Your story added a nice touch, Harry, to our speculations and online posturing.
Although I've been reading on the Bush 'We're #1 and Plan to stay that way' Doctrine and the congressional resolution he sent up for Congress to fall over, I'm going to highlight some additional To War or Not commentary that some may already have come across, but others may not: EJ Dionne Motivations for War @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42096-2002Sept19.html excerpt: "Though Bush denied yesterday that he is seeking a congressional blank check, he is asking Democrats who would support a war under the RIGHT conditions to give him authority to wage war under ANY conditions. This could eventually push Congress out of the essential debates: What is the best way to wage this war? How long will the US need to occupy Iraq? How serious are we about building a democratic - or at least, more democratic - post-Hussein regime? Will even asking such questions become politically dangerous now that the president has simplified the choice to being either with him or against him?" On of the biggest fist-clinching frustrations for many Democrat hawks and their Republican friends in the US is that they have been arguing for a war to tackle SH for many years, but now a new President comes along and botches the takeoff - and who knows? maybe also the delivery. You know Bob the Builder? Well, it's going to be George the Bulldozer. IF Bush has learned anything from those trying to reach through the dense walls of his inner circle, he should realize the potential for using the UN as leverage to bring the allies to the bandwagon: play the string for all its worth, don't jump the gun too soon, let the new Public Enemy #1 hang himself on his own track record and strategic misfires, and then move forward with the posse in line, well-prepared, after the midterm elections so that no one accuses you of listening more to Gen. Rove than Gen. Franks. Hoaglund Brinkmanship with Baghdad @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42097-2002Sept19.html excerpt: "The two-track Bush policy of applying pressure through diplomacy while continuing to push forward with intelligence and military options is yielding results....they must continue as a package. The Iraqi National Congress....can identify 1,200 nuclear scientists, aides and other personnel involved in the nuclear weapons program. These Iraqi officials and their families must be guaranteed protection if the nuclear inspectors are to have any chance of success." I noted somewhere this AM that the UK has suggested a quick "test" inspection of a presidential palace, for example, on short notice, to determine if SH can be trusted...since those sites have been specifically out of bounds in the past, it's unlikely to be accepted. And that's the point, isn't it? Lest we forget, OPEC has concluded it's session in Osaka, Japan with US Energy Top Lap Dog Abraham (he had no energy experience before being named to the DOE by Bush) complaining that they did not agree to increase output, and the OPEC president responding that the current $30/barrel price is political, artificially high out of fear that the US will attack Iraq. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Global-Energy.html) It's irritating to me that more hasn't been made of the slow but increasing and successful efforts to round up terrorists using good old fashioned police and spy work, rather than full speed ahead warfare. Spain, Singapore, Pakistan, Germany just in the last four weeks, I think. Which raises the question of why we are in such a hurry to bomb Baghdad, instead of where we know Al Qaeda are hiding, like Pakistan and Iran? Just because Donald Rumsfeld says that Hussein is hiding them doesn't mean he has shown proof of it, and as a Watergate baby I still don't automatically believe everything my government tells me, and neither should the US public jury being served an aggressive but circumstantial prosecution. Do it the right way, Mr. President. In a juicy bit of spying, the CIA and Pentagon are battling over the veracity of some info served up by a Greek woman claiming to be one of Hussein's past mistresses (over 30 years) who can document that the mustached Evil One met with the Is he dead or not? bearded Evil One and gave him money. After all of this, we are still fighting over information provided by mistresses? Karen Harry wrote: Meantime, to get SH to allow real and complete inspections, it is imperative that he believes the Texas Cowboys are raring to come in shooting. However, as I said several weeks ago, this assumes an American policy of misdirection - for which they are not noted. (One recalls the Marines coming up off the beaches of Somalia to find - more reporters and photographers than there were Marines.) One doesn't give an enemy 6 months notice you are going to attack him - unless supreme arrogance holds sway (which might also be true). Of course air power is supposed to be the determining factor, but wars are won on the ground by occupation of the enemy's homeland. One remembers Monte Cassino, center of one of the most momentous battles of WW2 as the allies advanced through Italy. The monastery itself was left alone but its surroundings were subjected to the most horrendous bombing and shelling one can imagine over a period of 4 months. Thousands of planes and guns pounded Monte Cassino. Yet the German parachutists not only held the position, but they were undefeated. They left when they were ordered back because of the crumbling front. In case anyone might think this was a little backwater operation, it was the battle that opened up the path to Rome and relieved the Anzio Beachhead - probably as ill-conceived a venture as one can imagine. Though that's for heated debate over many beers. Some 118,000 allied soldiers lost their lives (107,000 of them American). It was the Battle for Italy. Of course we would never get into a situation like that again. Would we? Naaaah! Of course, I hope no-one notices the mixture of hope and fear in my words. Harry
