If Bush and the Republicans don't get their war, King Karl Rove will come up with some brilliant scheme to put us all into "crisis" mode again. They must keep our minds off the economy and the fact that most other countries think we're nuts.

I think the Bush misministration will begin to see an onslaught of scandals, much bigger than Clinton ever saw. When it's over, we'll wish that all Bush did was get a blow-job in the oval office and lie about it.

The start of it could be the U.N. investigating the flagrant spying on the U.N. officials to see how they will vote and what their attitudes were. If you've noticed, the right-wing media hasn't breathed a dang thing about it yet.

I'm still sitting here amazed that it's discovered that Bush's Iraqi uranium evidence, which he mentioned in his news conference, has been uncovered as FAKE, yet the press is barely covering the story at all. Can you imagine how this would have been treated during the Clinton years? The headlines would have been HUGE ("Rationale for War Faked" "War Evidence a Fraud"...). We'd already have a special prosecutor and congressional hearings scheduled (and I don't think that's an exageration AT ALL).

I'll take that bet. By a week from tonight, the war will start.

War starts Thursday/Friday March 20th or 21st.

JB, I want you to be right. This impending war is insane. Over fifty-percent of the Iraqi population consist of children. To get one man, we're going to kill thousands of children.

Well, I awoke to this today thinking, boy is this optimistic. It may be to the point that Bush just throws all political calculation to the wind, and goes headlong into war.

It'd be the most foolish political act I've seen in my lifetime. Probably Bush is fool enough to do this. Still it does not make sense.

In regards to innocent deaths, it's just sickening to imagine the scale on which this is going to occur, I cannot.

But the political costs-- the UN, NATO, Blair, all shreaded by this gamble.

I think the equation has to change, and would look for some "event" that either spurs Bush having more support for war, or allows a way to back off.

I agree that the scales have tipped. Bush sustained a third week of heavy artilery damage from the anti-war forces. More humiliations and defeats. Hardened opposition that is spreading to more moderate voices. A drop in public support. N.Korea intercepts a plane, tests missiles and will soon restart its reactor. Bush "fails to convince" at his 20th attempt to sell the war during his 'lack-luster' press conference. A consensus seems to be developing that the imminent risk of destruction of the UN and NATO outweights the risk posed by Saddam.

If Blair were to bow out, or if Rove were to conclude that Bush's reelection would be endangered by attacking now without the UN, it is certain that the plan would change. Bush has demonstrated that he is willing to time the war for maximum political effect. Why should Blair commit political suicide for someone who would find a way to avoid the same damage to himself, postponing the war if necessary. And why should Bush not change war plans if it will enhance his bid for reelection.

Bush is getting a rep with the public for being a bully internationally, and isolated. He could get tagged as a foreign policy failure. And he could be a hero if he agreed to inspections "or months, not years,"with deadlines and a military option if Saddam fails to comply. He would get UN support, save the UN and undo a lot of the damage HE has sustained lately. He would get Turkey, too.

Is Tony Blair raising these issues? Congressional epubs behind the scenes? Rove? Pappy? I bet they are. The potential for fatal political damage is now too high for Bush. And he stands to gain little from going to war under the current circumstances. I also think N.Korea has a plan to try another big humiliating brinkmanship stunt that will make Iraq seem like a sproting event compared to what could happen over there if we do not get a handle on it now.

But then again, BushCo has tunnel vision when it comes to Iraq. They are on a crusade, right? Bush is divinely guided and prays and all that. How do you tell God, "sorry, no can do."

I'm in college and I'm shocked that no one in the media was referred to this as the St. Crispin's Day War. Henry V makes an obsecure claim to the throne of France and starts a war to rally his people around him. That Shakespeare guy really is the writer for all times because about 400 years later Pres. Bush is alot like Prince Harry in Henry IV, (ie lowering the bar so it is easier to step over) and living a reckless childhood. The reason why Bush is viewed successful is because the bar is set so low for him.

I hate to be a pessimist, but since Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al have probably been set on invading Iraq since before their fraudulent election, I can't imagine them letting anything like overwhelmingly negative world public opinion, rational thought, or, god forbid, their consciences, get in their way. So most likely hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi children and other innocents will be slaughtered in our names. (Good thing we're so different than the 9-11 terrorists, huh?)

