Bush's 'days, weeks' add up to 6 months

Wash Times ^ | Joseph Curl

[dirtboy]

I still don't see any of your replies that are to the point trying to be made here, and please, no personal attacks.

The personal attacks were started by others, so shuddap.

In your opinion, do you believe the Hatfill story? Is it likely that Hatfill, or some domestic person like him, was the source of the 9/11 anthrax? You must have an opinion, "I don't know" is essentially a "no". So if you don't believe the Hatfill story, then who could have sent the anthrax? Who has anthrax, name the country that you see anthrax being linked to right now with regards to the UN resolutions? Do you really think that these resolutions are about whether a missile can fly 112 instead of 92 miles? Who has anthrax, and would have synchronized the mailings to occur in the same time frame of the WTC attacks?

Another expert joins the fray, I see. BTW, You must have an opinion, "I don't know" is essentially a "no" is an exercise in false logic (and a time-honored method to put words in the mouths of other posters). "I don't know" often means just that. As to your other questions, they are structured as lead-in questions that promote YOUR opinions as opposed to soliciting mine, so I'll just leave your post as that. I haven't seen any clear information as to where the anthrax attacks came from, I have seen contradictory information as to whether the material came from Iraq, but we have sufficient justification for taking Saddam out anyway, so the anthrax question is, IMO, a subject for a different thread and a different time. Your opinion may, and probably will, vary.

[Wordsmith]

Considering how hard the Administration has been trying to make a case against Iraq (remember the dubious documents about Iraq trying to purchase uranium that turned out to be hoaxes), if there were a credible, verifable link between Iraq and and the anthrax attacks, IMO it would have been presented.

The uranium lead came at a particular point in the negotiations, when the administration was pushing for a particular UN goal. I don't see any evidence that the administration has been trying to make a case against Iraq. If they were, there is vastly more information - along the lines of what Powell presented to the UN - that they could have made public. The evidence of Iraqi nefariousness is being dribbled out. Why?

I really don't think that Iraq had much involvement with the 9/11 attacks, if any, and instead has been a refuge for the occasion Al Qaeda operative - bin Laden has said rather harsh words about Saddam in the past, I doubt he would rely on Saddam too much.

Who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, really? Who is Ramzi Yousef, really? How did al Qaeda go from incompetence to prominence to incompetence over a span of 5 years? Is the question whether bin Laden would rely on Saddam, or Saddam on bin Laden?

But I'm not one of those who needs a link between Saddam and 9/11 to act against him, so for me it's moot at this point anyway.

I agree completely that we don't need 9/11 as a justification. But, I don't believe it is a moot point whether or not Saddam has the demonstrated ability to launch via terrorist proxy a bioweapon attack on the US capable of killing millions.

[dirtboy]

Is the author of this piece (specifically the title) suggesting that we had our military set in place ready to roll 6 months ago?

Hey, we had TEN THOUSAND TROOPS in place in Kuwait back in September. Why Bush was unwilling to invade a country the size of California when he had ten thousand troops at his disposal is beyond my understanding. He must have some ulterior motive...

[Wordsmith]

It's always a possibility, but I'll stick with the most obvious answer first.

I think there are multiple factors at play - both obvious ones and subtle ones.

[Wordsmith]

Only those having trouble sticking to their diets.

LOL!

[GOPyouth]

He must have some ulterior motive...

You are simply misguided if you think it's logical to invade Baghdad with 10,000 troops. No disrespect meant, but 10k ain't gonna cut it.

[dirtboy]

That excuse just isn't going to cut it. GW Bush could have used private air and sea transportation assets if he had wanted to - all the essential hardware was still in place - and ordanace factories can turn out bombs in huge numbers when they want to.

Another armchair general checks in. Our military was scattered over the globe by Clinton. The Navy is half the strength it used to be. One of our carriers, I believe it is the Lincoln, is about to set a record for longest deployment to accomodate this action. We've had to mobilize a tremendous number of Guard troops to carry out this operation. But Mr. Military Expert Badabing Badaboom knows better than the Pentagon, he says it should only have taken TWO MONTHS. I'm sure Rummy will be on the phone any minute soliciting your logistical expertise...

[Wordsmith]

The question isn't why the President wouldn't invade with 10,000 troops in September. The question is why their weren't more than 10,000 troops in September, and why it has taken so long to build to the force levels now present, especially considering the weather-imposed attack window. Are you suggesting that the Administration didn't see the Turkish intransigence coming, and didn't plan for it? Or that they just didn't think about the implications of the coming summer? No, this was timed to come to a head in the UN - with full realization that the UN wouldn't endorse war - late enough in the year to appear to "force us" to postpone a major assault.

