Donald Rumsfeld Press Conf. Did You Just Hear Him?

FOX NEWS | 9-3-02 | My Favorite Headache

[LonePalm]

I picked the 6th of October because it is the new moon. The next new moon is the Sunday before the elections. Bush would be accused of playing politics and there wouldn't be enough time to win sufficient battlefield victories.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Mohammed El-Shahawi]

Not to put too much weight on the UK's influence (perhaps I'm not objective being an ex-UK (now US) citizen), but there is no way in hell that a Labour prime minister would compromise himself in such a way with US intelligence that wasn't real. Therein lies the proof that this is for real.

[Gunrunner2]

>>October 6, 2002. 2330 Baghdad time.

New moon on that date.<<

Just for FYI.

New moon? Not required for our night vision devices. The OLD Vietnam era star-scopes needed that sort of passive illumination, but our stuff today does not need illumination. NVG's and FLIR operate differently.

If anything, a new moon will help the Iraqi's and hurt us.

[Eagle Eye]

Make the case to congress, have congress declare war, THEN attack with all we have.

If the administration cannot convince congress that Iraq is dangerous enough for a formal declaration of war, then they should not be conducting war.

[Revolting cat!]

What's WMD?

Gee whiz, and I always thought the answer was contained in the question!

[lideric]

To me this sounds like we're trying to get the Iraqi military to mount a coup.

Right. After getting clobbered by us once before there may be enough Iraqi soldiers that will decide it would be safer to go the coup route than face the U.S. military again. But then again maybe the Iraqui's aren't that smart.

[GmbyMan]

Hello sir. It is true that Bush has done some things very un-conservative in his domestic agenda (farm bill, education bill, Incumbent Protection Bill (aka CFR)) but his foreign policy has been positively Reagan-esque. He has stood firm on increasing the budget on the military and has picked up the mantle of a Missle Defense Sytem. He went into Afghanastan hard and has stood for the stepping down of Yassir Arafat followed by a call for a Democratic state in the West Bank/Gaza Strip area. He has called North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Cuba on the carpet. He has stood up against the UN on Kyoto, the World criminal court and the weapons testing ban. If Bush says that there are WMD in Iraq and Iraq has to go, I think it's time we believed him. Right now, I believe, Colin Powell is trying to use diplomacy to get Britain and other countries on board. Saddam will never accept our terms for a re-entry of weapons inspectors. He must go!

I predit that we will invade on October 15.

[3k9pm]

Nah. Regime change can be made much sooner.
Requirements:

1. Intelligence on S. Hussein's location
2. SEAL Sniper

Unofficial SEAL sniper motto: Sneak,sneak,sneak. Shoot them in the back. Run,run,run.

If we want to change the leadership, one sniper team is all that is needed.
Rattle the cage until intel points his location, then execute him like the rabid animal he is.
This would serve as an example to the next Iraqi leader as well.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Does anyone know how Congressional votes on war take place? Does such a vote have to be requested by the President, or does Congress itself decide when and if they will vote on it? And how long does it take? I admit I don't remember how it happened during the build-up to the Gulf War.

[Mohammed El-Shahawi]

Ummm, a new moon actually means the moon is totally blacked out as far as earth is concerned. That's advantageous to us, ans a disadvantage to Iraq.

[babble-on]

i have to say, to my disappointment, that I have just read the transcript of the press conference, and your quotation from Rumsfeld is far more aggressive than what he actually said with regards to the timing of presenting evidence.

[My Favorite Headache]

He said to the reporter in question that the answers to his questions will be in the coming days and weeks. What is far more agressive than that?

[Nogbad]

Rumsfeld-"That case will be made in the next couple of days and weeks"

Which is it, Rumsfeld, days or weeks?
(Or is there going to be more than one announcement?)

I have been waiting several weeks already for this announcement
which was supposed to made in the next couple of weeks.

Sorry for my cynicism.
But in any case, let me predict, there will be no mention of the anthrax attacks,
otherwise,
how are they going to explain the reason why they left Hatfill 'twisting in the wind'?

[babble-on]

What evidence does the U.S. have that Iraq, Saddam Hussein, may be getting close again to obtaining a nuclear weapon?

RUMSFELD: Oh, I think I'll leave that for the coming days and weeks. I mean, we know the obvious: We know that they were a lot closer than any of the experts had estimated they would be with respect to a nuclear weapon. And that was discovered during the post- 1991 period by actually seeing what was there.

[babble-on]

QUESTION: If I could follow up, when you said you'd do that in the coming days and weeks, does that mean the administration intends to, in the coming weeks, reveal some of this evidence that maybe...

RUMSFELD: Those are judgments that have to be made down the road depending on what the president decides he wants to do.

[MotherSpector]

Well, I certainly tend to believe Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld before I would believe all of those "has been" or "want to be noticed" guests on the talk shows (like Scocroft, Eagleberger, etc.

[Gunrunner2]

Doh!!!

I guess I had it backwards.

[Congressman Billybob]

Good get, my friend. I missed the prediction of the beginning of the Gulf War by only 45 minutes, using the same reasoning as you. 1) Attack on the new moon. 2) Attack shortly after midnight. Plus, I knew days before that Special Forces had been put on special alert, and that key players for defense contractors like TRW had been called into Washington.

Connecting all the dots, I made the same sort of prediction that you just did. The only caveat I'd offer is that Bush may avoid beginning an active war before the election. This would probably be a mistake -- but I understand the White House thinking not to appear like Billyjeff ("Wag the Dog") Clinton.

Congressman Billybob

[Mitchell]

But in any case, let me predict, there will be no mention of the anthrax attacks,

I'm inclined to agree that the evidence will be solely of Iraq's possession of WMD and its ongoing development of more. But this wouldn't seem to be enough to convince virtually all of the naysayers, as Blair suggests will occur.

Everybody already believes that Iraq has developed and is developing such weapons. So, what is the extra information that will be so persuasive?

[Mohammed El-Shahawi]

Let's say the administration has known since last December that Iraq was behind last year's anthrax. The timing of revealing that is critical. If it's revealed today, the planet goes into meltdown - all stock markets crash due to the liklihood of a nuclear strike on Baghdad (given that there is likley a lot more anthrax to come and the US will have to retaliate).
Indeed, it may not be revealed until Saddam is dead.

Note that, once again, everything that is happening remains entirely consistent with the Great Satan's initial theory.

If Rumsfeld has great information that would immediately get France and Germany off our backs, why not just tell us about it in plain English today? There has to be a good reason for this. One good reason is the one given above.