's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Now Bush is in trouble(38 posts)

Now Bush is in troublecyclopath
Jan 28, 2003 5:59 AM
Blix's report expressly states that the inspection team has been given full access to all sites where they have requested an inspection. They have turned up nothing even vaguely conclusive re WMD. The rest of the world is asking from them to be given more time. There is no UN resolution to support a war now. Seems simple; let the inspections continue.

Oh but wait! Elections are looming! Bush has been sounding off for months and months, but still has no evidence! He can't justify a war now, but he has to act to save face!

Will he finally come clean, say that he doesn't give a stuff about the UN and World opinion, that he wants a war come what may, and get stuck in next month? Has he got the balls to do it honest, or will he just keep shouting the odds, and hoping that he can fabricate a justification for a slaughter?

Dear oh dear - this is what happends when you pass the sentence before you have the trial - what to do???
Try telling the whole storyAlpedhuez55
Jan 28, 2003 6:44 AM
Gee, it is amazing how you can take on sentence of a story in a pathetic attempt to make people think Bush is in trouble. Just like most arguments against action, you tend to leave out a lot of facts to try to support your weak argument. Maybe you should read a little deeper into it. Blix was actually pretty critical of them in his report. Here are a few of the facts you left out:

''Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it,'' Blix told the UN Security Council, declaring that Iraq has not fully accounted for previously known stocks of deadly anthrax, the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles.

He said Iraq was complying with inspections, but needed to do much more to support its contention that it no longer possesses banned weapons.

He also said that Iraq had provided ''no convincing evidence'' for the destruction of 8,500 liters of anthrax, which it asserted it had destroyed in 1991. Questions also remain, Blix said, as to whether Iraq has retained Scud-type missiles after the 1991 Gulf War and whether two ongoing missile programs violate a ban on missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers.

If someone wants to read this whole story from the Boston Globe here is the link:

Bottom line is Iraq is already in violation of Resolution 1441. Even if you want to continue to ignore that fact.

Mike Y.
facts are irrelevantDougSloan
Jan 28, 2003 7:27 AM
People posting these things are not concerned with the facts; hell, Saddam could nuke Israel right now and people would come on here saying Israel asked for it, and we shouldn't butt in. They will say anything to oppose President Bush. The fact that they keep making excuses to defend Saddam, a proven vicious, maniacal, dictator, is proof enough that the facts don't matter. Where were all the Saddam apologists / pacifists when Clinton was bombing? We didn't hear crap from them. They were too busy defending Clinton's sexual exploits and calling his victims whores and liars. It's so damn transparent, I don't know why anyone bothers discussing it.

Jan 28, 2003 7:31 AM
Are you OK this morning? You seem pretty aggrivated.....
To ideologues of any persuation. nm128
Jan 28, 2003 7:34 AM
It's entirely possible toOldEdScott
Jan 28, 2003 7:39 AM
think THIS war at THIS moment is wrongheaded with being a Saddam apologist or a pacifist, and it's entirely possible to conclude this is an ill-advised adventure without even thinking once about George Bush.

No American I know would say 'Israel asked for it' if Saddam nuked Israel.

Come on.
It's entirely possible toAlpedhuez55
Jan 28, 2003 8:23 AM
"No American I know would say 'Israel asked for it' if Saddam nuked Israel"

Maybe nobody would say that Ed, but we have had people throw out some pretty wild theories. Bottom line is almost all of the Anti-War movement is really an Anti-Bush movement. In doing so they usually become appolgists to Saddam. Saying things like Saddam is coopertating inpectors like the first post which ignored 90% of the story, it was OK for Saddam to gas Kurds because the British gassed them 90 years ago, it is OK to have chemical warheads if they are empty or if Saddams Chemical warheads can barely reach Israel, why should we care, it is not direct a threat to the US?

We all know that old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" but some people need to think about who the enemy really is. The problem is most of the opposition is to blinded by hate for Bush to make a reasonable argument against military action in Iraq.

