Bush Pours Cold Water on Iraq War Talk

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | Wed Aug 21, 5:05 PM ET | By Mark Egan

[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.

[McGavin999]

I love Rummy's comment to the reporter who asked him about the europeans not wanting to send troops "Nobody's asked them"

[DentsRun]

I don't know why some posters seem so despondent. I'm sure Bush is doing what is in the best interests of the United States. If he and his advisors and generals have determined that it's not yet time to make war on Iraq, why is that depressing? We want the president to do what is in the best interests of the United States.

[ASA Vet]

elite reserve unit was being called up for a secret deployment.

Yep, gotta love those public iformation officers.

[OKSooner]

Thanks for the lyrics. Not to quibble, but I always thought it was "Scaramouche", not "Scare a moose".

(I don't know where I saw it, but I think Scaramouche was some French clown or other comic character at some time. I could be mistaken...)

[Miss Marple]

Why don't YOU cite YOUR sources for this "obvious " information?

Do you actually think that the President is going to consider war to enrich some corporations? Get a grip!

[Reagan Man]

All this posturing over when an attack on Iraq will happen, is mildly interesting at best and keeps the media busy. Anything more then that, is an overexaggeration. As PresBush and SecRumsfeld said, at this point, its nothing but a "frenzy".

[jwalsh07]

1. American policy, as set forth by POTUS, is a "regime change" in Iraq.

2. How to implement that policy is still under discussion.

3. Until the decision is made on how to implement the policy in number 1, the time and date of its final implementation is moot.

4. As far as I'm concerned the sooner, the better. But I can wait.

[Momaw Nadon]

Well stated. I completely agree.

[GOPGrrl]

What is the poor man going to do?

Walk out and tell everyone that: no, he won't consult Congress on anything having to do with Iraq; no, he doesn't care what potential allies think and doesn't care if they agree or not; and by the way, he's going to give the order to go after Hussein on this specific day on this specific time?

I don't think so.

[PhiKapMom]

Thought the comments today by Pres Bush and SecDef Rumsfeld were right on the mark. You are so right -- the press is in an all out feeding frenzy! Something tells me that DemocRATS' poll numbers for November are not looking that good. It looks like the press is touting DNC talking point papers on the Iraq issue as they try to find a way to make Pres Bush look bad on Iraq but also try and split out Republicans from supporting the President!

Not going to work!

[PogySailor]

Hmmm, so many ways to spin a story...

Bush snubs doves and says Saddam must go

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The news report that attack is imminent one day, then not going to happen the next. The news media is being played by the Bush Administration big time. We will hit Iraq, it's only a matter of time.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

No problem. The big disparity between news article is helping keep the enemy off balance.

[1234]

tho i think the US shoulda done iraq by now, bet that military thinks it needs 18-24 mos. to prepare....

[OldFriend]

The President has made it clear there will be no war before the election. Every week we have new schtick from the media......will he, won't he, when will he, is he getting cold feet, aaaaaarrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

[harpo11]

"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."

Message to the critics, appeasers, and wussies you all should be on your knees thanking President Bush, his team, and most of all the brave men and women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces putting their lives on the front lines for me, you, us, and our families, for their efforts on ridding the world of these good for nothing rot gut tyrannical insane dictators thereby making our world a safer place for people who just want to live their lives in peace, freedom and in the pursuit of happiness.

And furthermore, democrats who look forward with great relish to the possible 2008 run for the office of the president by their heroine, Mrs. Clinton, should be applauding and loudly supporting President Bush' s bold and resolute leadership on the war against the " evil doers" since President Bush will succeed and if she is elected, she would be inheriting a more peaceful world.

I proudly stand with President Bush and support him wholeheartedly.

America Does Not Back Down.
Never Has.
Never Will.

[jdontom]

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.)

I thank you need to get a grip on yourself. When in war the object is to win at all cost. I see this discussed on other boards, but mainly by enviromentalists and socialists. Look at Afganistan where is their infrastructure, what did Clinton do after his big war, nada.

[templar]

There is an old saying .. All good things come to those who wait

I thought it was ... Patience comes to those who wait.

[InvisibleChurch]

i suspect that the US and Israel are already at it in Irak...see: abu nidal... perhaps the special forces from US, Brittain and Israel are doing a ton of damage that, naturally, IraQ isn't going to report to the world, as well as locating WMD sites for future sorties and scud missile sites as well ( i bet that Israel desperately wants to be part of the action this time thinking that the US might mess it up somehow, perhaps by pulling the plug too early again) once saddam goes then a large chunk of cash will be denied the terrorists...then Iran and Saudi Arabia may have to stare the good guys in the eyes and decide if they want to keep on with their lives of crime...Iran may be overthrown anyway and if the internet and satellite communications can be restored to the saudi people, then they'll figure out what's going on in the world...say goodbye to the house of saud

or maybe nothing will happen at all

[Mo1]

Could be .. but that is not what my mother always said

plus she would say to us kiddies that patience was a virtue