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.
I suspect the new interim government will have been mostly decided before the coup and ready to begin functioning, at least at a minimum level, the moment Hussein is relieved of his authority.
Klintoon tried to oust him a few times, but just sent a bunch of cruise missiles that Iraq quickly spun into propaganda. He did the same to bin Laden in Afghanistan, and look what happened. I fear that Saddam will pull a similar trick as he becomes emboldened in his defiance of the US.
1. Propaganda to put Iraq back to sleep before a real strike (Turkey is getting ready for war, remember?)
2. Real backing off, in which case a single Scud into Israel will forever give Bush the most powerful case for future adventures, "I told you so before, but you didn't believe me then either!"
3. He saw my article at http://www.glorywatch.com/gulfwariifinaldestiny.htm and decided he didn't want to lose.
4. All the hype was to get Iraq to preempt American forces and give Israel and America all the excuse they ever needed- but it didn't work.
We took more than one month to get Iraq out of tiny Kuwait and you expect us to get Saddam in what sounds like a few days though his CNC is spread over a vast region? I just don't see it.
Saddam wins.
Are you sure? Or will waiting one more day prove fatal?
Then again he may be tormenting them so when the time comes they won't believe it until it is all over?
I am sure that the men in the know will do what is right at the proper time. I am also sure that a haphazard invasion will result in needless casualties to my former brothers and sisters in arms.
So, the answer is I trust the administration to act in a timely manner while giving our troops the best chance of success. Until then, I can wait.
I agree with you. If Saddam is the threat that President Bush says he is, then everyday that this is delayed means more time for Saddam to make more wicked weapons. We should not wait until he has used one. If he really is a threat and has the weapons to do us harm, then we must move quickly. Waiting for all the political crap to iron out is not in the best interest of the American people.
The press has lost it on this one - they are mad because they are not being told anything - so they make up their own version with the usual anti-American spin.
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.