Mike Y.
Hatred of Bush. Hatred of Clinton.OldEdScott
Jan 28, 2003 9:03 AM
Way too many people blinded by hate in America these days. Way too many aspersions cast on motives.

I say again: It's possible to see this war as ill-advised and potentially disastrous without:

(a) defending Saddam
(b) being a tree-hugging pacifist
(c) hating Bush

I offer myself as an example. I'd as soon string Saddam up in a public square, like Mussolini, as not. I've never hugged a tree, and I served in Vietnam, and I have absolutely no dislike, let alone hatred, for George Bush. I think he's a poor president, but the Republic has survived worse.

There are compelling reasonable arguments against this war at this moment that have nothing to do with personalities, presidencies or American politics, including:

Ten years as an occupation force in Iraq, with no assistance financial or otherwise from the international community, is one reasonable caution. The open-ended presence of American occupation forces in the Mideast, and all that will do to inflame the region and Islamists worldwide, is another. The hundreds of billions of dollars this will cost, at what untold damage to the economy we can only guess, is yet another. The spreading of American military forces too thin in the face of a possible confrontation with Korea, and with other governments we might wish to depose in the war on terrorism (remember that war? The one everyone supports?) is still another.

All this without compelling evidence of immediate necessity.

These are reasonable areas of concern and objection. I don't see how this can be considered anti-Bush, liberal, commie or whatever epithet you want to put on it.

But don't take my word that skepticism can be both reasonable and patriotic. Check Stormin Norman's take:
Hatred of Bush. Hatred of Clinton.Alpedhuez55
Jan 28, 2003 10:03 AM
Ed, there are many valid arguments that can be made against military action or to extend the inspections. Most of what we hear on this board and in the media is decidedly Anti Bush many mention either re-election or finshing his father's business as being the motivation for war.

Your points on possible occupation are valid though the "Hundreds of billions of Dollars" figure is off by quite a bit. Also, Clinton is only is usually mentioned to point out the scilence of the left when he took military actions such as bombing Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment. I have not hatred for Clinton and supported his use of force in Iraq. But I questioned the timing and felt more force should have been used when Iraq expelled weapons inpectors.

You are able to make a reasoned argument on these issues. My last post was by no means directed at you. Unfortunately most of the arguments we see on the board do use that type of logic and revolve around selective use, distortion or disregard of facts. Like the original post using one sentence of a an article to attack the president while ignoring the article which mentioned that Blix was critical.

Mike Y.
The voice of reason. OldEdScott.eyebob
Jan 28, 2003 10:06 AM
You probably won't get many responses to this post because it doesn't contain any vitriol and therfore doesn't necessarily lend itself to flaming retorts. On the one hand, I too am suspicious of most "them vs. us" types that take sides because it fits, but on the other hand, I would advise all to consider that perhaps, just perhaps, a side that's taken (one way or another) is actually done so after consideration of the facts and not simply becuase it's the opposite of what the other side thinks. Pick your issue, gun control, unfunded mandates, environment, war, etc.....

In the end, we're all in this together, right?

Maybe almost.Steve98501
Jan 28, 2003 5:14 PM

I've been anti-war for over 30 years, and Bush has been President for two, so I don't think that's a direct correlation to my opposition to Bush. I just don't think Bush is very smart, so I don't have confidence in him as my nation's leader. I do believe he's politically savy, however. My opposition to the war banter is separate from my opposition to Bush in that sense.

I believe Saddam's been out of compliance since day one of the 1991 resolutions. So why do we wait until 2002/2003 to beat the war drums to attack Iraq? If it's because of 9/11/01, then that seems an emotional reaction. Personally, I think it's bad judgement to engage in war based on emotions. I could get on board if there was a logical indication of a clear and present danger to U.S. security. WMD in Iraq doesn't qualify, considering that we engaged a cold of war of detente with the former Soviet Union for more than 40 years.

If I may ask, since N. Korea does have nuclear weapons and other WMD, and since N. Korea is defined by Bush as part of the "axis of evil", and N. Korea has a vicious dictator, are you as eager to engage N. Korea in war to extract a regime change? Why, or why not?


