Nice analysis, JB.

This has been a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. The votes for war are not there--hell, its not even close. Blair is signaling for a way out of the mess, and those prominent republicans with a conscience are backing away quickly. Despite all of the bellicose rhetoric of the past year, I don't see us going to war without UN approval.

Blindly loyal conservatives seem to have a hard time understanding this, but it has never been about "hating" Bush and wanting to see him fail. What it is about is doing the RIGHT THING. Iraq never was and never will be a threat to this country. I'll be the first to praise Bush if and when he orders the troops home.

Bush's own Dad is now warning against a military strike without U.N. approval. And Blair is asking for more time. But Bush is on record for pushing for a U.N. resolution vote this week, and making March 17 the deadline. He was working the phones furiously on Monday trying to get nine votes.

Bush has boxed himself in, and his own Dad is chastizing him. Bush will obviously postpone his March 17 deadline. It'll be interesting to see how Bush spins this one, and how the press will help him out of his hole.

What is the source for the April 17th date requested by the "unaffiliated Six"?

The Tufts speech is fairly old news; wasn't it about a week ago?

What I find interesting is how little play it got. And, how apparently 41 felt he had to say something in public (to get Jr's attention? the 2x4/mule factor?). Scowcroft can't get through. Haven't heard from Baker. Eagleburger the other night on Crossfire said they're really screwing this up. Only Henry stays with them, but then, it was his idea in the 70's that's being fulfilled by the audacious neos (to take a substantial chunk of the mideast oil--per Adkins, the former ambass to SA, and former Henry staffer)! But when daddy has to go public, the bubble is really tight.

The request by the six "undecideds" on an Iraq deadline is perfectly reasonable. I'm much more comfortable with an April 17th deadline than a March 17th deadline. Of course, if Bush delays war until then, the Iraqi summer will have started up and we'll have to fight in the heat (a big no-no). It's my opinion that this war has to start by the end of the month or it won't start at all (and I'm hoping it won't).

The source for the six, new deadline, is from Bloomberg News, they say they have an advance copy of the proposal, and confirmed it with Chile.

Looks like Halliburton is lining up for a second "democratic Iraq" good for another billion from raiding the treasury:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030310/ts_nm/iraq_construction_dc_8

You are right alf, but for some reason, it's being recycled, with coverage of it in both the WaPost yesterday and BW today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62952-2003Mar8.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2003/nf20030310_2978_db015.htm

So you can't even be a county chair and utter criticisms of the President in the Grand Old Party? That's why they're driving off the cliff.

They're starting to realize it, too. In The Note last Friday, they went on and on about the "burden" felt by the White House over ordering the country to war. One of their big examples was Karl Rove sitting "uncharacteristically" alone and silent for 10 minutes. Well, he's feeling a burden, but it's not moral anguish over the war. It's the polls.

I pray that they'll realize this and pull back, but I really don't think so. I really think they think this will all be a bad memory after they win a glorious victory. Or at least they see that as the only way out.

Link to Bloomberg News article:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20World%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topworld&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_windex&bt=ad_position1_windex&box=ad_box_all&tag=worldnews&middle=ad_frame2_windex&s=APm0aNhXmVU4gTWVt

gfyfe,

Right you are. Mid-April start really hurts the military. But it's delicious how BushCo's tail is being twisted, especially by the little guys (never thought I'd appreciate the French so!).

Serves Condi et al right that after all the work of the cabal to paint the unwitting Chimp into a corner, it looks like a loser even before the big "win". Unless this thing goes perfectly, and as an old military guy I'll tell you that almost never occurs, especially on this scale of operation, even their master spinners are going to have trouble getting lemonade here.

Except for the constant tears for my country, I'd say it couldn't happen fast enough (it's like dealing with Nixon during Watergate).

JB,

My bet is the lack of coverage surprised 41 and his cohorts, so they "arranged" for a replay in prominent press. Again, the 2x4/mule thing with 43. His earphones only hear Condi, Rummy et al, and I wonder if this will reach him, since it's "over there".

