U.S. general tells Israelis war will start by late November

WORLD TRIBUNE.COM ^ | Thursday, August 29, 2002 | SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

[areafiftyone]

I hope Saddam is reading this with his morning coffee.

[nevergore]

This is definite disinformation for two reasons....
1. No American General would leak this info....Sorry, they're not senators, they understand secrecy.
2. The Isreali's wouldn't leak it if they were told since they "live" there. They need our attack on Iraq to be swift, devastating and successful so they survive....
Two major security breeches back-to-back by the General's of two countries with incredibly professional staff???? I don't think so.....
NeverGore

[EternalHope]

Talk about "sinks ship". Either this guy should be court marshalled for treasonous blabbing or this is just hot air.

The source of the "leak" was Israeli military sources, not the U.S. general. The general was just delivering the mail.

Even though it was the Israeli's who leaked it, there's no way they would tip our real hand in advance either. This was leaked according to plan.

Does this mean Saddam gets to sleep easy until late November? HaHaHaHa!!!! ;)

[elfman2]

"September 11, maybe?"

Wouldn't that be sweet! It would give a whole new meaning of that date to a half billion potential enemy combatants who'll be celebrating it otherwise.

[Mr. Lucky]

You may have hit upon something.

If the administration thinks it needs the whole world to be serious about the Iraq problem, the attack will come in October. There's always a World Serious in October.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I agree that Nov 6th would be the earliest. Bush has a full schedule of politicking this fall. We know he will be in New Hampshire in October. For the reasons he didn't stump after 9/11, he wouldn't do so while we are in war mode with Iraq.

[SamAdams76]

My new theory is that Bush will announce his intentions (to go to war with Iraq) when he comes back from vacation in September. He may even seek congressional approval for a declaration of war against Iraq. It will then be an election issue, with the Democrats backed up against the wall. Are they going to go against Bush on the war pre-election and risk the political fallout in November? I doubt it. It will be a smart move for Bush. He'll get the support he will need for the war, making the outcome of the elections a moot point so far as that is concerned.

Or, he will launch the attack on 9/11, but I'm beginning to doubt that will happen as it is less than two weeks away and we should have started seeing some major activity by now in the way of deployments.

[Lucas1]

"-Media speculation and government leaks had all predicted an invasion in February or March 2003, so early November might have given the US an element of surprise;"

Well not with it posted all over the internet. What is the difference between some government people leaking information...and other people posting it all over the internet news groups. I mean I know there is the initial leak...but how leaked would it be if all the media and news groups would not post the information?

This is one of those threads that fall under the category of loose lips? No?

[GraniteStateConservative]

"September 11, maybe?"

I think he's scheduled to speak at the UN on 9/12 I think. I don't know if this supports such a date of attack or not.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bush will want approval from Congress soon so he can surprise Iraq at a time of his choosing.

The monkey wrench is that Congress (the Senate really) has not passed hardly any appropriations bills-- that are necessary to avoid a shutdown. That will occupy a lot of time. Warner and others want hearings and the whole nine yards.

[Cold Heat]

This is more fuel on the fire that they are building under Iraq. More psy-ops. IMHO

[thinktwice]

Disinformation? Maybe, but ...

Since Congress is constitutionally mandated to decide on war, I'd say that -- given the opportunity to wait two months -- making the November congressional elections a referendum on war is a master move by the Bush administration.

[George W. Bush]

Joint U.S.-Israeli disinformation tactics.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Good point, Mr. President!

: )

[nevergore]

Congress has already issued a declaration of war on September 14th of last year, all Bush has to do is show the slightest connection between Iraq and Al Queda, the connections are numerous and substantial.......
Besides, Congress is not required to issue any declaration for any president to go forward, Congress's only remedy under the constitution is to withhold funding for a war.....Do you believe that congress has the "guts" to do that to any president?????
Especially one with ratings hovering around 70% which will go even higher once we attack.....
The Congressional elections on both sides won't even discuss war.....
NeverGore

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

After 9/11 2002, after the images of death have been played and re-played on TV, and gotten the public in the mood to take someone out.

[Grut]

Citing "numerous statements" of US intentions to preemptively invade Iraq, Iraq preemptively invades Jordan in September to "liberate" it from "occupying" American forces.

Whether or not the invasion succeeds in its stated goal, it brings in the Israelis immediately, making it impossible for any Arab country to cooperate with the US (assuming any of them want to). The Arab world cheers and Europe sniggers.

By Election Day, Iraq has several hundred American POWs and the US has no platform from which to invade Iraq. Stalemate.

This could happen.

[elfman2]

"I think he's scheduled to speak at the UN on 9/12 I think. I don't know if this supports such a date of attack or not."

I wouldn't think so, very risky, lot's of demands, but it would certainly be a bold move.

[Dog]

It could happen.......but won't.

Saddam always makes bad decision....he will make a doozy before this is over with.

I could see him lashing out at one of his neighbor's with a WMD...which would turn the world against him..