Maybe almost.Alpedhuez55
Jan 29, 2003 6:56 AM

THere are some posters on the board who make a good reasoned argument on the anti-war side. However, others just through out conspiricies and flawed logic. I know the antiwar movement is not entirely anti-bush. But much of the rhetoric on this board comes from that side if you look at previous posts.

I think 9/11 changed the way we look at terrorism. THe first attack was looked as a failure because it failed to kill a lot of people. I am sure if 9/11 did not happen, Bush would have been calling for inspections to resume. AN emotional response would have been carpet bombing Iraq a few days after 9/11. Pressuring Saddam to disarm or seek exile or face bombings 17 months after 9/11 is hardly a knee jerk emotional reaction. A prre-emptive strike against terroists is also better than waiting for another attack on US Soil.

I think the better time to act against Iraq would have been in 1998 when Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq. More than just the ill-timed few token bombings that were made should have been done.

I think Bush is prioritising threats. Afghanistan was first, then Iraq. If North Korea were an immediate threat, wouldn't we be hearing a lot more noise from South Korea and Japan asking us or the US or UN to step in. It is not an imminent threat. I think North Korea really wants economic concessions and is trying to flex a military muscle to do so. I think that can be handled diplomatically, which Bush is trying to do.

Unfortunately, so far Saddam is not responding as well as he should to diplomatic pressure so we will most likely be forced to respond militarily.

Mike Y.
If they don´t like you - kill them? nmcastrello
Jan 29, 2003 8:43 AM
Jan 29, 2003 10:16 AM

How do we look at terrorism?

I think most of the Homeland Security build up is more knee jerk than it is a credible reduction in U.S. vulnerability to terrorism. I don't think federalizing airport screeners makes air travel safer. I believe the horror of 9/11 makes air travel safer in that there will never be another airplane hijacking without automatic weapons or explosives on board. Passengers will never again allow a hijacking with box cutters or similar limited weapons. The U.S. remains vulnerable to terrorism via other techniques, and Bush's war on terrorism can't really do much about it unless we significantly reduce our personal liberty (too much already) and especially our business liberty, which I think corporate America won't stand for due to effects on profitability.

Carpet bombing Iraq a few days after 9/11 would have been worse than knee jerk since no one has yet been able to connect Iraq or Saddam with bin Laden or any of the perpetrators. Since the connection still hasn't been made, attacking Iraq because of Saddam's potential to harm U.S. interests seems a little like the movie Minority Report to me. There are many nations that could harm U.S. interests; yet Bush doesn't propose making war with them.

Last night, Bush said the U.S. couldn't contain Saddam because he might supply terrorists with WMD to use against the U.S. Certainly Saddam dreams of doing so, but Saddam is a smart ego-manical dictator. He wants more than anything to survive because dictatorships don't have pleasant retirement programs. The most successful is occasionally exile, but that is generally unacceptable to ego-maniacs who lust for both power and wealth. To stay in power, Saddam isn't going to supply WMD to any terrorist because he knows he'll be blamed whether it's true or not. And if the U.S. even thinks he supplied a WMD that is used against the U.S., he knows full well that we'll turn him and much of his country to dust. I think Saddam can be contained, much as the U.S. and Soviet Union contained one another through detente. As much as Saddam dispises the U.S., he fears losing his wealth and power even more, which is likely why he has behaved just as badly as he could get away with over the past 11 years or so.

Now if we're acting against Iraq because of non-compliance with U.N. resolutions, I agree that the appropriate window of opportunity was 1998. Trying to turn the clock back makes the U.S. look pretty bad.

Shifting gears a bit, I wonder if our new Homeland Security department will examine ways the U.S. could reduce terrorism threats by looking in the mirror and asking if our national behavior incites terror responses. And if the U.S. could modify any such behaviors with no reduction is national security. You might guess that I'm referring to the U.S.' blind support of Israel at the direct expense of the Palistinians. I really believe, perhaps too idealistically, that if the U.S. supplied every aid to the Palistinians, measure for measure, that we supply Israel, you could watch Islamic hatred of the U.S. drop like a falling barometer. No, I don't think it is just that simple, but I think that is by far the biggest piece of it. The U.S. has long supported Israeli ecomomic, political, and social terrorism of the Palistinians and then chastises the Arabs for a few retalitory suicide bombings. Consider if you will, Palistinian mothers don't raise their sons to become suicide bombers. People perform such acts only out of feelings of extreme desparation, which the U.S. helped create. Unfortunately, it does look like the U.S. is anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, and our national behavior has resulted in the logical consequences of Arab terrorist response to the U.S.

No matter what Homeland Security does, we are waiting for the next terrorist attack on the U.S. There are more holes in security than we are willing to close. The only way to truly reduce the likelihood of an attac
I agreee on Homeland SecurityAlpedhuez55
Jan 29, 2003 1:01 PM
I think it is too big an agency. It was an over-reaction and very knee jerk. I think there are better ways to share intelligence than to create a huge agency. Simply having liason officers to make sure they would work together rather than have the FBI & CIA try to trump each other would have been a better option.

Actually there was a box cutter found on a plane in Boston yesterday. I think you are right about the passengers not letting that happen again judging from the interviews of the passengers in the newspaper.

You are also right about borders. They are much too open. Also they seem afraid to tighten the Student Visa and other immigration programs that are being used to get terrorists into this country.

It is funny you mentioned "Minority Report" since I deleted a reference to it in my reply to you. THis is not a case of someone thinking of doing something. It is a response to someone who has been on Probation for 12 years and is not changing his ways. Rather than supply information the UN requested, he is lying about it. He was given a final warning but keeps repeating the same crimes.

Terrorism I beleive does come into play here since he is capable of giving these terrorists conventional, chemical or biological weapons or support via funding or allowing them to train within his borders. I feel 9/11 just helped make what should have been done in 1998 even more urgent. If it makes the prior administration look bad, so be it. I think if 9/11 had not happenned, we still would be pursuing simular action, it is just given a higher priority.

I also do not consider the Israeli government terrorists which you implied. THey are trying to protect their own soil. I do not agree with all of their tactics and think they overreact. I think genuine efforts at peace are hurt by extremists on both sides and what progress was made was turned back due to Hammas stepping up suicide bombings and Israel being forced to respond. The situation has little to do with the current situation other than the terrorists using US Support of Israel to justify murdering incocent people. THat does not justify their actions.

I disagree with you on another point. THe US is neither anti-arab or anti-muslim. Anti Islamic Fundementalists terrorists, yes. There have been to many efforts to help develop the area and we do have allies there. Much of my brother in law's business is with companies in the middle east. Muslims are free to practice their religion here. Yes there were a some unfortunate incidents of racism here following 9/11. But that does not make us a anti arab nation.

Detente cannot work with terrorism because terrorism has no borders. I feel Iraq is a terrorist state. They tried to turn Kuwait into the 19th province and failed. If he did not have WMD he would have disclosed the informaton to the UN. Instead he is lying about what he has and deceiving inspectors. You do not feel Iraq is a terrorist state and I respectfully disagree.

Mike Y.
Iraq as a terrorist stateSteve98501
Jan 29, 2003 4:51 PM

I haven't said that Iraq is not a terrorist state. It could be. Or not. I really don't know. And it appears our President and his intelligence units don't know. They may feel or think it is. If indeed they know, they haven't shared any emperical evidence.

Let's say you're right. That Iraq is a terrorist state. Consider this scenario. We attack and destroy any possibility of Iraq providing any WMD to any terrorist. Yet, within a short time there is another major terrorist attack on the U.S. Hmmm, terrorists have potential cooperators and weapons sources other than Saddam in Iraq. There's Iran, N. Korea, one of the former Soviet states, and others; I don't get this focus on Iraq. Saddam is about as secular as they come. Even if he were inclined to provide weapons to religious terrorists in order to strike at the U.S., why would he? He knows we'll not hesitate to take him out if it even looks like he could have been the supplier. He loses his power and wealth. That's not in his interest. Saddam pursues his interests and will try to hang out to what he has at all costs.

You said, "I also do not consider the Israeli government terrorists which you implied. THey are trying to protect their own soil." Many people who are not Palistinians don't think the Israelis commit acts of terror. However, what is it that they do when Palistinians try to protect their own soil? They displace them, with force if necessary, and with lethal force if necessary, including non-combatant men, women, and children. Hmmm, looks a lot like terrorism to me, and especially to witnesses. And there's more, but it could fill a book. I agree that the U.S. is not anti-Arab nor anti-Muslim, at least officially. But appearances count. And the Arab world observes our unconditional support of Israel as it brutalizes Palistinians. Perceptions might be wrong, but apparently very many Arabs perceive the U.S. as being anti-Palistinian, other Arabs identify with Palistinians at some level, and therefore they perceive us as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.

You also said, "The situation has little to do with the current situation other than the terrorists using US Support of Israel to justify murdering incocent people." Israel murders innocent people with tanks, helicopters, and missles supplied by the U.S. Radical Arab Muslims are outraged by Israel's behavior and what they see as U.S. complicity, so they decide to attack us. I think the situation has more to do with the U.S./Israel/Palistinian connection than you do. If party A (Iraq) supplies weapons to party B (terrorists) that are used against party C (U.S.), then party C is outraged and decides to attack party A. It's another twist on the same theme. I ask only that you reconsider the possibility that the U.S. has behaved in ways that facilitate, if not create, the perception and appearance of complicity with terrorism against a particular Arab/Muslim group. While there may be other reasons for a U.S. / Arab clash, I can think of no other so volitile.

As a result, I believe that by attacking Iraq, Arab/Muslims will be even more outraged against the U.S. than they are already. The likely consequence is an increase in the number of terror attacks, or attempts, on the U.S. And this could happen all while the U.S. believes it's doing the Arab world a favor by whacking a dictator and creating a foundation for democracy. And it's not like the U.S. promotes democracy in the Middle East. We set up and supported a dictator in Iran from 1954 to 1979, as I recall. And we do a lucrative business with dictators in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bharain (sp), and others, I suppose.

So what are we really doing? Deciding after 12 years to finally enforce the terms of the Desert Storm cease-fire? If I could truly see the 9/11 connection, I might support it. It just doesn't seem to be there. It looks like Bush has picked his favority enemy, trumped up charges that
Iraq as a terrorist stateAlpedhuez55
Jan 29, 2003 7:52 PM
Well, I guess we will have to disagree on these points. You have strong anti-Israel views. I think Israel is the lesser evil of many evil states in the region. I think they do a lot of bad things but they are our strongest ally in the Middle East. I am not going to defend all of Israel's actions nor any of the other States there we support there that are as bad or worse than Israel and feel more.

I would prefer we not have any dependency on that region. I feel most of those states and probably Iran as well, would like to see Saddam out. Though some radical islamic fundimentalists would try to use it as recruiting tool. But it would make the region more stable.

We will see what evidence is supplied next month. Some people will not be convinced no matter what. I feel Iraq is a bigger threat than Iran or N. Korea and Bush's priorities are in the right place. Saddam would give the terrorists weapons because we are a greater threat to him then the US is. The same reason we supported him when he was fighting Iran. He thinks he can get away with anything, because we have let him get away with too much already. That cycle needs to stop.

Mike Y.
so are promisesbigskulls
Jan 28, 2003 8:25 AM
We'll get him dead or alive.

Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and shortlived.

no child left behind.
As weak as it getsCasual Viewer
Jan 28, 2003 9:58 AM
a combo of agrumentum as homenim, "God, it's just to OBVIOUS that I'm right that it's beneath me to even tell you why" and "anyone that discusses this is just so stupid". How impressive.