I don't think that Bush can ignore the 6 countries asking for a month more (though I have to wonder if it gets national media play), the Bloomberg story kindly linked above shows that the UK is open to a new date:

""The U.K. is open to consideration of a new deadline for Iraqi disarmament, Straw said. The Security Council should adopt the U.S.-British plan for a final deadline, although he said ``we are examining whether a list of defined tests for Iraqi compliance would be useful.""

Of course, it underminds Bush's argument (one of them anyway) to wait another month, if the danger is so imminent... but it's been "imminent" since last summer, so I doubt the media will give a damn.

Actually, the more that I think about this "month more" plan. I would think the TV media would love it, as for them, it's only a ratings game-- the longer the better.

JB,

OT but I think important: there's a new Ipsos Reid poll out that shows continued political deterioration for Bush here at home. (Don't know how to link or I would; sorry.) Regional breakdown shows generic dem taking NE and West but losing South and Midwest badly (religious conservatism?). Shows how close and badly split the country is; 2000 redux. But the midwest thing needs your critical eye, pls.

Here is link to Ipsos Reid poll titled "A Politically Weakened President Approaches Decision on War"

http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_us.cfm?id_to_view=1761

The big losers in this are Colin Powel, and the UN crowd. If Bush went along with his original plan, he would never have listened to Powel and this would be over by now. The French never went to the UN before actions in the Gold Coast. Clinton did not ask the UN for permission before he went into Haiti, and Kosavo. Millions died waiting for the UN to act in the African genocide just a few years ago. The UN is outdated and obsolete.

The biggest losers would be our troops. More of them would be killed if we wait another month. I do believe that’s what most of those countries a want anyway.

Sure, Vicky, they are delaying everything so more of our soldiers die. What a genius! No wonder you support Bush!

alf, looking at the regional breakdowns in that Ipsos-Reid poll, and seeing the odd skew between the midwest (normally a swing batch) and the south (which is and ever shall be Bush's best region), I have to feel states as far west as the Dakotas and Montana must be included in the Midwest crew (along with NE, KS, IN etc). There's no way the collective of IL, PA and MI could yield better results for Bush than MS/AL/SC etc. I also noted a much higher "would CONSIDER someone else" in the midwest group. Maybe someone didn't push this group as hard to make a call.

In any event, these are terrible numbers. It's clearly now a flat lie to refer to Bush as a popular president.

Alright now, who's the Dems' best candidate? It's not Dean that's for sure. Graham needs a domestic agenda,
Gephardt needs to stop flip-flopping (confederate flag issue), Kerry is too much like Dukakis, Lieberman is too "moralistic," Sharpton and Mosely-Braun are jokes, and the others are hopeless. I still like Kerry and Graham

(continuing previous post)

...but they need to develop a more complete agenda. How about Kerry-Graham?

Bush has really, really screwed things up, imperiling America's stature in the world and the global economy. There is no diplomacy at all. He should have brought in some of 41's advisers.

And Tony Blair? He needs a way out, now. I thought he could least supply
some dipolomacy to the war effort. Well, there's that thousand-pound fine to pay for not paying the central London toll.....

JB,

Gone is Bush's swagger. He's no longer saying that the U.N. is in danger of losing its relevance, like he did in his Sept 12 U.N. address and several times since. It's been a while since Ari Fleischer has said that the U.N.'s relevance is at stake.

For several months, Bush was cocky and could afford to chastise the U.N. and say we could fight a war without them.

Now Bush has crawfished, he's grovelin', beggin' for every vote he can get. He's even meeting with the Guinea foreign minister (where's Guinea?). Strange behavior for a man who has demeaned the U.N. and called it irrelevant.

This will be the end of the UN.
Good riddens!!!

Vicky was right when she said that the Bush mistake was giving the UN a chance to be relevant. It bit him in the ass. He is taking many hits for the benefit of Blair. But that’s what friends do for each other. Unlike the dirty French.

