Keith, below is an excerpt from this morning's NYT discussing more of what the BBC interview suggested. From my readings this past month and listening to Round 1 of the Senate hearings on the subject (Round 2 expected after the holiday) the fear in some quarters is that if the primary push becomes inspections and nothing is found to incriminate SH of hoarding WMD, then he will be vindicated, the sanctions lifted and the US has no legal or PR capital to use for military action. Perhaps this simple determination explains the bait-and switch approach to pushing for an invasion rather than complying with UN protocol. Pres. Bush in that scenario would certainly be living up to his cowboy reputation and there are probably some old westerns with those plot lines intact of the good guy outmaneuvering the bad guy into revealing his weak flank. I'm having trouble with a conspiracy theory per se, even though my trust and tolerance for Bush-Cheney is established. For the price he is paying, Blair's silence is troubling, except that he probably knows covert actions are already underway and the headlines may produce evidence of something unexpected any day. Is that a conspiracy? I just can't lose this visual image of the Bush hawks, like kittens in a giant paper bag; unable to see outside the world they have created. Wish I could see them otherwise. There are other words to describe this: cocky, elitist, maybe even Big Brotherish but there is also a popular culture Top Gun mentality about it. Maverick pilot saves the day. Meaning, I suspect that many Americans, uncertain about a lot of things in this post 9/11 year, share a Wag the Dog skepticism about the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush ulterior motives, but they also fear that these guys might be right. After all, did most Americans read the lengthy Time magazine special report about the previous administration FBI-CIA files on OSB and terrorism? If they did, they'd realize that the Bush administration didn't "quickly learn" the suspects' origins without the background gathered for them by the Clinton FBA-CIA era and they weren't "up to speed" and "on the job" that accounts for a good part of Bush's popularity numbers. Instead, too many people are reading People and watching Entertainment Tonight or reality TV shows in a fantasy life lived through the boob tube. I excuse everyone who has spent their summer outdoors camping or playing with their children, who have missed the build-up to this state, but it's this deliberate ignorance that drives me crazy.
Thanks for the tip that your Defence Secretary is coming to Washington to be briefed. You might also be interested in Wm. Safire's two bits about the "apparent" policy rift between father and son Bushes. See LIKE FATHER, UNLIKE SON @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/opinion/02SAFI.html - Karen Excerpt from Powell article: "But Secretary Powell has said little else in weeks, and his public restraint on Iraq in recent weeks - part of which time he spent on vacation - has been viewed in some quarters as evidence that he is trying to distance himself from the more bellicose statements of his administration colleagues. "He seems not to be prevailing with regard to the multilateral approach to resolving the Iraq problem," said Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman who is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "He remains an important voice in the administration, but that is not to say he is the most important voice," Mr. Hamilton continued. "It's difficult to see how the Bush administration, or Bush himself, can backtrack from Cheney's very strong, aggressive stance." POWELL CHARTS LOW KEY PATH IN IRAQ DEBATE @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/international/africa/02POWE.html Keith wrote: (snip) There are either fierce differences within the administration at high level or there is, indeed, a conspiracy going on in the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz camp and Powell has been totally sidelined. In the UK, there can be little doubt that Blair knows a great deal more of what is in the mind of Bush or he wouldn't possibly be so gung-ho when faced with bitter opposition from his own party and to all the rest of the world with the possible exception of Australia and Turkey. Very senior government ministers have let it be known discreetly Blair has probably been allowed to tell Foreign Secretary Straw -- a very astute operator indeed -- because he is using words rather similarly to the White House spokesman above, using words both ways. One person who has been taking an enormous amount of flak from the army generals is Defence Secretary Noon. Bush has probably not allowed Blair to tell him what the real truth of the matter is, because Noon has made sure that he's said absolutely nothing in recent weeks despite the consternation that amounts almost to a revolution within his own Ministry. But he'll probably know soon because he's flying to Washington this week to be briefed. The long article in Time magazine, "Secret History of the Sept 11 failure" by Michael Elliot, reveals just how much the CIA and FBI (as well as Clinton thro Bush) have been dominated by fears of the Al Qaeda network, and that there have been a great many more attacks, foiled attacks and arrests than is realised by the ordinary reader of the press. Between now and the anniversary next week, the Bush administration must be walking on egg shells. It could only take one Al Qaeda attack for the whole US population to suddenly wake up and realise that all Bush's ranting about overthrowing Saddam Hussein is really beside the point.