Kinda hard when the "other side" have some arguments that you just won't consider/can't stomach isn't it?

I bet Bush fans are real glad to have your support.
a bit too generalDuane Gran
Jan 28, 2003 11:42 AM
I think it is a big generalization to say that being pro-war equates to being pro-bush and visa-versa. I am generally supportive of Bush, but I am not convinced that Iraq poses a threat to the American way of life. I think Hussein is a bad person, not unlike Il of North Korea or other unsavory places in the world.

On one level I believe in giving our leaders the benefit of the doubt. Possibly they have evidence against Iraq that is too sensitive to release to the general public, however it isn't pursuasive to hear the pro-war crowd make an issue of Iraq breaking the resolution's finer points. The essense of the UN resolution is to determine if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. From what I can tell, the inspectors have a sneaking suspicion and no smoking gun, so I'm all in favor of the inspectors carrying onward as planned.

I'm starving for facts here like many Americans. I certainly harbor an opinion (bias?) but I think most people will favor war if it is demonstrated that Iraq poses a threat.
Here's how to get virtually 100 percent support forOldEdScott
Jan 28, 2003 11:59 AM
the war: Prove that Iraq is harboring Bin Laden.

You don't think the American people would get behind that?

A bonus thought:

We've had absolutely no luck finding Bin Laden. Who wants to bet against Saddam having a very clever escape plan, should war come? And who wants to bet we'd have any more luck finding him than we've had finding Bin Laden?
Jan 28, 2003 12:13 PM
I'd bet that Saddam would be far easier to provide a "heart attack" for than BinIdiot. Osama is a soldier--a self-stylized/self-taught one in the same sense that any terrorist is--but also one of necessity and practicality. He's learned to eschew the trappings of his pampered upbringing, and he's been living in the field for years. As such, he's developed the ability to disappear into the land and go to ground when necessary. Incidentally, we HAD great luck finding Osama, but political stupidity within the federal gov't and DOD cost us the chance to aerate his skull with some 5.56mm holes.

Saddam? Typical power-mad dictator. He's all about palaces, oppulence, wealth, etc. I'd bet his flight would be more akin to Idi Amin's, although he'd be a more sought-after target. As such, I personally think that he'd have a hard time blending in quietly anywhere, nor do I think many other regional dictators would want him in their countries for fear of reprisal from us.

When we put our mind to it, we can make things happen. Remember, Aidid died due to "medical complications" shortly after we fully withdrew from Somalia.

The corollary issue would be that of the 6 Saddams. Which one do we nail? All six? How many resources will that take? I don't know. BUT, I do like the idea of Survivor 5 featuring the various Saddam dopplegangers, where loosing an immunity challenge means the others get to eat the loser.
You're right. Caves aren't Saddam's style. He mayOldEdScott
Jan 28, 2003 12:24 PM
have a nice little country chalet awaiting him in North Korea though. WOuldn't that be just the icing on the cake?
Yeah, especially if it didn't have power or hot water! nmsn69
Jan 28, 2003 12:32 PM
If he flees to Korea,OldEdScott
Jan 28, 2003 12:41 PM
he may soon have all the power he can stand, and water 50,000 degrees!
Jan 28, 2003 12:47 PM
facts are irrelevantSteve98501
Jan 28, 2003 4:57 PM
Uhmm Doug,

The United States has a track record of installing and supporting ". . . proven vicious, maniacal dictator(s)" in Central and South America and the Middle East. Therefore, I hesitate, at least slightly, to criticize those who suggest we not rush to blast Saddam out of existance. Hell, I'm no fan of Saddam - to put it very mildly, but if he nuked Israel, I'd have to ask how that's any less just than what the Israelis are and have been slowly doing to the Palestinians these past 50 years.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal, but I oppose Bush's lust for war with Iraq because I think he's nuts; or more specifically, he is a foreign policy disaster, not because I'm an apologist. And I don't see the situation as so damn transparent, which is probably why we do end up discussing it.

