Why support for the war is dropping.

I agree with this. This is why going to the UN was a big big mistake for Bush the Younger.

 

But if Saddam eventually complies with all of the UN's demands, doesnt that mean Bushie wins even if he does not have to go to war?

 

I (partially) disagree. While the renewed weapons inspections are indeed a factor, the fact that Bush has been saying for a year that he has proof of Saddam's WMD program, yet has yet to supply any of it to the American public or the rest of the world, has at long last begun to erode his credibility.

 

This might have been the case if Bush hadn't adopted a "war at any cost and on any pretext" approach.

However, since Bush has spent over a year on his ptiful search for any excuse to go to war that will fly with our own allies and, if possible, the American people (not that our ruling elites actually care much about what the people think), thus making it clear that his "reasons" for war were fig leafs, now anything short of a shooting war is a defeat for Bush.

If Bush doesn't go to war now after spending a year making it clear how hot-n-horny he was for war, people will rightly ask "What about all that pontificating about "The Axis of Unprofitabil... er, Evil"? Well, the "evil" is still there and now you're backing down." Bush would especially face fire from his own pro-war partisans as people like Axis Alex become horribly disappointed in not being able to see Iraqi civilians dying horribly under American bombs and start calling Bush a "wimp", the same label that helped sink Bush the First.

It's as true now as it was a year ago that there will be a war no matter what Saddam does or what the American people think about it. Bush has to go to war now if only because his own rhetoric has locked him into it.

 

They have yet to be shown to be liars. He isn't losing credibility. Blix's report was pretty clear, Iraq is doing ok, but there are too many holes. First, we have this nerve gas which is gone, these missiles, these chemicals used to make biological weapons etc. They haven't been accounted for in any Iraqi declarations to date. So, the question is where the hell are they?

The WMD program is there and it is working. They probably don't have Nukes yet. Fine, but they do have chemical and biological weapons along with the missiles to use them.

I don't understand why Bush's lack of disclosure regarding intelligence costs him credibility? Have we even gone to war yet? No.

If we go to war, and Bush doesn't bring forth his evidence of either 1. Saddam's tie to terrorism or 2. WMD (in particular nuke) development and/or complete fabrications on their disclosures, then Bush loses credibility. Don't jump the gun.

With regards to going to the U.N., he had too in my mind. Make the good faith effort. If the UN can get Sadaam to disarm, then you don't have to risk soldiers. If they don't, and are scared of war, or don't pass a resolution, then go in yourself without support.

 

He MUST go to war to maintain his political power; even if there is no reason to go, he will go, and manufacture a reason.

The result of his manufacturing process will be seen tonight (1/28)...

 

Except for all the bogus excuses they've tried to use for explaining the pressing need for Iraq, including preying on the ignorance of many people by implying that Iraqis were directly involved with the 9/11 attacks.

From NPR yesterday morning, Juan Williams had an interview with Andy Card.

Question was (paraphrased): Why is a war with Iraq justified?

Card answer (paraphrased): there were foreign nationals on those planes on September 11. This is a matter of national security.

 

Tom Clancy wrote a book that seems earily familiar...

 

Nonsense. Not even our own allies believe him and, increasingly, neither does the American people.

Bush has trotted out lie after lie and once he ran out of lies he started the "I'd tell you but I'd have to kill you" routine. There were no Iraqis among the 9/11 hijackers. Iraq does not have WMDs. And now he's asking us to go to war on his word alone? That's like Clinton asking you to trust him alone with your daughter.

Wouldn't it be funny if the US unilaterally went to war and the UN then had the balls to declare the US a rogue nation, since it would be true?

 

I think a lot of people are starting to realize that Saddam can be effectively contained. As long as there are active searchs going on he really can't produce new weapons. Bush's main problems is that he invested so much into an invasion it will be hard for him to say no. He ordered a huge buildup and is afraid that if he orders a withdraw he will look weak and people will question the wisdom of such a huge expenditure of money, time, and effort.

 

I've made the point on these boards several times that it's smart to go to The Daily Show and Politically Incorrect for political analysis, and Crossfire for comedy. Here's another example.

Bill Maher has been a Cassandra for a while now, saying that Bush's Achilles heel (howdja like two Greek mythology allusions in a row there?) isn't that he's dumb. That may be what Letterman and Leno et al. like to joke about, but Bush's weakness is that he's dishonest. And now, about 4 months too late, Daschle and Pelosi are picking up this theme.

And allow me to brag a bit...I came off the fence on the Iraq war because I was tired of Bush lying to me about it.

 

You sure you're not projecting the ghost of Neville Chamberlain? Sounds like him.

 

Yeah, because Hitler and Saddam are exactly the same. (cough cough*Godwin*cough cough)

 

America: Land of Bolsheviks

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

"More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified, according to a poll by the Los Angeles Times published Tuesday."

This includes 60% of the Republicans who responded, by the way. So even people fom his own party aren't buying his double secret probation "evidence" story.

 

Re: America: Land of Bolsheviks

And yet....

"58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq, according to the poll."

 

Re: Re: America: Land of Bolsheviks

I don't see a conflict here. What I read those poll numbers to mean is that people are so ambivilent about war that different poll questions phrased slightly differenlty on different days can get different answers.

My sense is that the electorate:
a) Very strongly wants to see hard evidence, the "smoking gun" that we are all quite tired of hearing about.
b) Wants to get at least a fig-leaf of international approval or failing that less outright dissaproval of a US-Anglo war effort.

As much as conservatives hate the UN, polls very consistently show that the American people respect the authority it gives vis collective security and the imprimatur of legality to whatever it is we have to do.

 

Oh come on! You can't seriously believe that.

They've been scrambling for stuff to feed us for months. The ONE argument I've heard that carries any weight at all is the fact that they're going to burn some of their sources by disclosing their info. Fine. Get your human assets out of there and burn them. The point is that evidence is required--and it hasn't been provided. Period. Bush had better come up with something better than the now-completely-discredited aluminum rod bit.

Asking for proof is a pretty good indication, don't you think? I don't think you can dismiss the 53 million or so voters who voted against him in 2000 as the "radical left". Folks who exclaim about this mystify me. The question isn't who do you trust more--Bush or Saddam. Clearly, neither is trustworthy. The question is about US. Who are WE? We are people who require clearly verifiable evidence of wrongdoing before we go to war. Bush needs to provide the evidence. Right now it's his word against Saddam's. If you put it on that basis, no wonder people all over the world have trouble with it.

So Saddam's seeking weapons of mass destruction? I'm inclined to believe you. He's got ties to terrorism? That's public knowledge--and HE made it public knowledge. What I have a problem with is the near-complete lack of verifiable evidence.

He's doing a bait-and-switch? I believe it. You still have to prove it. That's what inspections are for. Find something, then whack him. But you have to find something first.

 

Re: Re: America: Land of Bolsheviks

Keep telling yourself that.

 

Did you miss Hans Blix yesterday?

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. . .

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. . . .

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

Face it. For some of you, there will never be enough evidence.

 

Comedy.