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

Wash Times ^ | Joseph Curl

[george wythe]

I've heard winter is best,

That's what I've read also.

but I've also heard that after spending half the summer at Ft. Irwin, our troops are quite capable of fighting in the heat of summer in Iraq

I hope you're right.

I'm praying for the least amount of casualties, so if fighting during the summer months is no more dangerous than fighting during the winter months, I'm a happy camper.

[Wordsmith]

Anthrax, as we have seen, is treatable if diagnosed properly.

See my last post.

An attack on a city would cost some lives, but not the millions that an unrecognized epidemic would.

It depends on the nature of the attack. If a sufficient quantity of anthrax were used - we're talking pounds, not tons - it could easily result in, to quote the President, "a day of horror unlike anything we've ever seen."

Since 9/11, we have stockpiled antibiotics and vaccines, prepared emergency plans for major cities, educated health care workers on symptoms,sent warnings to crop-dusters and small airports, and spent a great amount of time rounding up suspected terrorists. There is still a risk, but not the risk we faced right after 9/11.

My work in the public health and safety field has enabled me to see this preparations at work. I'm stunned at how much the professionals involved have managed to accomplish. They are unsung heroes. However, they were also starting from a point of complete unpreparedness. We haven't come close to achieving an acceptable level of civil defense in preparation for a bioterrorism attack. If you want to personalize this, I suggest you take a look at the website for your state office of homeland security and your state public health department. Most of the necessary preparations across the nation are still in their beginning stages.

Were we unable to assume the risk, we would not have 300,000 men deployed in the Persian Gulf area. That is a huge cost in money, as well as a disruption of families and loss of life in training and transport. This was not done for a bluff.

It's not a bluff, and I think that there's a strong chance that these troops will go in and go in hard and fast IF Hussein executes another major terrorist attack. The deployment is a huge national sacrifice, but these troops will be used - once we're ready, unless we're provoked in to attacking immediately. The President is, as he has said, a patient man.

[TLBSHOW]

The point is we are ready have been ready and because of our trying to get the UN on board we are being made to look like fools!
......

White Says Army Ready for Whatever President Asks
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2002 -- The Army is ready for whatever President Bush asks it to do, Army Secretary Thomas White said during a press roundtable here Oct. 31.

White stressed the president has not made a decision on using force in Iraq, but said that the service is ready to carry out any mission.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/n10312002_200210313.html

[Wordsmith]

How are you going to convince people to get the anthrax vaccine, unless you tell them the truth about the anthrax threat? If a civilian vaccine were available right now, I bet if you took a poll and asked people if they would volunteer to take it, less then 5% would.

I agree completely. The nature of the threat will have to be revealed once the vaccine is ready. Perhaps a "discovery" of an anthrax cache?

[BJR]

Thanks. Hope Dirtboy sees your post, but doubt he bothers to read anything that doesn't fit his preconceived notions of reality.

[TomB]

Nowhere do any of your posts support you assertion that we had all ours assets in place in September. It's all standard military boilerplate "We are ready to do whatever the Commander-in-Cheif asks of us".

[dirtboy]

The truth hurts doesn't it pal.

I'll take your word for it, as it doesn't hurt my position, just yours.

Go ahead and stay in your silly little zone. You justify Bush making grossly misleading statements and backtracking for Tony Blair's benefit.

Ah, yes, diplomacy - the place for telling all countries what our true and actual agenda is. ** SNORT ** Are you this funny on purpose?

What is that if not politics? And then you criticize me for being political.....what pathetic logic.

It's hardly political to support a leader in another country who is your ally. You, however, seem more than willing to undercut the President right now.

[Mr. Mojo]

GHWB: "Read my lips, I will not raise taxes." ....He then proceeded to raise taxes, and very well could've launched Clinton's eight year Prez run because of it.

GWB: "It'll be days and weeks, not months and years." ....Well, it's been many months already. And if he doesn't see this thing through, and pronto, he'll also be looking at one-term.

