1 posted on
10/03/2002 11:42:41 PM PDT by
HAL9000
To: HAL9000
I don't know what to say but the headline pisses me off more and more that I look at it.It is like saying lets keep bin-Laden in charge of Al Qaeda so we can make sure we know who he is working with. This is stupid and annoying now. Can't the Bush team stick to one message and grow some balls here?
To: HAL9000
Powell was single-handedly responsible for the initial P.A. fiasco.
Bush's powerful message on terrorism was watered down by the State Dept. ridiculous decision to appease terrorist Arafat.
Of course, an unmitigated policy disaster ensued until Arafat and his human excrement society revealed their true smell.
Bush only survived that bomb because the Dems fumbled badly under Daschle.
Never again - DO NOT LET POWELL OPEN HIS RINO MOUTH - HE IS A WALKING PUBLIC RELATIONS DISASTER FOR BUSH.
When Rumsfeld speaks for this administration, Bush is flying high. Lose Powell, and quickly.
4 posted on
10/04/2002 12:27:59 AM PDT by
Stallone
To: HAL9000
Arms inspections are meaningless. It looks like Bush is blinking. For a while back there, in the weeks before the September 11 anniversary, I got the impression Bush was going to turn the tables on Saddam, expose his blackmail and let the chips fall were they may. Looking back, I guess that was just brinkmanship -- we were making overtures behind the scenes to trade exile for silence, and we needed to pile the pressure on. Now, that gambit's failed, and it looks like Bush is about to fold his hand. Of course, every one will play their respective parts: Bush will demand "intrusive" (but still meaningless) inspections, which will make him look tough; the euros and the dems will scream blue murder, which will make Bush look tough, and Saddam will hold tight and then give way at the last minute, which will make Bush look tough (except to the Arabs, who understand what Saddam is up to). Game, set and match to Saddam Hussein. This is playing out like the Gulf War denouement, and for much the same reasons.
To: HAL9000
I don't think there's any dissension in the White house. The retaliation has been in place for the past year and is proceeding as planned.
This is all just smoke and mirrors before the night of the New Moon.
To: HAL9000
IMHO, what Colin Powell is offerng is a sucker bet. Everyone with so much as a quarter of a brain knows that Saddam won't fully comply with full disarmament because the moment that full disarmament (and by extension, the end of widescale repression) becomes reality, Saddam will be overthrown.
12 posted on
10/04/2002 5:37:31 AM PDT by
steveegg
To: HAL9000
Good Cop. Bad Cop. Everyone is playing their role.
Powell got the lousy job.... good cop.
To: HAL9000
Powell is just doing his job, trying very hard to get a new UN resolution that has teeth. If we have to play down "regime change" to get the Russians on board so be it. Disarming Saddam is the objective it's just that we all know that will never happen as long as he's in power. The scenario Powell has layed out will never happen in a million years and everyone - including Powell knows it. So who cares if the publically push for "regime change", because it's going to happen anyway.
14 posted on
10/04/2002 6:11:32 AM PDT by
ejdrapes
To: HAL9000
The UN will not support any action aimed at regime change. If Powell goes in and states regime change as the purpose of US policy, all talks are over.He
must state the remote feasability of Saddam clinging to power in order to work towards a resolution that has a component calling for consequences if Saddam does not comply with weapons inspections.
Then, when the lying scumbag plays games with the US, we can bomb his presidential palaces, with him inside, into just another pile of desert dust, and the euro weenies can watch complacently.
To: HAL9000
it could leave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power if he disarms fully His power emanates from his weapons. If the weapons are removed, he will have no power.
To: HAL9000
Yes, and he could also stay in power if he had a brain transplant.
To: HAL9000
Compared with those remarks, it said, Powell's comments were obviously softer. Powell, said: If Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction Saddam could stay. However, if Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction he would not stay in power. He needs the threat of those weapons to stay in power.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is no difference between saying Saddam must go or his weapond must go. Either way he ends up gone.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
