|
Bush and Rumsfeld are becoming
unglued.
"An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said
to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs.
Bush is also said to be �extremely angry� at what he perceives as growing
Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
�The President considers this nation to be at war,� a White
House source says,� and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies
to be no less than an act of treason. Sources within the Bush
administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community
indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a
living and the administration civilians to want to send them into
battle.�
From
Capitol Hill Blue
CHB Investigates. . .
Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges
caution
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jan 22, 2003,
01:18
Senior Pentagon
officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow
down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration�s
course of action represents too much of a shift of America�s longstanding
�no first strike� policy and that the move could well result in conflicts
with other Arab nations.
�We have a dangerous role
reversal here,� one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. �The
civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging
caution.�
Capitol Hill Blue has
learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade
Iraq in the coming weeks. They
have asked Secretary of State Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down
from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can
finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger
coalition in the Middle
East.
�This is
not Desert Storm,� one of the Joint
Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. �We don�t have the backing of
other Middle Eastern nations. We don�t have the backing of any of our
allies except Britain and we�re advocating a policy
that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us
or invading any of our allies.�
Intelligenced sources say some
Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S.
attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State
Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has
told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
An angry Rumsfeld, who backs
Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in
line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be �extremely angry� at what
he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in
Chief.
�The President considers this
nation to be at war,� a White House source says,� and, as such, considers
any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of
treason.�
But conversations with sources
within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence
community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war
for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into
battle.
Sources say the White House
has ordered the FBI and CIA to �find and document� links between Saddam
Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist
attacks.
�The implication is clear,�
grumbles one longtime FBI agent. �Find a link, any link, no matter how
vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against
Iraq.�
While Hussein and
Iraq have been linked to various
terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have
not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden�s al Qaeda
forces.
�There may be one,� says
another FBI source. �There should be one. All logic says there has to be
one, but we haven�t established it as a fact. Not
yet.�
Pentagon planners privately
refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a �Bush league
war,� something that may be fought more for political gain than anything
else.
�During Desert Storm, the line
officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into
Iraq and take out Hussein and his
government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the
plug on the operation,� says one Pentagon officer. �We had our chance. We
had the justification. We had the support. We don�t have it
now.�
Some Pentagon staffers point
to last weekend�s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd
included many veterans of Desert Storm.
�This wasn�t just a bunch of
tree huggers and longhairs marching,� says Arnold Giftos of Huntington,
West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. �Go to
any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious
discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this
war.�
Reporters covering the marches
on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the
30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as
veterans.
�I served in
Vietnam,� said Robert Brighton of
Detroit, who marched in
Washington. �I supported Desert Storm. I
don�t support this. It�s madness.�
In addition, Capitol Hill
Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have
�increasing� numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about
the war.
�Nobody in the party wants to
come out publicly and tell the President he�s wrong,� says one Hill source
close to the GOP leadership, �but we don�t have the kind of unity we need
on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time.�
Public support for a war with
Iraq is also slipping. In November of 2001, just two months after the
attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 78 percent of Americans
favored military action against Iraq. That support has slipped to as low
as 52 percent in January polls. A Washington Post-ABC news poll taken last
week shows Americans evenly split over Bush's handling of the crisis with
Iraq.
Spokesmen for the White House,
Pentagon and Congressional leadership offices would not comment on the
record for this report.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_1587.shtml
| 