The whole story indeed!torquer
Jan 28, 2003 8:56 AM
Responding to an interviewer's question on NPR yesterday about why Iraq posed such a threat to the US now, an administration apologist (I think it was Andrew Card) claimed that the president had information that the rest of us didn't, and would act on the basis of that information to protect the country.

Now the last time I remember this line of arguement being used was by LBJ as he was escalating the war in Vietnam. (Yeah, I opposed that one too.) As it turns out, that administration's insiders knew the war was not going to succeed, but they just couldn't figure out any face-saving strategy for withdrawal (this was admitted by Robert McNamara in his memoir published a few years ago). So the final obscenity addded to that sad chapter of our history was the absolute hypocrisy of the leadership, condemning thousands to death not through malice or stupidity, as we charged them with at the time, but for no other reason than their own lack of balls.

The current administration, of course, is run by True Believers, not hypocrites, at least in matters of war and peace (i.e. Star Wars redux, a true "faith-based inititative" if there ever was one.) Maybe the Rostow brothers don't look so bad after all.
They are protecting sourcesAlpedhuez55
Jan 28, 2003 9:12 AM
It may not come in the State of the Union, but there is supposedly some strong evidence that both Bush and Blair are very aware of. It is very likely they have intelligence sources in Iraq that they would want to remove before any acton is taken. It is only natural to protect these sources. Disclosing this information to the public now could put the lives of these sources in danger.

WHen these sources are safe, I am sure both Bush and Blair will identify some of the information. This would also more than likely come before any attack is made. Most likely they will release something later in the week after Bush & Blair meet. I would not expect Andy Card to release any major information, especially on NPR.

Mike Y.
Where did you get this info? Or is it just imagination? nmcastrello
Jan 29, 2003 8:50 AM
Just read the newspapersAlpedhuez55
Jan 29, 2003 9:17 AM
Both Bush and Blair have been talking about evidence over the past several weeks. It has been all over the news. THere are times when it is appropriate to relase information to the public. For me what is most convincing that this evidence must be strong is the strength of Tony Blair's resolve on this matter.

As for your other post, premptive strikes at terrorists and terrorist states are warranted. Are we supposed to just wait for the next attacks before we do anything? It is not a matter of us not liking them so we kill them. There are groups of fundelmentalists that will do anything to disrupt and destroy western civilization. It is a matter of stopping or weakening these groups and states that support them before they able to kill again.

Mike Y.
Here's the big question I have...Wayne
Jan 28, 2003 7:52 AM
CNN is reporting that Bush et al. will release info. that top Iraqi's are still trying to hide WMD type stuff, yet we now hear that the inspectors have been able to go where ever they have wanted. So why don't we give the weapon inspectors the low-down so they can catch these guys red handed?

I'm still waiting for Bush to provide some evidence. I really hope his "evidence" isn't some general who has defected who says the Iraqi's are hiding WMD.

I really wonder what would happen if the Iraqi's shaped up and did everything their suppose to be doing, would Bush find something to claim that war is necessary. It just seems that so far no matter what, Bush is determined to get into a war. He hasn't once shown the least bit of regret that this course of action is necessary.
It certainly does seem that way.OldEdScott
Jan 28, 2003 8:14 AM
Even though the administration's expressed desire has devolved from 'regime change'to 'disarming,' it seems unlikely Iraq could ever convince the Bush folks that it had truly disarmed. So we're just picking nits with all this inspection business.
It would seemsn69
Jan 28, 2003 8:22 AM
that the type of evidence required would be something analogous to Kennedy's photos of the Cuban missiles. I can only guess that the reason that we haven't provided that sort of evidence to the inspectors is either because it doesn't exist or, more likely, because the Iraqis have had 12 years to hide these things in the deep desert.

