President Bush just concluded his press conference and I'd like to hear what you think.

Answer your questions?

Say anything new?

Change anyone's mind?

How'd he handle himself?

On the 'anything new' question, I was surprised that he said we were going to call for a UN vote regardless of what it looked like the outcome would be. I admire him for having the guts to do that. Like he said, it's time for the members of the security council to lay their cards on the table.

Ps....I'll be heading off to sleep soon. I hope that when I wake up in the morning it will be to the news that Bin Laden is ours.

One question that was answered was one on North Korea:



I figured he would use negotiations but when he decided to send B-1 bombers, i kinda thought otherwise.
(BTW: It was nice of him to give Bill Clinton a little credit from past negotiations )

How he handled him self: He stayed cool & calm & didn't go all-out bonkers a calling Saddam a lunatic & say that "this guy tried to kill my dad"

But what really touched me was this:

Actually i loved every word the president had to say about it. He gives us a dead line which is good. If the united nations dont act on the deadline we SHOULD procedde without them

Tonight, the President once again cited 9/11 as a justification for unilateral, preventive war against Iraq. But the moment that struck me most was his response to this question about whether such a war would invite "more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment": He replied that he found it "hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001."

Personally, my sense was that the reporter in this quote meant "more" terrorism in the *quantitative* sense, not in the qualitative sense (i.e., "worse" terrorism), as the President's reply seemed to assume.

But I think that this exchange nails down precisely where I most disagree with the Administration: I certainly *can* imagine that a new Iraq war "could lead to more terrorism"--in fact, I think that it more than likely will:

Overthrowing Saddam will inevitably means flooding al Jazeera with images of Arabs killed & then ruled (however temporarily) by Americans.

Does anyone seriously doubt that such images of Americans will motivate more terrorism? Will, in other words, make future 9/11s *more* & not less likely?

Isn't it a little late in the game to be going to Congress for the funding? He hasn't even given people an idea of how he is going to face the challenges afterwards. Are we to believe he is so stupid he's playing it by ear? Or does he know exactly what he's going to do and that no one would allow it in Congress or on the streets and must wait to the day of the bombings to put forth his spending request?

I hadn't heard Bush support the exile option before. That was a new one for me.

My favorite moment of double speak was when he followed up a comment that the people of Iraq will have the form of government that they decide upon with a later comment that basically said, "as long as it is democracy."

His second comment about post war government laid out his vision for a federation in which Kurds, Shi'ite, and Sunni Iraqis all had an independent voice in government.

It sounds like we have a clear plan for laying the foundations of a specific type of government for a postwar Iraq.

I think he did his best to let us know that while there may be no direct link to 9/11, there is an indirect one. To terrorist action in general.

It's hard to do when we're so close to this war, but if you take a step back and try to grasp the big picture, I think you can see the links.

Everyone who asks 'why now?' can answer the question themselves. The President has told us repeatedly. The 'why now' is because of 9/11. Not that SH was the mastermind. But because that attack changed the landscape. It brought war and terror to our shores. It was no longer only found'over there' somewhere.

For years we've tried to fend off attack by means of diplomacy and, at times, appeasement. And the attacks against our interests continued. And they got more deadly. And they got more frequent. And finally, on 9/11, they entered our homeland.

That is why we must make our stand, and make it now. This is the message the President is trying to express. I think he got it across pretty well last night.

I don't think he convinced anyone to 'switch sides' on this issue, but I do think he manged to pull most of those on the fence down into his yard.

I also think he explained his position on NK clearly. We are working to get a number of countries to accept their responsibility and to exert diplomatic pressure on NK. Multi-lateral, diplomatic response.

Yes. For this simple reason, terrorists already have plenty of motivation. Attacking Iraq won't make them more likely to attack the US, they are trying their best to do that anyway. Disarming Iraq merely removes some of the more dangerous tools they can use to do so.

But why did it take so long for him to get that point out? Probably because no one would listen




I agree but there are probably a few on the other side who might switch sides




Until last night, i never knew the other countries in the region were inactive in the NK conflict. That's very sad.

But yes, like i said in my first post in this thread, he explained the North Korean situation very clearly

South Korea has been very active. They tried to settle the situation down months ago but when Bush and his administration started making threats it undermined their efforts and attempts to establish a diplomatic channel to solve the situation have been seriously hampered ever since. What Bush meant is that nobody is using force with NK.

