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- As the debate about a U.S. invasion of Iraq continues in Washington, President George W. Bush's administration is quietly getting ready for a fight, Newsweek reports in the current issue. U.S. munitions plants have put on extra shifts to rebuild arsenals depleted during the Afghan war, and a few hundred uniformed personnel are working as advance teams in Jordan and elsewhere, assessing the need for new airstrips, wider roads and the like, Newsweek reports. And even before Saddam Hussein became a priority target, the U.S. Department of Energy was working to get America's strategic petroleum reserve up to its full capacity of 700 million barrels -- enough to meet U.S. energy needs for more than 80 days in a crunch, report National Security Correspondent John Barry and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the August 12 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, August 5).

Story Here

[Dog Gone]

Now let's look at our disposition. We're restocking our smart weapons and we've yet to move a full army. Our strategic petroleum reserve has not yet been filled and our space shuttles won't be ready to resume launches before September. One more thing: even though the House and Senate have each passed a military budget bill, they have NOT reached a consensus bill in committee, so no new money is available for our military, and won't be until some time AFTER Congress returns from its August recess.

It boils down to that.

Bush has surely asked the Pentagon when would be the earliest that it could be prepared for an attack that would topple Saddam. If we believe the reports, we do not yet have the JDAM bomb inventory that we would need for a full-scale assault. I have no way of knowing whether that is disinformation or accurate, but reports state that it won't be until some time next year.

We should keep in mind, however, that there is more than one way to skin Saddam's hide. It may not be necessary to flatten the country. Coups have been tried and have failed before, but I don't know whether any of those had active US involvement. I have little doubt that we are exploring those possibilities, in which case the covert strike could occur at any time.

We are clearly getting ready for any contingency, and whether events turn out as we're predicting them in early August is anyone's guess.

[Miss Marple]

The danger in waiting too long, as you propose, is that the public will be succeptible to media manipulation (which they are already beginning) and the real danger of losing the House and Senate in the elections. If the Rats gain control, there will be no chance of a good outcome. They will be second-guessing every move, delaying funding, and generally pulling their "party before country" stunts.

I vote for Korea or Iran. There must have been a reason why Powell did an 8-day whirlwind tour of Southeast Asia, just completed this week.

[ThePythonicCow]

I think your analysis is too patient by half.

Strike while the iron is hot. Delay has its own risks.

Bush has sufficient consensus from enough foreign and domestic leaders. Further opposition will wilt in the face of overwhelming force. His focus has been on Iraq, so that is where he must strike, because that is where he has the most tacit consent.

[justshe]

I heard Biden say it on ONE of the news shows...might have even been on Meet The Press this morning. But I heard it from his own lips. I was NOT happy about it though when I heard it. Might have even been on Hume last week....because I remember someone commenting that they thought that was strange that GW would tie his hands that way.

[AmishDude]

"Before the election" could mean many things and it would be stupid for Bush to announce that there wouldn't be an Iraq attack for another 3 months. It's too long of a window and kills the element of surprise. I'm betting on this week or 5 weeks from now.

[justshe]

***I would not trust an oilman (even one in the WH) with information of an attack or strategic plans. ***

Then it's a good thing that President Bush is no longer an oilman, correct? That way you CAN trust the Commander In Chief. Good golly........I would suppose the CIC WOULD have information of an attack or strategic plans, wouldn't you? He does, afterall, make the final decision.

[justshe]

I think the Dems are using a 2-pronged attack on President Bush. Lieberman makes a statement saying every day is another day of danger (translation: GW is dragging his feet and endangering the American people) while Biden is now saying there are MANY questions that need to be answered and a vote must be taken in Congress (translation: We can't allow GW to move ahead with impugnity and act like a hot-head without having a full airing of all issues in order to inform the American people).

These Democrats are so two-faced.

[justshe]

LOL........you are SO bad! You just want that picture for The Dose!!!! ROFL

Although.......I would too!

[justshe]

Fine by me....but...I think GW and Rumsfield are grooming the Northern Iraqi's so they can be involved. Not sure if that is in place yet.

I cannot see GW giving misinformation to Biden, or breaking his word, once given, without provocation. So...I am expecting some sort of provocation.

[snippy_about_it]

We need a new pool. We could use a Saddam dead pool to coincide with the Osama dead pool.

Whatever happened to that pool?

[The_Media_never_lie]

Dog predicts....end of August....first week of September.

Think the attack will occur during "dog days"?

[Southack]

Bush's "focus has been on Iraq, so that is where he must strike, because that is where he has the most tacit consent."

No, the media's focus has been on Iraq. Bush has condemned Iraq, Iran, and North Korea almost equally.

Consent is fine, and Bush will try to get it where he can, but he doesn't have to have it. It's our military that will do the heavy lifting, after all. We are the world's superpower. If we want a nation to cease existing, then we can do it no matter what anyone else thinks.

Nor does Bush need to consider domestic politics. 9/11 and national security is bigger than two-party politics. 70+% approval ratings don't hurt, either.

If the Democrats thought for one moment that rushing the next attack would play well politically, you would be seeing prominent Democrats acting like hungry hawks - demanding that we attack right now.

So Bush has no sense of political urgency to rush an attack. He can take all the time in the world, so long as he doesn't wait so long that the Axis of Evil obtains a weapon of mass desturction capability (at that point, "waiting" would mean that we would have to nuke them first).

America still hasn't forgotten Pearl Harbor or even the Alamo. We certainly aren't going to forget 9/11. Bush could wait to attack the Axis of Evil until 2008 and he'd still have overwhelming American support.

This war was started on their schedule, but we will fight it and finish it on the timetable of our choosing, not theirs.

And you are going to be one very frustrated soul if you keep thinking that we are going to rush fighting a war this large.

[Lady Jag]

...would be fired in/on Washington, D.C., than in Crawford, Texas...

Another good point for a vacation strike time.

[freedomtrail]

Return Nothing! It's a war.

[not-alone]

11/5 eve to 12/5 eve: Ramadan--Muslim month of purification by self-reflection, fasting from sunrise to sunset, peace-making, and helping those in need..wouldn't that possible make it harder for support from other Arab Countries, is that not more important than our elections when planning war.I think soomer possible late Sept.

[TheDon]

Some probably thought the same thing about Japan.

[TheDon]

However many it takes.

[ThePythonicCow]

I agree that he won't rush it, certainly not for political gain. But the quickness of actions being taken so far lead to an attack in months or quarters, not years.

And waiting too long is risky in itself. I am confident that he is moving us to an attack as quickly as he can, whatever that be.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Southack]

These things take time, and even the sequence of targets is up to some considerable debate.

Broadly speaking, I'd give the start of the first major ground attack a date range of mid-November 2002 to Winter 2004.