The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

Guardian/UK ^ | 1/24/03 | Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall

[Nick Danger]

Do you know anything about how long it takes us to get our troops in position to do something?

Bush knows, so it was up to him to time his talking so as to align it with his doing. When was the "axis of evil" speech? A year ago Tuesday.

When was the "Cincinnati speech"? October. Remember that one?

Trying to rally the nation and the world behind a possible attack on Iraq, President Bush said Monday night that the Iraqi regime is the single gravest danger confronting mankind.

"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place," Bush said, citing Iraq's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique."

Bush traveled to America's heartland to present his most detailed case yet for war with Iraq, one year after launching the first air strikes against Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Although the half-hour speech offered no new information, Bush said past history and continuing evidence of Iraq's weapons programs show that Iraq is a unique and an immediate threat. He said his sense of urgency was heightened by fears that Iraq might team up with terrorists to attack the United States.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said. "Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both."

That was four months ago. Next week the Secretary of State will be meeting with Hans Blix. I'm sorry, but this is getting old. I didn't tell him to make that speech in October. He did that all by himself. Remember Ross Perot's old line? "Is this one we're gonna talk about, or fix?"

Here's the President of the United States telling us that "on any given day" Saddam Hussein could arm terrorists with chemical or biological weapons. What's he doing about it? Four months later, and a year after he started talking about it, he's dancing with the UN. If this is an ugly perception, he created it himself.

Look, I have nothing but admiration for the man. I think he'll do the right thing. But he had the country behind him, and now he's losing it, and he did that to himself. He was going to be the bold, decisive leader who would save us from the Bad Guys. But he didn't do that. He's become the Preparation Bunny... he just keeps preparing, and preparing, and preparing. The last thing he needs to do is get up there on Tuesday and raise another alarm about Saddam Hussein. Not unless the bombing is going to start in five minutes.

The Texans have a saying, "All hat and no cattle." It's starting to look like that, and it didn't have to be that way. Karl Rove may be a genius at election mechanics, but the "zeitgeist management" in this administration sucks. People were ready to follow the "bold decisive leader" to the ends of the Earth. We may still have to, but he isn't that guy anymore. Now he's the guy who hemmed and hawed and watched Hans Blix and Gerhard Schröeder spit in his face. Following that guy into battle is a much iffier thing.

[Kevin Curry]

They're the ones that deserve it most.

They deserve our support to do what they are trained to do, to do it with utmost efficiency, and with awesome abrupt violence. In the long run that will save lives.

Your whimpering and whining is not "support." In the long run, such fecklessness will cost us incalculably more, and waste their lives needlessly.

[Maynerd]

There are wheels turning within in wheels. You and I don't know jack. Maybe Bush wanted adequate supplies of smallpox vaccine before the trigger is pulled. God only knows.

Regardless you have got to respect his guts. The pressure on him is enormous. If they screw the pooch, not only are there dead Americans but also a Democrat President in 2004. The War on Terror will then morph into the Appeasement of Terror. Most Presidents would have wilted by now (including his daddy).

[section9]

I disagree.

Vehemently.

The decision to go to war was made months ago. This last bit is just kabuki, designed to give us the time and space to get our field forces in position.

It matters not what the polls say now. They reflect nervousness. It matters what they say after the invasion begins and, more importantly, after the war is won.

Martial impulses must be firmly subordinated to political ends. We gave it one last go-round to give the Brits cover. Tony Blair had to have that, and we owed it to him.

This was always going to be a winter war.

The die is cast. You don't march the troops up just to march them back again.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[goodseedhomeschool]

I think this site says it all
http://www.alabamagrafix.com/godbless.html

[Steel Wolf]

Great moment? It turned out the Russian's didn't know what it was and it was off course.

Another trumped up piece of theatre from the govt.

Actually, the Russians thought they knew what it was, and shot down a passenger plane in triggerhappy zeal.

What they thought it was happend to be a reconnaissance flight, similar to the EP-3 that got into a fender bender with an overzealous Chinese air force patrol. One had been in the area and they thought it was circling back. Turns out it wasn't them at all, but Flight 007.

Old history, mate, not a cover up. Just an amatuerish mistake by Soviet Air Defense East looking to score political points by downing a U.S. reconnaissance flight over Soviet territory, that instead brought down a plane full of innocent civilians.

[PRND21]

KILL KILL KILL, WITH COLD BLUE STEEL....WIPE UM OUT, KILL!

This isn't an immigration thread, Joe.

[Nick Danger]

You and I don't know jack. Maybe Bush wanted adequate supplies of smallpox vaccine before the trigger is pulled. God only knows.

I agree with all that. My point is that he knows. He is therefore in a position to tell the public what to expect, and if he does a good job of that, he will maintain public support. He is not maintaining public support, and I think it's because people are starting to get the sense that we're being jerked around. If he knew in October that nothing would happen before February, why tell people that every day counts, that he has a great sense of urgency about this? If you tell people that their lives are in danger, and then you don't seem to be doing anything for months, why be surprised when support erodes?