The speech was the exact same one he's been making for a year. Is it possible for him to expand, if not his premise, at least his vocabulary? There was nothing new and it was a waste of time. We already know he plans to go no matter what.

Eeyore, what I meant by him explaining what happens afterwards we have gotten many changing stories. First it was a council of leaders...then it was democracy...then it was military occupation. If it's exile than what? All this for nothing? We'll just go home? I don't think so. It all comes to the equation that the Iraqi's are not going to be free. Not for a long time if ever.

What we don't know is how Bush, who has managed to divide the country and world with his lack of diplomacy, is going to convince the waring factions there to get to the point of having their own government. I couldn't think of a worse person for that job. I suspect he will have to use force for a very long time. These people feel we are invaders...one reporter this morning said they are storing up food and weapons and will protect their property when we come. They say no matter what they think of Saddam we are invaders to their home and country and only want oil. Whether or not the oil accusations is true or not it doesn't matter because that is what the Iraqi people believe it's about and will make things very difficult for them to work with us when we go in.

How is Bush going to deal with dissent? Concentration camps? Is he preparing us for the stories we will see of this force by saying it's a sneaky plan of Saddam's to get exact uniforms as our forces? I believe it is. I notice there is never any indication of how or where this info comes from...which means it should be considered propaganda. Just like the rest of the 'proof' our leader has.

Also, I notice how he referred to the government as MY government. I notice how he controlled the questions by choosing his own people to call on. No confident President would do that.

And lastly I had to laugh when he accused Saddam of being dishonest for bugging the inspectors and the interview rooms they are questioned in. Of course it's dishonest...just like the dishonesty of Bush bugging the U.N. delagates at home and work. But hey, national security is at stake in both cases...right?

I thought the President did a fine job.

There was no "cowboy" attitude. No gloating, no sense of "well, those pesky objectors are out of my way now". He was thoughtful and answered the questions in a reasoned manner.

The bottom line, as the President said, is that as Commander in Chief it is his job to protect the American people and their interests. He sees a real threat, a threat which 12 years of diplomacy has failed to remove or even lessen.

Why now? His point about 9/11 was not that Saddam was behind it. What 9/11 shows is that America's enemies can no longer be assumed to be "over there" while we are safe over here. The enemy can and will attack us on our home soil. Therefore, response to threats must be quicker and more decisive.



As for the costs of the war...they are paid for beforehand, not after. He said he would need to seek supplemental boosts to the Defense Budget. He will need the supplement to replace spent munitions, help with building bases over there, etc. Money being spent now (transport, housing, salaries, logistics) is already in the budget in various contingency funds and in the basic operating budget.

As the President said, the cost of another attack will far exceed the cost of removing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

I think in the short term, there is a greater risk of terrorist attacks because of a war with Iraq. In the long term, I think there is a decreased risk.

Because of the containment policy that has been used against Saddam since the Gulf War, large numbers of American troops must be positioned at all times around the Middle East. With Saddam likely to have a long reign without foreign intervention, and his son poised to replace him, the U.S. is looking at having large numbers of troops stationed there for many years. Succesful containment policies require a significant military deterrent in order to work. This of course does not bode well with the Arab street.

With Saddam removed, there will likely be a large American presence until Iraq is rebuilt and capable of governing itself again. I imagine the international community would also largely take over this role. Nations who may have oppossed war with Iraq will certainly send troops to help with the peace. This rebuilding process will most likely also not last nearly as long as a containment policy would without regime change. In the long term there would be much less need for a large American military presence in the region.

[QUOTE=turnea,Mar 7 2003, 08:10 AM] [QUOTE=saavedra77,Mar 6 2003, 11:06 PM] "Attacking Iraq won't make them more likely to attack the US, they are trying their best to do that anyway. Disarming Iraq merely removes some of the more dangerous tools they can use to do so." [/QUOTE]

Interesting: I get the sense that you think of "them," the "terrorists" as a single, stable group of people who're "already" out to get us. Is that an unfair characterization?

Personally, I'm thinking about terrorism as a *tactic* that can potentially be employed by anybody. So, for me it's not so much a question of getting "them"--because there can always be more of "them," more terrorist recruits--as of discouraging the future use of this tactic against the U.S.

I take it for granted that not everybody in the Arab or Muslim world is *already* a terrorist. I also take it for granted that having more people trying to kill us is worse than fewer people trying to kill us. (You're free to argue these points, of course.)

But if having more terrorists is worse than having fewer of them, how do there get to be more or fewer terrorists? How do terrorist groups recruit new terrorists?

If you're familiar with the histories of Hamas, Hezbollah, or al Qaeda, I think you'll find that they rely on having a ready pool of people who already have a violent grudge against the target.

So my next question for you is this:

How does creating a larger pool of people with a grudge against the U.S. help us?

Do you seriously think anyone will be surprised? That they will say something along the lines of "Allah help me, the most unexpected incident has occured: America has attacked Iraq."

Those with a grudge already (OBL types) do not need further motivation to carry out attacks. They will not say "Now America has done it..we must REALLY plot more attacks against them". They are already planning attacks. This does not add motivation for existing terrorists.

I have not seen a single person who has escaped Iraq say "Saddam is not as bad as George Bush paints him" Most say that he is much worse. And there are plenty of ex-Iraqis speaking out against Saddam.

Who exactly are the likely ones to hold a grudge? The worst backers of terror, in my view, are the Saudis, and even they must know that eliminating Saddam adds to their security.



I agree with this statement. Eliminating Saddam will remove a large portion of our forces from the area (eventually), which should do more to appease the Arab street than anything else that is likely to occur. We certainly aren't about to withdraw with Saddam still in place.

So, if we've already paid for the war please enlighten us as to how much it cost us? Funny how at the senate hearing yesterday I watched Leahy admonish Colin Powell about promising money to Turkey and others without making sure they were going to get it.

Maybe you don't count that as cost of war...maybe you don't count rebuilding as cost of war either...it isn't just about munitions and weapons.

And maybe you can give a cost analysis on the amount another attack (which everyone knows is coming with or without Iraq and agrees they will increase in number if we do go to Iraq) as it compares to the cost of this war.

You can't because you don't have facts...only unsupportable claims. I feel it is more sensible to assume going to war would cost more not less. Both in attacks at home and in Iraq.

[QUOTE=Paladin,Mar 7 2003, 01:36 PM] [/QUOTE]"Succesful containment policies require a significant military deterrent in order to work. This of course does not bode well with the Arab street.

With Saddam removed, there will likely be a large American presence until Iraq is rebuilt and capable of governing itself again. I imagine the international community would also largely take over this role. Nations who may have oppossed war with Iraq will certainly send troops to help with the peace. This rebuilding process will most likely also not last nearly as long as a containment policy would without regime change. In the long term there would be much less need for a large American military presence in the region."[/QUOTE]

If the Arab "street" is offended by U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, & Bahrain, I doubt very much that they will look upon a U.S. occupation force in Iraq as more benign. "Occupation" is after all a very, very provocative word in that part of the world. (& do we really need them to identify us even more closely with the Israeli government?)

Shortening any such occupation would obviously be desirable; unfortunately, I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence in the ability of a future U.S. occupying force to quickly disengage from Iraq:

Remember that the Clinton administration once promised that U.S. forces would be in Kosovo for under a year; most observers at the time understood that Clinton was making a promise the U.S. dared not keep. Bush also made noises about pulling the U.S. out of the Balkans, but even the post-9/11 change in priorities has not prompted him to actually do so.

Regarding Iraq, we are daily reminded by Senators & pundits of the lengthy, expensive "commitment" that we are undertaking. I suspect that this is closer to the truth than any promises the Administration may make; if Iraq is not quickly stabilized, & if a pro-U.S. political climate doesn't emerge, we won't dare leave.

As for the international community: I wonder how enthusiastic other states will be to expend treasure & risk peace-keepers in a postwar Iraq if the U.S. invades without UNSC sanction?

This flies in the face of George Bush's hollow vow's to protect America. It's circular thinking.

How much did the 9/11 attack cost the US? More than this war will cost.

Everything that has been done so far is paid for. Future promises to Turkey, or rebuilding efforts in Iraq are not paid for. I never said they were. Those are among (assuming they happen) the future appropriations that the President said were coming.

There is no proof that taking Iraq down will cause more attacks. It is only speculation. And wild speculation at that. The fact is, removing a possible supplier of WMD to terrorists REDUCES our risks, it does not increase them. Now, I would change my tune if there was a vocal pro-Iraqi group in the US with a history of violence. I am unaware of such a group. I am aware of anti-war protestors (I know its a stretch to say these people are peace loving...) and anti-America demonstrators (who may get violent over Europe's continual non-influence over world affairs).

Question: Do YOU think Iraq has WMDs?

If you say no, you are naive. Check the UN reports from pre-1998. Colin Powell did a good job summarizing them some weeks ago at the UN.

If yes, do you think he is disarming?

If you think he is disarming, I say to you :where? and when? Those missiles are not WMDs, they are just banned conventional weapons (per the Gulf War Cease fire agreement).

If you say, No, he isnt disarming, but he isnt a threat either (since we have him penned in so well), I refer you to 9/11, where we thought terrorism could only happen OVER THERE and not here at home. We were LUCKY on 9/11 that it wasn't 30,000 people instead of 3,000. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a terrorist will EVENTUALLY gain the ability to deploy a WMD if we do not take a stand.

If you answered that he is not disarming and IS a threat, then you agree with the President (and me) that he must be taken out. This guy has had 12 years of dancing around the issue. It is time to pay the piper.

No, it is not. It is logical to allow a short term increased risk at the benefit of long term security.

[quote=amlord,Mar 7 2003, 02:13 PM] [/QUOTE]Do you seriously think anyone will be surprised? That they will say something along the lines of "Allah help me, the most unexpected incident has occured: America has attacked Iraq."

Those with a grudge already (OBL types) do not need further motivation to carry out attacks. They will not say "Now America has done it..we must REALLY plot more attacks against them". They are already planning attacks. This does not add motivation for existing terrorists.

I have not seen a single person who has escaped Iraq say "Saddam is not as bad as George Bush paints him" Most say that he is much worse. And there are plenty of ex-Iraqis speaking out against Saddam.

Who exactly are the likely ones to hold a grudge? The worst backers of terror, in my view, are the Saudis, and even they must know that eliminating Saddam adds to their security. [/quote]
Fearing an imminent invasion, hoping that it can somehow be averted (by Saddam resigning, by the UNSC agreeing to some other course of action than war) is different from reacting to the actual spectacle of falling bombs & invading troops. It may not be a surprise when this happens, but it will be the confirmation of many people's worst fears--& not because they love Saddam; because they identify with the people getting bombed.

If you listen to what people who live in the region are saying, even to what Arabs in the U.S. are saying, you will hear this refrain over & over again:

The news all over the Arab world is constantly full of images of Arabs being defeated, dislocated, killed. When they look at the violence between Israelis & Palestinians, this is what they see. During the Persian Gulf War, this is what they saw.

There are of course exceptions: Kuwaitis generally approved of the Persian Gulf War, because it gave them back their country. Iraqis who get out often look favorably on an invasion, because this is pretty much the only circumstance that might permit them to go home.

But Kuwaitis & Iraqi exiles are not typical of the region. For most people in the region, even for non-Iraqi Arabs in the West, the images that preoccupy them are Arab defeat, humiliation, & death at the hands of powerful people from outside. There's a lot of wounded ethnic pride invested in these feelings (smarting at the idea that the outside world can dictate so much of what goes on the Arab world), but also real feelings for downtrodden people they identify with.

People like this will generally concede that Saddam is a horrible, brutal dictator; but they will immediately add that they think war is worse. (What they may not say, but I think that you can read between the lines, is that they're particularly afraid of a war led by a foreign government they don't completely trust.)

So, if it comes down to choosing between an Iraqi dictator & a foreign, non-Arab general running things, they're a lot less comfortable with the foreigner. Basically, more defeated, humiliated, & dead Arabs are worse than Iraqis continuing to live under an Arab despot ("the devil they know").

Right now, many voices in the Arab "street" do clearly resent U.S. support for Israel, U.S. support for "friendly dictators" like the House of Saud & Mubarak, & the periodic bombing raids of Iraq by U.S. & British planes. & many burn with indignation at memories of the bombing of Baghdad and the "Road of Death" in which allied planes strafed & bombed fleeing Iraqi troops.

But most of the voices we hear from the region are still trying to convince us; they're saying "we don't have a problem with you, we don't like your policies." They they ask us to rethink what we're doing, to pay attention to Israeli as well as Palestinians violence; they say things like "don't invade; let us handle Saddam ourselves."