Don't kid yourself their WILL be a war and Saddam will bite it. After all "he tried to kill my dad". Bush is a madman with control over the worlds greatest superpower

Bush's FUD machine has convinced people that we must invade Iraq to stop another 9-11. After setting the March 17 (isn't that St. Patricks Day?) deadline he can't back off without losing all credibility.
So, either he bribes or threatens enough Security Council votes to make a French or Russian veto seem anti-American, or he makes the UN irrelevant. Throughout the Cold War, the UN could deal with minor powers, but proved incapable of dealing with either superpower. That goes double now that there is only one superpower.

He will invade and conquer. Any problems will be blamed on spiteful ex-allies, traitorous lefties, or, when all else fails, Bill Clinton.

Considering that the administration is spending a billion dollars a day to park 250,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, I just don't see them pulling back.

I think they made the decision to attack long ago. They've spent the past few weeks trying to cajole, harangue, and bribe other countries to get on board so that they can amass a smidgen of credibility. It hasn't been working, but that still doesn't mean they won't attack.

I would be curious to know what would happen if Blair were to back out of Great Britain endorsing and participating in an attack. I have several friends in England and the consensus from them is that Blair will lose his next election if he goes to war with Bush.

Sadly, I think the U-nations will succumb to massive bribery. Unless one of the Perms cast a veto, I think the Bushies will get 9 votes.

there's a difference between a coldly rational analysis and acting rationally based on the analysis

there's a difference between thinking with your heart and thinking with your mind

of course your grasp of the situation is entirely correct, leading you to rationally conclude - were you in charge - that some intervening course-changing event need arise, so as to put a halt to the Iraq carnage

Rove has no heart, so his actions will have to be guided by his capacity for brain function

I just hope Rove is as coldly rational as you

JB, I *sincerely* hope you are correct. If so, what will the signal be?

I would expect that there will be no public backdown (would cause ditto-monkey backlash); perhaps a statement that "the inspectors will be given one last chance," or possibly "we will allow the UN to prove its relevance over the summer months" or similar bilge.

The signal that it is a real decision not to invade would probably be the return to the US of some portion of the reservists. This might be disguised as a "standard troop rotation."

There will be no problems with this war. In fact, I am going to make a prediction that all of you will scream at. I predict that the number of casualties will be less than 25,000 (unless Saddam starts gassing his own people).

Maybe we can blame Bill Clinton for not doing anything to punish terrorists. Whaddya think about that statement, ChicagoBurbs the Homophobe?

PS - Have you discovered anything else about homosexuals? Maybe that they like to eat food and drink water? Maybe that they have red blood? Maybe that they are completely normal people, unlike you? I just feel that it is my duty to continually remind you and the other readers of this blog about your blatant and unapologetic homophobia.

Or will the signal come from Great Britain? Will at some point Blair be so weakened he will have to back down?

See:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=289332003

There is an important Scottish vote on May 1, and a major defection from Labor.

excerpt:

Tommy Sheppard, who has been a member of the Labour Party for 24 years resigned over Tony Blair's Iraq policy and accused the Prime Minister of playing Robine to Bush's Batman.

JASON ALLARDYCE

SCOTTISH Labour was dealt a body blow last night when one of its most senior figures quit, condemning Tony Blair’s relationship with George Bush as "sickening, depressing and demeaning".

Tommy Sheppard, who was Jack McConnell’s right-hand man and a former deputy general secretary of the party, is now threatening to vote for the SNP.

Sheppard’s decision to resign has stunned the Labour movement and marks the most high-profile departure since Jim Sillars quit to form a breakaway party in the mid-1970s.

Sheppard, who has been a member of the Labour Party for 24 years, said he had decided to go partly because of concerns over Iraq and McConnell’s refusal to seek more powers for the Scottish parliament.

And, in a further blow to Labour’s Holyrood election campaign, both Sheppard and Bob Thomson, the party’s former treasurer , are backing SNP plans for fiscal autonomy. Under the plans, MSPs would be given the power to spend all taxes raised in Scotland rather than having to rely on a block grant from London.

In an article for the socialist magazine Scottish Left Review, reproduced in this week’s Scotland on Sunday, Sheppard expresses his horror at the prospect of "a truly awesome slaughter of innocents in Iraq".

He adds that the Labour government’s "continuing love affair with a right-wing republican administration in the White House is the most depressing and demeaning spectacle...

"It is sickening to behold the British prime minister play Robin to Bush’s Batman gallivanting throughout the world from one imperial crusade to the next."

Thomson added to McConnell’s woes by claiming Blair’s support for war was not justified and that he was little more than "a cuckoo with no Labour connections" who should resign as party leader.

JB,

You're wrong, but I wish you were right.
There's gonna be a war, no doubt. Bush will risk going it alone with only Britain.

He can't back down now. What does he do with 300,000 troops in the Gulf--withdraw? C'mon.

Bush is risking that even with only six or seven Security Council votes, he can still launch a war. He thinks that once the war is won and hidden weapons are found, he'll look like a hero.

He's betting that people won't think about all the anti-war protests or the failed resolution-- they'll only think about America's victory. In short, he's betting that people don't remember things long, and they only remember who won.

And you know what, Bush is right! People will only remember that America won, not all the controversy before the victory.

JB, your post reminds me of author Doris Kearns Goodwin's prediction during the 2000 Florida election stalemate. She was asked what could happen to render victory meaningless.

Ms. Goodwin predicted that if the U.S. Supreme Court got involved in the election dispute, and decided the election, then the victor would be so tainted that it wouldn't be worth it. She said that if the Supreme Court had to get involved, then things would have gotten so out-of-hand that neither Gore nor Bush would be a useful president.Well, the Supreme Court got involved, and all most people remember is that Bush won.

The same applies to Iraq. Bush will fight only with the blessings of Britain.

Once the war is won, Bush is betting that all most folks will remember is that we won--they'll forget the protests, casualties, and expensive occupation.And you know what, JB? Bush is probably right.

-"And you know what, Bush is right! People will only remember that America won, not all the controversy before the victory."-

Not this time. Iraq is going to be a bloody mess. Sure we'll win in 4 or 5weeks and install our military governer Jay Garner. But what happens when the Turks invade northern Iraq? What happens when Kurds and Shiites start strapping Bombs to their bodies and blowing up American peacekeeping patrols in order to force the US to leave Iraq so they can form their own indy. Nations? Chances are they will have massive funding from Saudia Arabia and Oman and the UAE so as to prevent the "Seed of Democracy" from taking root in the region.

The Iranians don't want their Kurdish cousins to have an independent homeland. Iran has almost as many Kurds as the Iraqis. And one they start to clammour for autonomy or to be annexed to Iraq it will set off the 20 mil. Azeris in NW Iran who want to link up with the 6 mil Azeris that comprise the republic of Azerbaijan, Iran will do this while at the same time trying to figure out how to create and independent Shia state in Southern Iraq or maybe annexsing it outright.
No. Bush is done. It will take decades to repair the damage from this if not centuries.

John Jimenez

http://www.draftgore.com

Bush will do whatever HE wants. The world be damned. Democracy be damned. The fact that he'll be the one breaking international law by unilaterally attacking Iraq is of no consequence to him. The fact that more an more people in Europe are seeing the USA as the biggest threat to world safety is of no interest to him. The fact that muslims revile and hate the name of the USA is of no consequence. He only lives to serve the people (not of the USA but of the big business) and wants to make America a right wing country and the world a US slave dependency. Bush would do more damage to the image and standing of the USA in one term than the previous 10 presidents combined. I say that if he is elected tpo an other term, the USA will become a pariah without any friends in the world community.

I have to agree with you Father of Six. The American people have very short memories and they will not remember all the protests and the like.

I think war is going to happen. I am also beginning to fear that Bush will get his nine votes (mostly by buying off other countries). I then think France or Russia will veto the resolution. But Bush will claim he got a majority and that gives him legitimacy in attacking Iraq. I think war will begin next Monday the 17th.

JB
- Another prediction based on wishful thinking (sorta like November's elections).

Here's some predictions that I bet will all be true.
1. The US and its coalition (there ARE other countries besides France and Germany in the world) will invade Iraq this month.
2. The US and its coalition will win.
3. Saddam Hussein will not have the power to give WMD to terrorists after that. (It's a good chance, but not probable he won't have the power to lift his left arm).
4. Many Iraqis will celebrate their freedom.
5. Thousands of Iraqi children WILL NOT be killed by the invading forces.
6. HUNDREDS of Iraqi children WILL NOT be killed by the invading forces (but how many Iraqis will be killed by Saddam's forces? Who knows?)
7. With UNRESTRICTED access to Iraqi sites and scientists, the real level of threat will be known and many former "anti-" folks will shrug and say "well, it's good we got to the weapons after all".