I have no gripes with the war planning, I'm just dumbfounded by the way they're managing the public's expectations. I would like very much for Bush to succeed. I think he takes unnecessary risks with losing public support, when he doesn't need to.

My big fear is that he will go ahead and do the right thing, and even succeed at it, but the public will have soured on him by the time he does. That would be easy to prevent, but they aren't doing anything to prevent it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Keep talkin, if feels good.....

Sorry, I couldn't resist :o

[ClancyJ]

Also, remember Rumsfeld wanted all men in place rather than starting the battle and later bringing in more people. They are still getting people in place.

[gitmo]

Good post, section9.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You know PRND21, when I talk to you, I feel like I'm an American flag salesman at a Ali Baba concert, in downtown Bagdad.....

Hehehe.....

[Nick Danger]

I disagree. Vehemently.

So would I have, a month ago. To some degree I'm playing devil's advocate here; my sense is that we're losing people fast. You claim to still be on the train. Fine. What would you say if three months from now we're breathlessly awaiting Hans Blix's third and hemi-demi-semi-final report? At what point do you fall off the train?

Let's posit a normal distribution of people falling off the train. My sense is that the early outlyers are gone, and we're starting to climb the hill into Serious Numbers. The mean for falling off the train may still be in the future, but do you think it's two more months? Three? Six? At what point will Bush's support be down to the outlyers at the other end? I dunno. But it isn't the State of the Union in 2004.

To calibrate my own point on this distribution, I starting writing similar rants concerning Afghanistan about two weeks prior to the commencement ceremonies. At that point I was frustrated enough with the inaction to be pissed. So my error bias is about -2weeks.

[PRND21]

Keep talkin, if feels good.....

Bump

[ClancyJ]

Remember we went through this same state of anxiety over Afghanistan - thought we would never move.

I feel they wanted to show the country that they went to the U.N., that they gave Saddam one more chance, knowing full well he would not take the chance. They wanted the country to see that the U.N. is worthless and that Saddam cannot be removed peacefully.

Yet, this plan ran into problems because the country does not see what it does not want to see and it turned out that nothing Saddam did was bad enough for the U.N. to turn against Iraq. It turned out all are more afraid of an even stronger America armed and moving than they are of Saddam. Possibly they were more afraid of what would be found out, what they would lose, or more afraid of this American president.

Now, Bush has given them the chance and they used that chance to undercut his support. Americans do not remember the danger to America - they just see the nightly news reports and all the rhetoric about "give inspectors a chance". Yes, a chance to even more effectively turn the whole world population against the U.S. and in support of a mad dictator.

[NJJ]

There is only one way Saddam can delay a kickoff of the military attack beyond the end of Bush's window and that would be by really starting to cooperate, by revealing WMD and starting to destroy them. The question would then be in how long he could stretch out the process to convince he was in compliance.

I would opt in that case to have military forces accompany the inspectors and force complete searches.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Hey Nick,

I sympathize with your fidgeting, let's go attitude. However, I do believe we will be happy with the results that come about from the timing; removing Saddam and showing the U.N. just how much they matter, both at the same time. It will be delicious.

[Michael.SF.]

Are you aware that the song lyrics you recite are a diatribe against American imperialism and the homogeneity of American culture? It's cute, but it's all tongue-in-cheek and idealogically at odds with our current Iraq policy. If you are aware of it, are you trolling?

I first saw randy newman at UCLA's Royce Hall in 1973 and have long enjoyed both his sense of humor and his 'tongue-in-cheek' approach.

The reason I selected those lyrics was because of the rather close proximity they have with today's situation, especially with France and Germany, apparently turning against "US Imperilism" because of their own multi-billion dollar deals with Iraq. And they call us hypocrites?

The song also reflects some pleasantries towards the Aussies. By coincidence, they have just sent a ship to the gulf (along with several thousand soldiers), with their PM giving a rounding speech in defense of the USA. My hat is off to them!!

Yes, the song is all tongue in cheek, and yes Mr. Newman wrote that song as a humorous protest song. But, have we not at one time or another secretly wished we could be done with a lot of the European crap eminating from that bastion of leftist thought?

But in all honesty, I can understand where my point may have been misunderstood. Thanks for the second post, which acknowledged that you recognized my original intent.

[Nick Danger]

I do believe we will be happy with the results that come about from the timing; removing Saddam and showing the U.N. just how much they matter, both at the same time. It will be delicious.

OK, I will happily go along with that. If the reward for waiting is that Bush tells the UN that we're out and they have 30 days to pack up and get out of Dodge, I'd take that as a win.

[Michael.SF.]

I should have also added this line to my comments:

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.

To me, what makes those lines funny, is the ring of truth that they have.

To many people (like the ANSWER crowd) no matter what we do it is wrong. More so if it is a Republican that is in charge.