The ones who have already given up on talking, who have now turned to fighting the West--the Osamas--are a minority.

However, I think it's reasonable to expect that more images of Arabs being defeated, dislocated, killed--& all of this at the hands of U.S. forces--will provoke more anger, & will reduce the number of people who think that the best thing to do is try to change our minds.

More than that, a new image, the image of the U.S. actually occupying, actually ruling an Arab country will provide a new kind of provocation. It may produce future Osamas.

One might just as well ask:

How much will the war cost along with another 9/11, every few years?

You can't dissuade people from hating you by bombing them, & proliferating enemies everywhere doesn't exactly make protecting the homeland easier.

We live in a society full of targets of opportunity. The more enemies we have, the harder it gets to protect them all.

Let me ask you this:

Under what circumstances would the famous "survivor" Saddam Hussein undertake the essentially suicidal risk of directly attacking the U.S. a la 9/11, either through his own agents or through proxies?

Per the CIA, he would only do so if he felt that he no longer had anything to lose because we were about to overthrow his regime.

If Hussein would only dare to risk U.S. retaliation if he were about to be toppled by the U.S. in any case, how does it improve our domestic security to move immediately to topple him?

Where is China & Japan? They haven't been very
Pro-active

amlord Posted: Mar 7 2003, 02:37 PM



It cost us Economically. The DOW took a freakin nose dive when it re-opened the whole week.

Here I go again

We noticed that the "press conference" was scripted. The President knew who would ask questions ahead of time--and possibly what would be asked, too.

It didn't feel like any other press conference I've watched. No hard questions, just the same stuff that's been hashed over for months.

News: War is imminent. Yep, any week now. Been hearing that since October of last year.

President Bush seemed exceptionally contrite in his delivery. He really does seem to be sorry this has come to war. Has his administration been trying to bluff Saddam into giving up Iraq? Perhaps. That history will be written long after the war is over.

On NK--first, he messes up Clinton's negotiated treaty, and now he's taking credit for fixing the screwup? Okay, I suppose that's just politics.

Not a great press conference, not a bad one. Finally we got one

Do you really think the press would have went along with submitting questions ahead of time?



That CIA report refers to whether he would use WMD against our troops during this war.

We will never know the truth of whether he has WMD's unless the inspectors find them themselves. Of the 'proof' the US has given them so far either nothing substantial was found or the documents were FAKE.

As long as the inspectors are getting results and feel they are getting cooperation I feel secure enough to let them continue. I haven't feared Saddam in all these twelve years and I still don't.

He didn't attack us...Al Queada did. Colin Powell testified at the senate hearings yesterday that Bush came into office understanding there had to be regime change...the fact that Bush uses the victims of 9/11 to prop up this flimsy war is disgraceful.

How did he use the Victims of 9/11 as a "prop-up" to attack Iraq??

From the Speech:





he may be using the attack itself but not the victims as a reason for war & you said he came into office thinking Iraq needed a change:

Danya Posted on Mar 7 2003, 06:29 PM

I strongly disagree. We believe Iraq has WMD because they had WMD in '98 and have not shown evidence of their destruction. In other words they were there, what happened to them?


Full text: Blix briefing

Hairsplitting again?

Referring to earlier posts. Bush did not concede that Iraq did not have a provable connection to Al-Qaeda and terrorism. He repeatedly referred to Iraq as a country where terrorists could find refuge and receive training, including members of Al-Qaeda and organizations like Al-Qaeda.

MM,



Yep. The press has had to go along with all sorts of restrictions since Vietnam. Dick Cheney has said that the press is something that needs to be handled (that during Gulf War I). And since we are technically still doing Gulf War I, handling the press activities are probably as important now.

I guess you're okay with the notion of a scripted press conference, eh? Oh well, doesn't matter. I can actually see the wisdom in this, because GWB isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier when it comes to public speaking. He needs scripts, as Ronald Reagan needed them, but he just doesn't have the convincing delivery of a pro actor.

Looks like partial martial law is underway. Poor Bush, he's looking more like LBJ every day. We were wondering if he might step down like LBJ did--not run in 2004. That will depend on how well the Iraq plan works out and how well the economy recovers after the shooting is over. If it is over, that is.

On a JAG Episode (some may know this show ), a reporter was following a group of SEALS into a battle with some taliban & Al-Queda member in a run-down building in Afghanistan & the SEALS were ambushed. Come to find out, the reporter used a Sattilite Up-link to talk to his station, which was against the SEAL commander's orders, since the enemy could probably find them out.

