Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's 'days, weeks' add up to 6 months
Wash Times ^ | Joseph Curl

Posted on 03/14/2003 9:16:56 AM PST by Sir Gawain

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:01:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

President Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 13

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-214 next last
Some important dates of Desert Storm:
August 8, 1990: Iraq annexes Kuwait

August 22, 1990: President Bush authorizes calling up the reserves.

November 8, 1990: Bush orders additional deployments to give "offensive option" to US forces.

November 29, 1990: UN Security Council authorizes force if Iraq doesn’t withdraw from Kuwait by midnight EST January. 15.

January 12, 1991: Congress votes to allow for US troops to be used in offensive operations.

January 16, 1991: Marlin Fitzwater announces, "The liberation of Kuwait has begun..."


81 posted on 03/14/2003 11:41:06 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
But, as Barnes says, he's a crack reporter.

Oh, puh-leeze - how on earth do you believe someone who claims to have interviewed a comatose man? Woodward's books belong in fiction, with the preface "The accounts in this book are BASED on actual events"

82 posted on 03/14/2003 11:41:27 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution : October 11, 2002


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."


83 posted on 03/14/2003 11:42:54 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: knak
Helen Thomas is getting full access private interviews with all members of the WH senior staff?
84 posted on 03/14/2003 11:43:15 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Remember that Turkey waffled for some time before finally turning us down

Are you blaming Turkey for this delay?

85 posted on 03/14/2003 11:46:14 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I think it is not so much window dressing as the battle over "so let it be written, so let it be done", i.e. how the war will be looked at in future diplomatic confrontations and conflicts. A large part of it may be a temperance of the doctrine of pre-emption. We definitely don't want every country or tribe in the world with a gripe to be attacking their enemies and then claiming "Well the US made it ok". We want to be able to say we went every extra mile to accomplish a task that everybody agrees needs to be done before we took matters into our own hands and beheaded the snake.

I hadn't really thought of this until about 5 minutes ago. I hate diplomacy, could never be a diplomat, but if I were the President I might realize that it is the only way to minimize the impact of the law of unintended consequences.
86 posted on 03/14/2003 11:46:37 AM PST by johnb838 (Lets Roll... Plleeeeaaaazzzzzeeeee!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
we have been ready to attack iraq since last september

Actually, that isn't what Franks was saying. He was responding to a question concerning the change in tactics from defending Kuwait to invading Iraq:

    Franks' comments come after the Bush administration released a report Friday outlining a new aggressive national security policy.

You inadvertantly left that out of your post.

You also left this small point out:

    The number of U.S. troops currently training in Kuwait has grown to nearly 10,000. More than double the number that have taken part in past exercises.

Wow, 10,000. Sound like all the pieces were in place.

87 posted on 03/14/2003 11:46:39 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
we have been ready to attack iraq since last september

From the article you bumped:

The number of U.S. troops currently training in Kuwait has grown to nearly 10,000. More than double the number that have taken part in past exercises.

Note the number of troops in Kuwait in September - 10,000. Pop quiz - how many troops would you rather have assembled for an invasion force - 10,000? Or 300,000? This is a toughie, take all the time you need.

88 posted on 03/14/2003 11:47:01 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
I didn't say that. I'm tired of the old coot being picked to answer those ridiculous questions.
89 posted on 03/14/2003 11:47:05 AM PST by knak (kelly in alaska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I don't know the details of the Casey thing, although I remember hearing about it. Obviously, it hasn't been enough to sway the opinion of Barnes and the rest of the DC insiders as to Woodward's basic credibility.

The point remains. You say you won't make any guesses or inferences regarding the origin of the anthrax, it's possible implications for war policy, or what the President may be weighing when making his decisions. Are you willing to discuss, hypothetically, what might follow if there was intelligence indicating Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and the anthrax mailings?

If all you are willing to discuss is what is evident from agreed upon facts, what is your basis for believing that the only reason we haven't attacked Baghdad yet is because the forces weren't in place? What is your basis for believing that an attack is imminent? Please quote your sources.

90 posted on 03/14/2003 11:47:25 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
p.s. It would help if I didn't believe that our state department is rotten to the corps. (misspelling intentional)
91 posted on 03/14/2003 11:47:41 AM PST by johnb838 (Lets Roll... Plleeeeaaaazzzzzeeeee!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Are you blaming Turkey for this delay?

For part of it - I think if had Turkey agreed to basing rights, we would have been ready by the first week of March, maybe earlier. I'm not sure how long it'll take to redeploy the assets and revised the battle plan, but it has to be a factor.

92 posted on 03/14/2003 11:48:22 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'm not sure how long it'll take to redeploy the assets and revised the battle plan, but it has to be a factor.

Do you think it's possible that another factor influencing the battle plan is the possibility of Iraqi retaliation against allied civilian targets via terrorist proxies?

93 posted on 03/14/2003 11:51:02 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
Are you willing to discuss, hypothetically, what might follow if there was intelligence indicating Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and the anthrax mailings?

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. 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. 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.

94 posted on 03/14/2003 11:51:25 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
Do you think it's possible that another factor influencing the battle plan is the possibility of Iraqi retaliation against allied civilian targets via terrorist proxies?

It's always a possibility, but I'll stick with the most obvious answer first. Most of those assets destined for Turkey were on ships in the Mediterranean. They had to transit the Suez Canal and sail around Arabia to get in theater, and then unloaded and all equipment checked out and moved forward. That takes time.

95 posted on 03/14/2003 11:52:57 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
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?

I'm baffled

96 posted on 03/14/2003 11:53:22 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wordsmith
Helen Thomas is getting full access private interviews with all members of the WH senior staff?

Only those having trouble sticking to their diets.

97 posted on 03/14/2003 11:53:37 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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?
98 posted on 03/14/2003 11:54:10 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
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?

Look at the state of the military left to them by their respective predecessors. GHW Bush inherited Reagan's military, GW Bush inherited Clinton's military. C'mon, this isn't that hard to figure out...

99 posted on 03/14/2003 11:54:40 AM PST by dirtboy (The Pentagon thinks they can create TIA when they can't even keep track of their own contractors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

Is the author of this piece (specifically the title) suggesting that we had our military set in place ready to roll 6 months ago?
100 posted on 03/14/2003 11:58:27 AM PST by GOPyouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-214 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson