I was watching news coverage of the latest developments this afternoon, and came across two interesting reports.

One has to do with this new message from Bin Laden that "absolutely implicates Iraq" according to the administration. The administration says that the message will clearly tie Iraq to Al-Qaeda. (Al-Jazeera (the Middle East news agency) says the tape will simply show that Bin Laden is encouraging Muslims to rally behind Iraq.) How convenient is that?

The other interesting tidbit is that Condoleeza Rice went to the UN today and met with the chief weapons inspectors. Her message was "clear and concise" according to the administration. News agencies are saying that Rice told Hans Blix that the Iraqi turnaround in the past few days would not be enough for the US to postpone military action. She told him, "You know what you have to do. Your report this Friday has to clearly show that the Iraqis are not cooperating and that military action is necessary." (Quote from CNN.) Nothing like a little pressure to make sure you get the outcome you want.

These are the exact kinds of incidents that have so many people around the world thinking that the US has never had a real interest in solving this problem any way but a full military response. The US is not engaging anyone who has an opposing viewpoint (much like the citizens of this country are questioned for speaking out against the administration), and has never veered from the military solution no matter what information is presented.

As the saying goes, "Perception is reality." The administration may feel it is in a very sound position for pushing forward with their current course of action. However, they continually leave people feeling like they are not performing any analysis other than how to execute the military action and what to do in the immediate wake of the Saddam regime.

While I'm no war monger by a long shot, the comment by Rice may be taken out of context. I thnk she wanted to make it clear that the Iraqi government has not be cooperating ( a widely agreed upon fact, even by Germany and France) and that she wanted his report to say that outright, not pussyfoot around it. She just wants a definitive statement, not something wishy washy. The UN can stil refuse to support the war, but the fact would remain that the spirit of the original resolution has been breached by the lack of cooperation.

It is war we're talking about, I don't think the UN should be embarrassed to go back and say that the resolution was too strong and the lack of cooperation clause may not have been a good idea given that with Saddam's past, it would most definitely send us to war. What were the chances of this tyrant being cooperative?

[ February 11, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: DC_guy ]

Grrrrrr.

[ February 11, 2003, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Why doesn't Bush just go ahead and bomb the hell out of them? Why does he pretend that he's even considering not going to war?

Nothing that Iraq is going to do is going to make one bit of difference. Bush is going to starting bombing to prove how big his cajones are no matter what.

Is anyone actually stupid enough to think that Bush doesn't want war?

Personally I don't like Condoleeza one bit. She was on Larry King one night last week, and was responding to questions and actually said this statement, " President Bush was elected by the American people". No Connie, sorry but he was not elected, he was selected . Big difference! :mad:

i'm not sure why people on this forum complain that anyone who criticizes the president or US government is immediately shot down when a quick surveillance of this entire board will reveal that about 85% of the forum very much dislikes the president and is oppossed to any military response to the iraqi issue. i personally do think the president is a bit of a moron and i don't agree with everything our government is up to, on the other hand though, bush's idiocy is matched only by that of the world community who think that after 12 years of pleading with iraq for cooperation, all we need is "more time". there should be no rush to war, but i would argue after 12 years that there *hasn't* been any rush to war... i don't know that bush "wants war" but i do think he wants to use whatever means necessary to stop iraq's drive towards obtaining weapons of mass destruction as well as the torture of his own citizens. does this mean i think that bush is right on? no not at all, but i just get tired of seeing this whole issue oversimplified... it's not as simple as just saying "bush is a moron and the rest of the world hates us and should". in my estimation the UN and world community have let themselves down in a major way by not putting more teeth and force in their own resolutions towards iraq after all these YEARS. i'm just dissapointed in all sides here... and i don't trust any side as far as i could throw them... and unfortunately it doesn't seem as though it will get any better before it all gets worse... this is a no win situation, if we do nothing we will regret it, but if we do something we may regret it equally...

I repeat, Grrrrr.

Try to be kind, puckman1.....

I think the caviar on Texas toast (yum! - Houston gourmet!) has been messin' with her head.

Right - and what's more is: whether or not we advance on Iraq or not - at this point two years of our nation's time and energy have been wasted on...CRAP. All (most likely) to divert our attention away from the fact that GWB was never qualified to do his job in the first place.

So Twin_58 doesn't freak out completely:

Condoleezza.

But also, it's "cojones," isn't it?

Today I read a report that says King Abdullah of Jordan is trying to press the U.S. to let Saddam and his top deputies (around 50 of them) go into exile, mainly to set up Saddam so that if he doesn't accept, they'll revolt and kill him (to save themselves). Key in this is that Bush TOLD King Abdullah in JUNE that he was set on a war, and there was nothing the Arab states could do to avert it. Jacta alea est--the die is cast.

Colin Powell's cynical Baghdad backflip (Saletan, Slate)

How STUPID do the Bushies think we are? A tape in which ObL calls on Iraqi Muslims to defend against Americans (and suicide-attack them) "proves a link" with Baghdad? When on the very same recording, Ostensibly Osama calls Saddam a "socialist and apostate"?

Powell selling this phony line of goods diminishes him more than ever. He's a pure mouthpiece for unilateralism now.

Thanks. I like her. She's smart as all get out.

I thought OBL was dead, is he speaking from the grave, or was he not dead last year after all that effort in Afghanistan? And if he is alive, what happened to catching him, that evildoer.

but you must remember the bushies' modus operandi -- ignore the inconvenient: that osama is alive, that north korea has nukes, that the economy is in the toilet, that oil prices are high and reserves are low, that 1.5 million jobs have been lost since gwb took office, that saddam is no more threat now than he has been for the last 11 years (containment works!), that there are record deficits looming, that the health care industry in the u.s. is in disarray.....but if anyone points out the emperor has no clothes, they are labelled unpatriotic.

remember the mantra: avenge poppy, get saddam. avenge poppy, get saddam. avenge poppy, get saddam.....

The apostate Arianna Huffington, on her Salon site (which is accessible for free today), talks about Dick Cheney's Iraq links. They're extensive, but again, little covered by the media. [sigh!] She says it's about the "sp-oil-s" that will come from the occupation of that country, not just the oil.

I had NO idea he'd lobbied for UN sanctions to be lifted from Iraq before he became VP. It was all for his company, Halliburton, which made millions of dollars reconstructing Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil well infrastructure during the 1990s, after Cheney, under Bush, had helped to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War. Now, if Iraq is again blown to smithereens, Halliburton--and Cheney, if he returns to the company--could again reap a windfall...

[ February 20, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Glad someone has mentioned Cheney and Haliburton. Historians are going to have field-day with this adminsitration.

Doesn't this administration look somewhat like Warren Harding's in the early 20s? Lots of questionable relationships, a number of inappropriate activities, and a general disconcern for the American public, whom they are supposedly representing.

I guess George had better not take any train trips with Laura. He does not want to end up dead under questionable circumstances.