My point is, sometimes reporters following army units have to be given STRICT rules of when to use a cell-phone or sattlite up-links. Just like here at home, when the Media can't report anything on Military Stragtey during a war.

goamerica,

Are you actually using fiction to support an argument?

Man, you need to take some classes in debate. Or aren't you aware that media fiction is used in war propaganda? Remember the John Wayne WW II movies? The "Green Berets" movie during Vietnam?

You don't need to turn to fiction to support the argument that the press is controlled during military campaigns. It is well-documented in government publications. The justifications are clear.

I suspect this has been extended to civilian events too, such as the President's press conference. It may or may not be voluntary--I suspect voluntary to help out a speaking-challenged president. I'm okay with it too--this is no time for slips of the tongue. President Bush must be controlled to avoid another "axis of evil" speech and its resulting foreign affairs crisis.

I'm using fiction as an EXAMPLE.

The trouble with the media is that they don't like being left out of the loop of things & they are stubborn when it comes to when they can report something

They scream First Amendment & run the story.

A free press is a VITAL part of any democracy and they have every right to be stubborn when they are restricted.

That is not true. We have repeatedly been trying to get those other countries to engage in talks with NK.

Talks...other countries.....diplomacy......you know, all the things certain people claim we don't do.

You're speaking with tongue in cheek here, right? Some of the reporters who asked questions are the biggest anti-Bush people around. Terry Moran of ABC for starters. Cripes, his 'question' was a speech!

These guys would sell their mothers for a chance to reveal a 'scripted' press conference by this President.

The order in which they were called was pre-arranged, but the questions?

I think that this begs the question: if Saddam wouldn't dare use WMD against U.S. troops unless his back were absolutely to the wall, why would he take the even greater risk of using them against our civilian population?

Would the retaliation be any less sure, in that event?

Would the White House not in fact, under those circumstances, feel justified in using even *more* retaliatory force than they would in the event of an attack on our troops?!

Alas, the inclusion of "Axis of Evil" in the State of the Union was no ad-lib: it was a scripted remark, & a quite deliberate choice.

Presidential speechwriter David Frum originally penned the phrase "axis of hatred," but (in a probable sop to the fundamentalist constituency) a decision was made to change this to the more theological "axis of evil."

But you're right: the White House does not seem to have forseen this remark's impact on the politics of the Korean peninsula. (Presumably, they didn't actually *want* the North Koreans to rev up their nuclear program & start testing missiles over the Sea of Japan while our forces were tied down in the Persian Gulf!)

First and foremost North Korea can reach us with nukes. Second, they will not be satisfied with anything less than talks with the U.S. They have made that crystal clear.

Their problem is not with those other countries...it's with us. Bush is dancing around his responsibilities by not dealing with the situation and trying to shove it off on someone else. This particular situation will not allow for it...although I wish it did because I'm just as afraid of him talking as I am of his silence. He is likely to make things worse...but he's all we have and the problem isn't going away on it's own.

I would like to know what we are paying this man for? If he worked at any other job he would have been fired a long time ago.

Where is the risk in giving a nuclear device to a fairly well organized crew like Al Qaeda? It won't get traced back to Iraq in any kind of a reasonable time frame (if ever). We can't even find the huge stores of weapons Saddam has with inspectors all over Iraq, we certainly aren't going to figure out where Al Qaeda got a nuke or two from.

That is why it is completely unacceptable for people like Saddam and Kim Jong to have nuclear weapons. They will gladly, given the opportunity, give a group like Al Qaeda nukes because the risk is low and the potential reward is very high.

On another note, I find it interesting that people take it to be a fact that Kim Jong has nukes capable of reaching the United States, a fact tendered by US/UK Intel, but they refuse to accept similarly worded intel from the same source about Iraq having WOMD.

Would these same people be crying the same cry for a different wolf if we were knocking at Kim Jongs door right now with 300,000 troops?

Anyway, back on topic. I am glad Bush laid down a deadline. Let's hope for a swift victory and a swift recovery for the Iraqi people.

Actually, they can only reach as far as Japan & maybe half way to the U.S.




