Posted on 08/12/2002 6:55:02 AM PDT by SJackson
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
While President Bush says he has "no timetable" for a potential attack on Iraq, over the last week or 10 days the pieces have been palpably falling into place.
Congress opened its first hearings, with signs pointing toward a bipartisan consensus on a pre-emptive attack intended to overthrow Saddam Hussein before he acquires nuclear weapons. Last week Gen. Tommy Franks briefed the president on a realistic option, using 50,000 to 80,000 troops that could be assembled in the area within two weeks, instead of the 250,000 troops and three months the generals initially requested.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
LOL! This war is first and foremost about timing. This thing is being timed to be fresh and new to the American public during the 04 presidential race.
Another stupid idea that if we accept proves this is not a war we care about winning. We're going to spend billions of dollars setting up some new Muslim leadership who will be quality allies along the Saudi lines??
If we take Saddam out we should put our own people in as governors over the new American province. Guliani is pretty popular... send him over there as Governor Pro Counsel of America East. :)
The pieces are being put in place now. We are replenishing our stockpile of satellite guided bombs, while completing our work on the base in Qatar.
I'm thinking that the timing will be sometime between Thanksgiving and next April.
The idea of having a pro-western democracy next door must scare the Saudis to death. Especially one that has enough oil to supply the west without reliance on the Saudis.
If it was Clinton or Gore I would agree.
Bush will do everything he can to not make his decision WHEN to attack look political.
He will go in December or January or sooner.
I agree. I do think he's waited too long to "sell" this war, it really is the natural outcome of the 9/11 attacks and the c/b/n threat from Iraq. GWB should have been making the public aware of the threat all along, now I'm afraid, though I think he'll do the right thing, he has lost some of the political edge. This should, and I think could, have been an action American's would have supported on a largely bipartison basis.
Don't link this to the '04 elections. Pres Bush would not do this, it would be unstatesmanlike. He would want to get it done during his present term only because a second term is only a possibility and the action needs to be completed within one administration.
For an example of what can happen when an action is handed off to another administration, consider Somalia.
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.