On the other hand, the inspectors are hunting not only for physical evidence, but also for the paper trail that provides strong evidence of weapons development. Some of these things might seem trite or meaningless to the uninformed; items such as certain types of aluminum pipes or certains grades of lead plate metal that, when purchased in sufficient quantities, can only be used for weapons development. Remember, there are not a zillion permutations of how one goes about building these things. The infrastructure nuclear and chemical weapons require is pretty specific, although to the untrained eye, most of these items seem mudane. We've already found a great deal of this stuff--it's in Blixs report.

Is this enough to convice the public and a skeptical world of a "smoking gun?" A nuclear phycisist would say yes as would the military. A skeptic, a critic of Bush, a member of another nation, however, would all say not yet. The French? Well...they'd bitch just to bitch. Also, let's not forget that Bush doesn't enjoy a good image abroad (nor did Clinton or Bush Sr), and much of Europe's reluctance is also due to the vast quantities of oil that they get from Iraq via second-hand commerce through Russia.

The anthrax and warheads were a surprise to us all, and I'd wager to guess that some Iraqi military supply folks have already been whacked by Hussein for being so careless with that material.

But--and here's the meat of the issue--for actual WMDs, the inspectors lack the resources to find what that government has had years to hide in various places in a vast nation that's largely uninhabited. The US won't tell the inspectors where to look in the desert because to do so would compromise our "assets" in the field who are recce'ing the area (and targetting...). That's where our President has to come clean. If he's got photographic evidence, now's the time to show it.

The support we need to garner with the rest of the world is critical if we are to do this. Without them, I fear the resulting backlash, particularly from the rest of the Muslim world. We don't want to drive more recruits to the alQaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah camps....
Therein lies the problem...eyebob
Jan 28, 2003 9:58 AM
As eloquently as you stated the case for putting the paper trail together, the US public needs to hear that from Bush. His mistake has been to a)swagger around thinking that this is what'll make his case (re-stating "empty" claims) to the US public, b) changing his stance (regime change to disarmement) and c) sending his boys out with the message that the paper trail does represent significant evidence that Saddam has WMDs. The prez needs to be the one saying that, loud and clear. He needs to articulate that this is the fact. I'm not sure that he can, and he hasn't shown that he can without a script in front of him. (Which is why he takes the "moron" rap that he does)

Tonight he should connect the dots explicitly (without comprimising his sources for information) and let the chips fall where they may.

Bottom line, you, me, and the US are going to war to get rid of Saddam.

Jan 28, 2003 10:21 AM
And trust me, I've got to tread lightly on how I choose my words.... President Bush has been handed everything in life from the begining to his ANG commission to college and so on. I'm not sure if he's currently playing a well scripted game or if he honestly doesn't understand that he works for the American people and is obligated to answer such questions so long as they don't pose threats to our people in the field. With all of the talent around him, however, one has to assume that these issues are discussed in staff and cabinet meetings. (Or, at least, one would hope.)

The Prez needs to not only convince the American public, but also Europe at the very least. I doubt that the Muslim world will be swayed due to the pre-existing mutual levels of hatred, mistrust and cultural differences. They will support action against Iraq inasmuch as their oil reserves are directly threatened or their business interests are affected.

There is another factor in the time-critical nature of things that some members of the public cannot comprehend. Why not wait 6 more months if we are REALLY going to do this? Simple, we'll end up killing a lot of our own people if they're wearing MOPP gear in the summer.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating war--I don't want anyone to misconstrue that. Rather, if the nation does engage Iraq, there are certain strategic and tactical factors that play into the decision process. FWIW, the war won't start tomorrow or even next week. The Army has yet to deploy in sufficient numbers.
I too "have to chose my words carefully", buteyebob
Jan 28, 2003 10:28 AM
not to the same degree that you do. (I think that we're talking about the same thing here).

FWIW, I think that this war like all that I can think of is made riskier (from a US personnel stand point) because of the way that politics mixes in to it. But I suppose that politics is the check/balance in the system.

Be well.

I too "have to chose my words carefully", butsn69
Jan 28, 2003 10:31 AM

By the way, the "lawyer fight" bit had me in stiches. Everyone kept asking what I was laughing at. Particularly our JAG.