He's not shoving it on anyone else. He's insisting that the others in the region (China, Russia, SK) get more involved in the peace process with the United States


gandalfh Posted on Mar 8 2003, 11:55 PM


That's what i've been trying to say with this article:
Al-Queda Chemical Test

All depends on what President Bush is doing. There are those whose entire agenda is based on one thing, hating Bush. Their motives are clear. And they are willing to sacrifice the safety and security of our country because of that agenda.

Have you noticed the latest from the Butcher of Baghdad?
Feeling his oats after Blix's copout report he now wants all sanctions lifted, and WMDs banned in Israel.

When are the 'useful idiots' on this planet going to realize that there are some people, governments and regimes that respect only one thing. Force. There is a direct link between our own lack of will and the increasing acts of violence committed against us. It is time to correct that flaw. Thankfully, we have a leader who is ready to use that force to insure our safety as a nation, rather than for his own sexual gratification.

God bless America, our troops and our President!

Goamerica, you still haven't demonstrated how that article you keep talking about implicates Iraq.

Suffice to say it's arguable who is putting this country in danger. But closer to the topic...a question for those who believe this speech was a success. Bush said in his speech that it was time for a vote no matter what and that the nations needed to put their cards on the table and go on record with their position.

Such a confrontational tone must be the reason that France is now pushing Bush to appear at the March 11 vote to do the same. France wants Bush at "life or death" Iraq vote

I can only imagine how he would fare on a debate with De Villepin when the man wouldn't even stand up to Helen Thomas at this 'press conference.' I think he will shrink in fear and not go and stand up for his unpopular opinions at the U.N. no matter how strongly he feels he is right. But, I would love to hear what his supporters think he will do or what he should do about what comes down to an invitiation to practice what he preaches and face his opponents. It could almost be viewed as a dare. If he says no people will think he doesn't have the guts and if he says yes he is likely to inflame relations further.

You see to have your own doubts about U.S. intel capacity; for example:

1) Why do you assume that it would be harder for the U.S. to trace WMD back to Iraq than it was for us to rapidly trace the 9/11 attacks to al Qaeda?

2) & why do you assume that it would be difficult for the U.S. to trace the source of the WMD back to Iraq--particularly if the device used was, as you suggest, nuclear? Comparatively few regimes on earth have this capacity, & this list of suspects would certainly be short. Plus, if you believe the President's case for war, then you must believe that U.S. intel knows all about Iraqi capabilities in this area (they just can't risk telling the public, our allies, or the U.N. inspectors about it, right?).

On the other hand, if you doubt U.S. intel capabilities in this area, then the Administration clearly doesn't care about evidence, & would seize any excuse to invade; surely suspicion that Iraq had attacked Americans would be enough to give them a green light!

Either way, Saddam would absolutely be risking *annihilation* if he attacked the U.S.

For that matter, how safe would it be for Saddam to give weapons of mass destruction to "an outfit like al Qaeda" when that organization's leader publicly calls him an "infidel socialist"? Saddam & bin Laden may have "a common enemy" in the U.S., but this would at best be a marriage of convenience. Saddam could never *trust* bin Laden with technology on this scale, because overthrowing Saddam is just further down bin Laden's "to do" list than driving the U.S. out of the region.

Here again, the only circumstances under which Saddam could risk giving this kind of power to bin Laden would be if had no hope of survival anyway & he saw al Qaeda as a vehicle for one final act of revenge.

Either way, the CIA's conclusions make sense: Saddam could not use WMD against the U.S. unless his situation were hopeless--because, either way, it would be suicidal for him.

CIA Director George Tenet has testified that North Korea possesses missiles that could reach the West Coast of the continental U.S.:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east...2/12/us.nkorea/

Could you please cite the source for your contrary assessment?

That is a no brainer. We had the names of the hijackers right off the bat for 9/11. Some guy setting off a nuke in a major city isn't going to leave a list of his accomplices behind.

You said short, not a list of one.

If Saddam nukes our forces in the war, we will surely retaliate. If he launches a nuke that can be traced back to him, we will surely retaliate. If he gives a nuke to a group of people who have the proper motivation, certainly not limited to Al Qaeda, we won't know who, for sure, to retaliate against. Risking annihilation? Sure. All it takes is him thinking that the reward is worth the risk.

Edited to fix a grammar error.

Saddam's link to Terrorists

I don't believe though that Bush ever directly linked Al Qaeda to Saddam in his Press Conference.