Maybe I'll have a lot of egg on my face in a month, but I honestly don't think we'll see troops in Baghdad for at least 6 months. Maybe some incremental steps - occupying the oil fields, supporting an uprising in the northern Kurdish territory. But I don't think we'll see a blitzkrieg to Baghdad. We can't hit Saddam yet, we need to give him at least the impression that he still can get what he wants - to stay in power - until we are able to neutralize the possibility of a WMD retaliation against Western civilians.

[dirtboy]

You are simply misguided if you think it's logical to invade Baghdad with 10,000 troops. No disrespect meant, but 10k ain't gonna cut it.

I was debating when I was posting that response whether I should have added a /sarcasm tag at the end. I was pointing out the absurdity of the claim that we were ready to attack in September.

[Amelia]

Do you know why President G W H Bush could deploy for war in only two months, while President G W Bush II seems to need so much longer?

hmmm. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August, and we attacked Iraq in January...2 months?

[jpl]

Don't you know? It takes months and months, just oodles of months, to put our forces in place. And it is just too bad that, with the "blazing heat of the Iraqi summer" upon us again, we're going to have to postpone the whole thing again. Goshed darned it! I just hate it when that happens.

An associate of mine who shall remain nameless is currently in Kuwait. He tells me that the sandstorms have already started. He says that when they kick up they are so bad that they are almost blinding at times.

[TomB]

all the essential hardware was still in place

All? Not even close. We had enough stock prepositioned in Kuwait and Qatar for 3 brigades, about 15-25,000 troops.

and ordanace factories can turn out bombs in huge numbers when they want to.

Which factories are you referring to and what is their output per day?

[TomB]

Sorry, I meant to ping you to post 113.

[george wythe]

hmmm. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August, and we attacked Iraq in January...2 months?

The offensive military buildup did not start until November.

From November to January is 2 months.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Actually Sir/Madam, the rest of us have not the slightest idea what your definition of the answer would be,we're just dumb asses it seems. Would you be kind enough to explain the facts of life as you see them, in teenie weenie little words that we can sort of comprehend?

It almost sounds like you are saying things would be better if we had elected, Gore or maybe amended the Constitution so we could have kept BeeJob Bill in his sticky stinking, Oral office.

If you think Bush is going off to war without the wherewithal to fight and win,; you should have been around to see what the USA had going for us when FDR sent our troops off to save the world from Hitler, Musselini and Tojo. If you think the American people aren't behind President Bush and ready to sacrifice as much as neccessary-you have been listening to too much liberal Media Propaganda.

We will win this Iraq battle of the War on terrorism, and every other battle, until the the terrorist beg for a chance to unconditionally surrender. We will win because we all get going when the going gets tough and Quit is a word that is wasting it's time hanging out in American Dictionaries. We will win because we, the genuine adults of the USA, know that we are marked for death by our enemies whatever the pacifist, anti-war, Bush bashers would have us do to appease our souless, mindless, foes. It's us or them, and I trust Bush to do every thing humanly possible to see that it is not us!

[dirtboy]

The question isn't why the President wouldn't invade with 10,000 troops in September. The question is why their weren't more than 10,000 troops in September,

Given the searing weather in the Gulf during the summer months, I think it was better to stage troops during the winter months. Bush is cutting it a bit close to late April for my liking, but I don't think it takes an ulterior motive or conspiracy to explain the current timeframes.

[Amelia]

The offensive military buildup did not start until November.

You are wrong.

The 82nd Airborne and the 24th Infantry Division (now the 3rd ID) both began deploying to Saudi Arabia in August 1990.

[oceanview]

Well, any discussion requires some opinions about the specifics related to the topic. Sure, its hypothetical, but this isn't a courtroom with rules of evidence after all. People are just giving their opinions.

However, even the uncertainty you are willing to express about the anthrax is enough. So I would ask this, in light of this uncertainty, do you think its possible to have an Iraqi anthrax attack on a US city that our invasion might prompt?

I don't have any preconceived theories. But I know that I do not believe the Hatfill story, I just don't believe its a credible story when lined up against the facts and timelines about the mailings. And if that's the best explanation the govt can come up with (publicly at least), that tells me there is something else going on, and since we are dealing with a WMD inside the US, an extremely high level of caution is warranted. That's why the delays don't bug me. If you've listened to Rush lately, you'll hear that even he is starting to openly talk about the war possibly being a bluff.

[george wythe]

Defensive v. Offensive deployments.

Look at all the other divisions that were deployed here