Posted on 08/21/2002 2:24:52 PM PDT by Momaw Nadon
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday brushed aside speculation about imminent military action against Iraq, saying he was a patient man who would first consult with U.S. allies and Congress.
Bush said the subject of Iraq -- and his repeated calls for Saddam Hussein's ouster -- did not come up during a meeting with top national security advisers, dismissing "intense speculation" about military action any time soon.
"We take all threats seriously and we will continue to consult with our friends and allies," Bush told reporters when asked about Iraq. "The American people know my position, and that is, that regime change is in the interests of the world.
"I'm a patient man," he said. "We will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available to us, and diplomacy and intelligence. But one thing is for certain ... this administration agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat."
In addition to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others attended the meeting at Bush's ranch.
With the world watching for any hints the United States was prepared to take action to topple Saddam, the White House said the talks were to focus on reforming the military's weapons, strategy and finances, and developing a system to defend the country against a missile attack.
"The Pentagon is forward thinking, is aggressive in its approach to developing systems that will more likely be able to respond to what we're going to face," said Bush, dressed in khakis and a casual shirt, after the session.
"The subject (of Iraq) didn't come up in this meeting," said Bush, who called the intense interest in Saddam Hussein a "frenzy."
SADDAM IS TOP PRIORITY FOR BUSH
Bush has made ousting Saddam a top priority, saying the Iraqi leader is developing weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped before he can use them against the United States or its allies, or share them with terrorist groups.
However, Bush said much of the meeting was spent discussing how best to spend money to "better protect ourselves and our friends and allies from the true threats of the 21st century."
The administration has said rogue states like Iraq comprise the No. 1 threat to American security.
Later while visiting Army troops at Fort Hood, Texas, Rumsfeld said Bush was considering whether to go to war with Iraq, but had made no decision. "He's thinking about it, but..." Rumsfeld said. He paused and was cut off by laughter.
In response to questions, the secretary also chided Russia for making trade deals and otherwise openly boosting its relations with Iraq, North Korea, Syria and other countries Washington accuses of supporting terrorism. But he said if the United States went to war with Iraq, he doubted it would damage ties between Washington and Moscow.
Rumsfeld told the troops he thought Russia's interests were more in line with the West and "somewhat stronger than their old relationship with Iraq. And I therefore think it would not have an adverse effect on our relationship."
While Bush poured cold water on what he called "churning" speculation about Iraq, a leading congressional Republican said war with Baghdad was inevitable.
"APPEASERS" CONDEMNED
"The question is not whether to go to war, for war has already been thrust upon us," fiery Texas conservative Tom DeLay, the No. 3 Republican in the House of Representatives, said in a speech in Houston.
"The only choice is between victory and defeat. And let's be clear, we must choose victory, a victory that cannot be secured at the bargaining table," said DeLay, who derided those Republicans who have spoken out against war as "appeasers."
Critics of U.S. military action against Iraq, including close American allies, worry such a move would set a dangerous precedent -- a pre-emptive war to head off a possible threat -- and undermine the U.S.-led war on terrorism. They also have expressed concern about the stability and viability of Iraq after Saddam's possible ouster.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has said Germany would not take part in a U.S. action against Iraq. On Tuesday, Canada said it would not aid U.S.-led military action against Baghdad unless it had stronger evidence of imminent Iraqi aggression.
Opposing views also came from some members of Bush's Republican Party, including Brent Scowcroft, who as national security adviser helped the president's father, President George Bush, build an international coalition for the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq that ended with Saddam still in power.
If Saddam chokes to death on a date pit tomorrow, how will that affect the "stability and viability of Iraq"? Basing a country's stability on the survival of one aging, unpopular dictator does not strike me as a more sensible policy than invasion, conquest and democratization, but that's Germany for you - they prefer dealing with tyrants.
I saw the press conference live and unspun. President Bush did NOT back away from war with Iraq.
In fact, I got the feeling the president finds some humor in the media "frenzy" over this "debate"...because as he clearly and calmly stated (again) ...he has not changed his mind.. Saddam is a threat and must go...and he is a patient man.
And, as Sec. Rumsfeld so nicely added---our allies haven't said "no" to action against Iraq because the President hasn't asked them to do anything (yet).
IMHO, the clock is ticking.
Bush did not pour cold water on anything because he never heated it up to begin with.
The media did.
This administration 'gets it', unlike the Saddam apologists.
Bush Says World Needs Saddam Ousted
Sure looks different from the headline of this article!
Well said! We need to be aware that we are talking about the elimination of one single man or at most a family.
Bearing this in mind will unleash a number of options. None of which I have seen printed anywhere!
The media is napping........
Whether or not there is an imminent attack is besides the point. The real issue is regime change, not just in Iraq, but in the ME.
One of the problems with FR is that the majority of commentary is merely counter-punching easy targets like the press.
How come there isn't any analysis regarding what is obvious to all: that the scribes in the State Dept. and elsewhere throughout the gov't have been busily preparing a multitude of documents ranging from joint recoginition of governments, to military pacts (US bases/occupation) and trade treaties (ie turn on the oil spigots).
What I'd like to see discussed is the game behind the game: what companies will be there first the day the treaties are signed? Consumer products? Or will the first order of business be infrastructure? (Cat, Halliburton, et al.)
What are the plans of the big banks? Will the US be backing billion dollar loan packages (backed by oil reserves) so that the Iraqis can immediately start purchasing goods and services?
If FR really does have the lurker population that many speculate about, I'd sure like to see some *real* downstream info (no, not military secrets), not this boring surface level stuff.
Hey, LOOSE LIPS! Just kidding...
Did Desert Shield start on or around the new moon? I would think so, but I don't know for sure. Thanks.
Heh .... you just named every new moon (total darkness) night for the next 6 months. Of course you're right on about it. We do FAR better than any other country in night fighting.
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.