Iraq's offer to allow weapons inspectors to return, phony though it may be, may have been a smart move. The Security Council members, notably Russia, are slowing down the drive to war.

This could set up some sticky moments for the U.S. and for Dubya.

i agree very smart move on saddams part. will be interesting in the days to come what bush will do. the support was building but after that announcement is pretty much crumbled. no way will it pass the security council now. lets see what our pres does now

Thomas Friedman, a rather hawkish (at least in The War on Terrorism) NY Times "liberal," has the current situation close to exactly right in today's column, I think (registration required):

Saddam is deterrable because, unlike suicide bombers, \"he loves life more than he hates us\"

In the diplomatic sense, Iraq did indeed trump Bush, but we must bear in mind that to the Bush administration, diplomacy is irrelevant. They deal in threats and ultimatums. Bush wants war, both for personal and for domestic political reasons, not weapons inspectors, and his contempt for the U.N. is obvious, so Iraq's concession on weapons inspectors is likely to be of no avail. It appears that Saudi Arabia's public statement that it would allow its soil to be used for an attack if it is authorized by the U.N. was decisive on this. It & other Arab countries prodded Iraq to concede on the issue of inspections because they fear that an attack on Iraq would trigger a conflagration in the Middle East. But it appears that this is precisely what Bush wants.

I dont think Shrub wants to take yes for an answer. After all the work they have done marketing this war they may be getting concerned that Saddam may actually back down.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
I dont think Shrub wants to take yes for an answer. After all the work they have done marketing this war they may be getting concerned that Saddam may actually back down.

---

I doubt that _ I don't think Pres. Bush WANTS a war. I'm sure he would liike it resolved w/o bloodshed like you & I would.

Bush absolutely does want war! He's too full of hubris and too drunk on power to climb down now. Besides, he's painted himself into a corner rhetorically, he can't back off without looking like a fool. And it's easy to advocate war when you're the president of the most powerful country in the world & when it's obvious that 99.9% of the casualties will be on the other side.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
He's too full of hubris...

---

I hate it when I have to go to dictionary.com to look up a word.

Anyway, I agree with copman, I can not believe that Bush WANTS a war if it can be avoided. If new inspections prove that Iraq is not developing new weapons of a chemical/biological/mass destruction nature, then Bush can claim that we intimidated Saddam into complying with U.N. resolutions. If the offer to allow inspections turns out to be a red herring (which it probably is), then I would support Bush in a war effort, although somewhat grudgingly, since I have yet to see a bonafide link between the war on Saddam and the war on terrorism, which we should be focused on right now.

[quote]Originally posted by copman:


I doubt that _ I don't think Pres. Bush WANTS a war. I'm sure he would liike it resolved w/o bloodshed like you & I would.

---

I wish I could agree with you but I do think that he wants a war. I think there are many members of his admin. who have wanted a war from Day One, long before Sept 11. I do find it suspicious that this all out effort on Iraq comes nestled between his month long vacation and the November elections. To quote Andrew Card:
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

In Karl Rove's famous Power Point presentation his first three words under "Republican Strategy" were "Focus on War."

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
he can't back off without looking like a fool.

---

He could still decide he wants to give the UN a chance.

The real reason he can't back off right now may be IMO USA politics. I just hope no USA soldier dies just for some politicians reelection.

Has anyone noticed that by any basic definition, we ARE at war with Iraq? We are bombing the hell out of the no-fly zone, and are said to have troops (commandos?) on the ground in the north. The current 'debate' is over whether there will be an invasion / "regime change."