Posted on 05/24/2002 11:20:22 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
IS BUSH SURRENDERING? Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination. Of course, there should be no peremptory, rushed or botched war. Of course, all options should be examined. But the signs are unmistakable. This president, having begun as an improvement on his father, is showing signs that he could end up as something even worse. It's time he heard from his supporters that this is a critical matter on which there can be no compromise. If he balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes. It will be a betrayal of the very security of the American people.
Where the hell were you people at the State of the Union?
And haven't you ever heard of "carefully chosen words"? Bush seems to choose his words carefully--being honest and straightforward but not necessarily telegraphing his actions. The nation IS ready for war: WE ARE AT WAR AS A MATTER OF FACT.
methinks the lady doth protest too much...
Your response is well worded ... however, Lady Thatcher's response is verifiable ... she in fact did make the "wobbly" comment; Bush 41 made joking reference to it in an interview. As far as voting for a democ"rat" that won't happen ... my track record as a "FReeper" the past four years will attest to that ... I simply won't punch the ballot when it comes to voting for a President.
That's exactly what I've been thinking.
President Bush has been on a course to forfeit the confidence of many of his supporters--perhaps even too many for him to be nominated in 2004. Or, if he is nominated, a third party may make it to become a second party, as we saw it happening in France. And once you've become a second party, it will be much easier subsequently to finish first.
If I had the choice between a Rat and a RINO, I would still prefer the RINO, but what I really want is a Gipper.
For example, in almost the same breath, they complain that (1) Bush knew all about 9/11 ahead of time but didn't tell us for political gain, and (2) knows nothing about current terrorist threats and is just making the latest warnings up for political gain.
But more likely you meant that when such complaining occurred, Bush's current talk might reduce the affectiveness of that complaining. Could be.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Its your duty as an American citizen to vote. I've seen ten presidents lead America in my lifetime. Next to Reagan, Bush 43 is the most conservative leader we've had in that time. Historically, you'd have to go way back, to President Calvin Coolidge, in the 1920`s, for a POTUS who was as conservative. Think about it.
Remember what Reagan said:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
I was trying to tell you folks that there would be no invasion until the Winter of 2003. The tail just isn't there yet. Especially the JDAM production lines. It will take until the end of June to get them up to 3500 JDAMs produced a month. JDAM's, and plenty of them, have to be plentiful and on hand. Then there's Infantry conditioning to take into account.
If the brass says they need some time to put this together, then I'll go with their recommendations. But when George W. Bush says he has no war plans "on my desk", that tells me everything I need to know.
Some people, Andrew Sullivan included, need to watch how they react to planned leaks.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I've been wondering if the administration is backing off because they've decided, measured against what is currently over there, Sadam is not so bad afterall. I've always wondered about Sadam's stupidity in invading Kuwait, and known that he's brutal and cultivated a cultic adherence among his followers etc, but he has survived & he probably wouldn't have had he been nice.
Who would we replace Sadam with? What happens between the Sunni ruling class and the Shiite majority, and how will this effect the possibility of moderate reform in Iran? As to the tribal minorities inhabiting the mountains in that region (I can't remember their names), can we be sure that those societies haven't been subverted by Al Qaeda style Islamists? Some might say give the region to Turkey; my wife is Armenian so you can understand my misgivings there.
In short, seems to me we're considering changing a known evil for a different, unknown and possibly worse evil. What are your thoughts?
Saddam Hussein is a psychological bad-actor. The sad thing is, he has access to petrodollars and the weapons research that flow from them. Hussein is motivated by revenge, and the chance that he could go down in history as a latter-day Sahal-a-din is too much for him to ignore.
So you build a small bomb, say five to fifteen kilotons, and you give it to al-Qaeda, who are messianic enough to actually not be deterred from acting on your revenge.
The prospect of Baghdad being turned into a nuclear cinder pile would not alter Hussein's historical sense of mission one whit. After all, he knows the Arab Street, and he knows that he and bin Laden would go down in history as Arab heroes who brought low the arrogant Christians. What is one's life, or the lives of millions, compared to that legacy, eh?
Nope, I'm fully convinced that Bush is aware of the danger, and I am fully convinced that Bush intends to unseat, retire, or otherwise place into suspended animation Saddam al-Hussein. It's actually a good thing that if this leak is only partly true, the Pentagon is thinking in terms of covering all bases: perhaps up to 200,000 guys to handle all the contingencies plus LOTS o' airpower. I don't think the uniformed military is trying to spook Bush into cancelling an invasion altogether. I do believe that they are telling him that Iraq and Afghanistan are two different things entirely. There's another factor:
You have to throw in the entire Israeli Air Force and perhaps several divisions of the IDF keeping our Syrian friends busy. The Israelis will want to sit at the top table at the Peace Conference, just like the Russians and the Brits, so they'll make their down payment in blood money, so to speak. The Russians will want guarantees on their eight billion dollars, plus a say in oil development, and the Brits will want their own "occuaption reward" in exploration rights for BP, plus a free trade agreement between the "Federal Republic of Iraq" and the UK.
We'll be so generous that we'll allow the EU to do the catering. It'll bring a whole new meaning to the term "frog's legs".
What kills me is that this is an interagency leak. Someone from State was sitting in on it and got the gist of the conference to Powell, and Powell decided to leak again. That's what pisses me off. Or it's someone lower down on the food chain who's doing it because Powell can't be compromised. The Pentagon didn't leak this. State did.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
No, I don't intend to vote for Bush again because of his globalism, and failure to keep his oath about our borders. But fair is fair, I don't consider this in any way, shape, or form his fault.
If you think our news media is packed with socialist/liberals, give a thought to how many agencies, FBI, INS, IRS, CIA, are packed with liberals, who can't be fired, and are just waiting for four years to pass to get back to business as usual.
Ah so, the Yamamoto plan.
Very good point.
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.