Message to Bush: Let's freakin' roll.

[dirtboy]

Thanks. Hope Dirtboy sees your post, but doubt he bothers to read anything that doesn't fit his preconceived notions of reality.

Gawd, you're killing me! Did you bother to read the rest of the excerpt? As of September 2002, when TLBSHOW says we were ready to take on Iraq, there were 10,000 troops in Kuwait.

Here's a towel to wipe all that egg off your face.

[TomB]

Here's " preconceived notions of reality".

TLBSHOW posts part of an article that he claims proves that we were ready to attack Iraq in September. In the EXACT SAME article, it says that the total number of troops in Kuwait at the time was 10,000.

Do you really think that 10,000 troops are enough to invade Iraq?

[deport]

Read that sentence again.

---

The gift doesn't always work..... and the truth never needs a gift to be known.....

[BJR]

I am sure your trust is heartfelt, but it is also misguided.
If you do not believe the president has not stirred up the public by now, you are just not paying attention, and certainly not following the threads here.

I pray the president's foot-dragging does not end up costing more lives than was necessary in the war.

[TLBSHOW]

He is alright and we have agreeded and disagreed before. Fact is we have been ready for over 1 year to do this but the UN is being courted and in my opinion for one reason only to make it stronger than it ever was. I hope I am wrong and I hope they vote not to go and we go without them. But fact is we have wasted 6 months and let the world opinion come against us and we have let the anti-war commies get in place to do us damage when if we had gone earlier we would be done with the UN dance by now and Iraw would be liberated now. As it is we are instead hoping the UN is on our side. Why? You tell me. I say because the President or Powell wants to make them strong.

[TLBSHOW]

Tommy Franks said we were ready back in July 2002 he said it in Sept 2002, isn't he the one in charge? He reported to the President we were ready.

But he said the President wanted to go the route of the UN. So we wait and wait to get the UN on board! Why?

[BJR]

I wish you were right but don't think you are. I believe Powell has brainwashed Bush into believing that the US will face isolation and reprisals from the world if we stiff-arm the UN and go without them. It's wrong, but I could have accepted it if Bush had not been so outspoken and posturing about going to war for the last six months.

No matter what happens now, the US has been made to look weak and intimidated by France and its friends.

[dirtboy]

Funny, he's not responding to that...

[TomB]

As it is we are instead hoping the UN is on our side. Why? You tell me. I say because the President or Powell wants to make them strong.

Wrong again.

Aside from killing time until the pieces are in place and weakening the UN, we are doing this to give Tony Blair political cover. Here is a quote from one of the rebel MPs Martin Salter, "Even among those who have fundamental problems with the government's policy towards Iraq, there is a grudging and genuine respect for his manifest personal convictions on the issue, and for persuading America to put the issue to the U.N."

And if Bush wanted to strengthen the UN, why all this comparison to the League of Nations? By ignoring the UN when we go into Iraq, Bush is weakening it not strenghtening it.

[Miss Marple]

Why? Because the resolution authorizing force against Iraq, pased by Congress last year, did so ONLY AFTER ALL DIPLOMATIC MEANS HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED. Diplomatic means = UN.

[BJR]

Have no idea what the number of troops needs to be. I just know that if the US was not ready to attack then Bush should not have run off his mouth implying that war was imminent, UN or no UN, for the last three months.

[TomB]

Tommy Franks said we were ready back in July 2002 he said it in Sept 2002, isn't he the one in charge? He reported to the President we were ready.

He most certainly did not. Here is the exchange again:

COSBY: Would we be ready militarily now if we did go in, hypothetically? Are we physically ready right now militarily?

FRANKS: I think the [Defense] Secretary - as a matter of fact, I think I have said we are prepared to do whatever the president asks us to do.

He ducks the question. Nowhere does he say "Yes Rita, we are physically ready right now military". You don't know a non-answer when you see one.

Or maybe you do. How about answering how we were going to invade Iraq with only 10000 troops?