WTC One - The Iraqi Connection

The National Interest ^ | Winter 95/96 | Laurie Mylorie

[Mitchell]

Iraq will just hunker down and hope that Bush blinks....

I tend to agree. In fact, after making my previous post, I started thinking that my analysis was faulty, that Saddam's best course of action is simply to let things continue as they are.

[habs4ever]

There was only one other poster on FR who held to such a view as yours, but he hasn't been seen since Dec2001.He was as convinced of the Great Blackmail Theory as you are.He was called Clinton is a Rapist. Are you one and the same?

I had a few heated exchanges with him on this matter and he didn't like to think he could possibly be wrong on his Mexican standoff.

[riri]

We're not going to lose Bush in two years. Bush holds all the cards. It's hardly even going to be worth having an election

Well, you are much more confident than I. Gas is approaching $2.00 a gallon, I've got a bunch of soccer mom's telling me these whacked out, half backed theories of why this war is about oil, Prescott Bush and how we fight wars and sell weapons to our enemies and everynight the American people are told, in 10 second sound bites how badly the Bush economic plan is failing. Unfortuneately, these people vote.

For most September 11th is done, over.

I am waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat with visions of Hillary in a black pantsuit, ballons and confetti flying and old Fleetwood Mac songs palying in the background.

[oceanview]

I agree with you, Bush is vulnerable if there isn't some definitive conclusion on Iraq. That conclusion could be in a few different forms. But the current situation cannot go on and on. The economic situation will deteriorate with oil prices at these levels, or higher. The Dems have held their base on this, the media is pumping a steady stream of bad news and spin. I am waiting to see Dan Rather holding a wrench, disassembling an Al Samoud missile.

If indeed war is not imminent, Bush will "blink" when Rove taps him on the shoulder one morning to tell him that the game is up, that he can no longer politically sustain a containment policy that involves keeping 100,000+ troops in the field, $2 gasoline, and a daily "last chance, no more time" speech. What happens at that point? I don't see the exit strategy if indeed this "hostage" scenario is correct.

[riri]

The Dems have held their base on this, the media is pumping a steady stream of bad news and spin

I have to agree with this. I had a friend of my daughter's mother say something to me yesterday to the effect of "Especially, now, things are tight-with the economy being in the state it's in" Mind you, this is a person who's life, income, etc. HAVE NOT changed for the worse one iota in the past two years and I almost bit her head off telling her so. She defended her statement by saying something about paying $2 a gallon for gas...I was dumbfounded but this is what the average person out there is thinking?

It is idiots like these, Republican women crossing over, that put Janet Napalitano in office here in Arizona.

[SarahW]

There's a reason we're not being told much about KSM. It's the same reason we are not getting told what really happened in Prague between Mr. Atta and Mr. al-Ani. It's the same reason we are being fed a cover story about the anthrax. Can you think what the reason might be?

I used to think there was a reason - to prevent demand for immediate retaliation. Now I can't think of any reason that makes a whole lot of sense. WHY wouldn't Bush make the connection now? What's he waiting for?

[SarahW]

FWIW, I am long ago convinced that the Iraqi connection exists..., I can't see the advantages now in keeping it whispered instead of proved.

[oceanview]

Bush had been in office only 8 months when the anthrax attacks occurred. He could have told some truths about it then or shortly after, and not been blamed. Is it too late to do it now? He surely has less support then he did right after 9/11, basically the Democratic base has completely returned to the fold. Could he offer this up now as a "new revelation", or would he say that we knew all along? The media would surely play the latter as a "Bush coverup", drowning out any use of this as a reason for war. If he said we "just found out", it would appear as too convenient.

This may be why its too late for him to come clean on this now, it won't work. The window of opportunity to come clean on this may have passed.

[SarahW]

I imagine it took awhile to piece together a picture from an intelligence community that was slow (even resistant) to come to terms with what the information they had aquired really meant.

[Mitchell]

For all of the Great Satani backers the TGS himself - he has been saying for months that we will never attack because we are hostages.
That house of cards will be falling and then there will be another fantastic chapter added to the theory. I can't wait to hear it.
So, TGS, are you sticking to that version or have you crafted another chapter when you are proven wrong?

I'm not sure why you addressed this to me instead of to TGS.

For what it's worth, I do give The Great Satan's theory some credence. It's true that the theory has the air of the fantastic about it, and it lacks hard evidence; on the other hand, it explains a number of otherwise very difficult-to-explain facts. As time goes by, it is looking increasingly likely.

If we get through, say, April with no assault on Baghdad, his theory may no longer seem improbable at all.

[The Great Satan]

WHY wouldn't Bush make the connection now? What's he waiting for?

Put your thinking cap on. Wargame it out.

[The Great Satan]

Bush had been in office only 8 months when the anthrax attacks occurred. He could have told some truths about it then or shortly after, and not been blamed.

Uh, this has nothing to do with who gets blamed. You have to rise above the level of schoolyard blame games, and think about real factors. Can you manage it?

[SarahW]

I'm not trying to be dense about what you mean, I just am.

I have yet to think of any advantage to be gained that outweighs the advantage of being straight now.
If you don't want to say it here, could you freepmail me with your ideas?

[The Great Satan]

Okay. It's October 17, 2001. At a meeting of the National Security Council, the Vice President and the Director of the CIA have just agreed that the anthrax is indeed part of the 9-11 conspiracy, and that it was supplied to sleeper agents by a state sponsor of that conspiracy. I think we can all guess which state they were talking about. So put yourself in George W. Bush's shoes, back in October 2001. Ask yourself, "Now what?" How would you deal with that situation?

[SarahW]

The Socratic method isn't going to have the intended effect.

It isn't October 17, it's now. While I could see "strategeric" advantages to keeping that knowlege on the down-low then, I see no such advantage now relative to the advantages to be gained by exosing Iraqi involvement.

[The Great Satan]

The Socratic method isn't going to have the intended effect.

Why? Are you stupid?

[njmaugbill]

What is more interesting than the article being written more than 7 years ago, is that in 1993, Bill Clinton was President. So the President to be blasted in Clinton, not GW.

bill

[SarahW]

Not smart enough to figure out what it is you think I should from your questions. I'd appreciate if you would just come straight out and say what you mean.

I like what-if scenarios. I like trying to figure things out by imagining scenarios. But this time I don't have imagination enough to figure out what you are driving at.

I just can not think of any short or long term advantage to keeping Iraqi "smoking guns" underwraps, that exceeds the advantage of exposure.

We're as prepared as we are ever going to be for anthrax attack, and it's unlikely that war can be averted by keeping the information secret, and it would be a great advantage to prosecution of the war if Iraq was exposed.

If the proof is simply not strong enough to make a smoking gun case, at least not without compromising agents and/or the ability to keep tabs on agents of Iraq, I'd still think the advantages of coming straight out with *assertions* that Iraq participated would be better than insinuating a hatfill type mailed the anthrax.

[The Great Satan]

We're as prepared as we are ever going to be for anthrax attack

And your basis for saying that is...?

[SarahW]

Anthrax is not immediately deadly, and deadly illness can be prevented by prompt treatment before symptoms begin, or even after, and ER's have now have personell trained to be on the look out for outbreaks of Anthrax infection and emergency plans for that contingency.

Emergency pharmeceuticals have been stockpiled. It doesn't get any better than that. It doesn't get any better.