I'll check back after a while. I feel like I'll be going 7-for-7.

Ced,

Bush is working overtime to go to war, and he just might get the U.N. war resolution. The press, of course, is now cooperating with him on the "expectations" game.

If Bush gets the nine votes, as Colin Powell predicted, the press will widely report that ole George W. Bush was "underestimated" yet again. Shucks! The boy always pulls a rabbit out of the hat!

On any other day, for any other cause, the U.S. should have no trouble getting U.N. support for the overthrow of a sovereign government.

Getting a scant nine votes for a major war is hardly a victory. Getting less than nine is a major diplomatic failure---time for some top-level heads to roll.

Of course they are going to go to war. No there won't be an intervening event to change the path. They don't care whether they have public opinion behind them or not - they assume that once they go to war (and "win") public opinion will fall in place behind them. Could they postpone war to fall to coincide with election 2004? Doubtful.

So, once the major violence of the war is over, then how will they control the headlines keep them off the economy, off the stock market (which will only rally briefly), off possibly not getting Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, off a burst housing bubble, off nasty post-Iraq war aftermath?

How will they push unfavorable headlines off the front page after war on Iraq is over? They will continue to increase the antagonism between the US and N. Korea - remember it was Bush who withdrew from the previous Clintonian negotiations with N. Korea. The "evil" Kim Jong Il will be antagonized and utilized to push for more MDS legislation, Patriot II legislation, orange and red alerts (upping fear and panic anti to keep citizens in line - red alert: not just plastic sheeting, gas masks and suits). If politically necessary they will start another war with N. Korea this time (or rather be "forced" to retalliate against N. Korea) to further control the headlines and to prevent Democrats from gaining traction on the failing economy going into the 2004 election.

Let's not harbor any delusions. Even if the U.N. vote is 12-3 against Bush, the war will happen anyway. The political calculations he is worried about have nothing to do with Europe or long-term alliances. He is committed to go politically because otherwise his base like Mike the Analyst would think he was a wuss. He truly believes, like Mike the Analyst, that the rosy-case scenario will happen. Fo6 is right in that if everything were to somehow go well, people would forget that he had no support going in. Let's not harbor any delusions that everything will go well, however.

Mike,

Yeah, the Iraqis are so eager for occupation they didn't unite and fight the British in 1920.

Take a look at a map of Baghdad. A good look. Realize that Saddam has maybe 200,000 troops he can use to defend it. Once you blow the bridges, half the city is surrounded by what is in effect a moat. One the US will have to cross under fire.

Thousands of people are going to die if that comes to pass. American people. I don't know how many Iraqis will die, but once Al Jazeera shows the first picutre of the first dead Iraqi child or woman, we're off to the races. That picture will spread across the Arab world in tandem with Bin Laden's, confirmation that he is right and killing Americans is a political and religious duty.

Everyone acts like this war will take place in isolation. It won't. Once the pictures of Baghdad under attack take place, even if nothing else goes on, the US's allies are in mortal danger. We'll be shocked at how quickly the rioting will spread. Even if the Iraqis cheer, and they won't, given the gun sales going on in Baghdad, the reaction in the rest of the Arab world will be fearsome.

Cracks are starting to appear. Blair signals willingness to go beyond March 17 deadline and adopt a Canadian-like plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6277-2003Mar10.html

Poppy bush also sounds like he thinks junior is about to hurt himself with his war toy and not playing well with the other nations.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

What if Tony refuses to go along with George's rules. Will georgie throw a tantrum? Will daddy step in?

AP INFLATES SMIRK'S POLL NUMBERS 3/11

In an AP story today about an increase (!) in American war support, they bump Bush's approval in the Ipsos-Reid poll by 2%. The AP just couldn't bring themselves to fairly report the 51% approval, 46% disapproval numbers. This story appeared on Yahoo News for about 5 minutes, then disappeared. Hmmm...

Here's the quote:
"The president's diminished political standing was suggested in an Ipsos-Reid poll done for the Cook Political Report. His overall job approval was at 53 percent, down from 65 percent in the early fall."