If this is what he's saying and we fall for it, we are fools.
Why should we think that he'll be satisfied with "Even Stevens"? Once he has found a vulnerability, he will continue to exploit it. Moreover, so will every other barbarian out there, once they realize that we blinked (which will be pretty fast).
He's buying time, because time is on his side. The longer we delay, the more he will have built up his WMD.
And, on top of all this, do you think Israel would go along?
Meanwhile, Bush is taking every step to isolate Saddam. Not just in the conventional diplomatic and military senses, but in the political and personal senses, as well.
It is clear to me that there will be no laying nuclear waste to Baghdad, nor any other location in Iraq, unless the target is Saddam in his bunker. Why ask for trouble? Especially, when you don't need to.
Is anybody really concerned at the prospect of anybody other than Saddam (or, perhaps, Uday or Qusay) actually issuing the order for a WMD attack on the U.S.? Or of any subordinate actually following that instruction, once Saddam is removed from the equation. Once Saddam has departed the Iraqi scene, there is no idea, institution, or symbol left to command one's loyalty. Only one's self and family...
Recall how clearly Bush identified and isolated the enemy in Afghanistan. Our war was with the Taliban. And with them only because they wouldn't hand over Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. At no point was the Afghanistan state or its people threatened. This distinction was, I believe, critical to our success there.
The same distinction is being very clearly made in Iraq. The state and its people -- be they Kurd, Sunni or Shi'a -- are not our target. Saddam's propaganda will obviously claim the contrary. But, nowadays, thanks to the internet and satellite TV, the truth has more friends than it has ever had before.
What are the odds, then, that Saddam will suffer a betrayal? Rather good, I'd say. Once the U.S. prevails, as they must know we shall, what will be the average life span of a Republican Guard general? The army is known to be unreliable...and thus vulnerable.
Today, in his bunker, Saddam has enemies he didn't know he had before. And he is gaining new ones every day.
The possibility of 'regime change' due to 'internal action' prior to 'external action' is, I suspect, rather high. And, if it comes to an actual attack, how many friends will Saddam have? And how long will they stay that way? How long will they do his bidding? Will they actually push that button...???
By focussing so sharply on Saddam the person, the affair could come to a successful end quite quickly.
In the absence of a premature conclusion, there is every liklihood that an attack on Iraq will be a.) militarily successful and b.) brought to a quick conclusion.
We will win. Sooner, rather than later. And Saddam will be deposed...or dead. Thus, the only real question is whether we can avoid a retaliatory (or pre-emptive) attack on the domestic front. And, if we can't, how can its effects be minimized.