6 years ago I got a rude awakening about how we are thought of in the world. To make a long story short, I was on vacation in Mexico in a remote mountain village in a bed & breakfast. Of around 30 guests, my friend and I were the only Americans there. On the second night when alcohol and good times had loosened everyone’s lips, politics became the subject. They were polite, but the overall feeling was they did not like the United States at all. I did not want to be argumentative, but I tried to make the case that we have helped almost every country in the world. They dismissed all of that.

I am not surprised that we would get no support in the UN. After all, they kicked us off the human rights committee and replaced us with Libya not long ago. I have come to the conclusion that we should not give any foreign aid to any of the ungrateful “you know what’s.”

The Dummycrats who have aligned themselves with France and China will be lambasted in the next election. Even more than the ones who voted against the 1991 war.

The 'dirty French?' Clean your dirty mouth, son. The French are our allies. So are the Germans. Those governments are answerble to their citizens, aren't they? As democracies? If 85% of their citizens do not want this war, you say they should ignore their own citizens and their own political careers and side with Bush instead, despite the only shaky and unconvincing case he has been able to make for war?

Boy, talk about arrogance. The whole world is supposed to march to GWB, no matter how crazy the orders, and if they don't, they the "dirty French!"

Thank god your view represents only a sliver of American opinion. Most Americans know better.

Hidi, You say:

" I tried to make the case that we have helped almost every country in the world. They dismissed all of that.

...

"I have come to the conclusion that we should not give any foreign aid to any of the ungrateful “you know what’s.”"

The truth is that the USA gives a smaller percentage toward foreign aid than most other advanced nations.

We did not get kicked off any commission, they have rotating leadership posts.

You need to read some books about what the USA has done to upset people around the world. It is not because they are all "ungrateful “you know what’s.”

"He is taking many hits for the benefit of Blair"

It's almost not even worth responding to this, but . . . Bush taking hits for Blair?!?!?!? HA!!!

Blair is seeing the possibility of his government splintering over his slavish following of Bush. And if he could Bush would drop him so fast it would make Paul O'Neill's head spin. But he needs the legitimacy an ally gives him. And the British military would be very helpful in the fight. Bush has no allies, only countries he sees as useful at the moment.

"Dummycrats"? Wow, that's pretty lame.

Vicki (and Ari and others in TV land) are asserting the lack of UN authorization for Kosovo and/or Haiti as 'proof' the UN is past and as evidence the US doesn't need their clearance - but I argue that both were UN sanctioned by default, as the UN allows for regional organizations to deal with regional issues and since NATO (Kosovo) and OAS (Haiti) were involved and sanctioned the actions, the US WASN'T acting without an international mandate.

Time:

This has been bugging me for some time, and you're not the only perpetrator of this particular irritation. You just happen to me the closest one:

The word is "riddance", not "riddens!"

Also, there is no word "rediculous."

And if I don't believe in God, I'm an
"atheist", not an "athiest."

The internet is killing spelling.

I find those comments of Hidi's to be particularly galling. It's as if this idiot knows zero history and has no ability to question her own conclusions.

Okay, Hidi Useless Brain, off the top of my head I'll give you some reasons why the US is despised in many places of the world:

-->Iran in the 50's. The CIA crushes a burgeoning demcoracy movement and installs the Shah.
-->In the midst of a blatantly illegal war in Vietnam, the US, incredibly, bombs another country (Cambodia) allegedly hiding the enemy, another war crime. The US then sits idly by as Pol Pot runs a real horror show.
-->In the 70's the US completely derails any chance for Democracy in Chile and Bolivia--hell, they might elect socialists!.

The list is very much longer, but I have to get to work. Next time you want to flap your idiot lips, Hidi, I would suggest The Free Republic. They're used to ignoramuses there who make asses of themselves.

Gephardt needs to stop flip-flopping (confederate flag issue"

Actually Gephardts position has not changed on this issue. He opposes flying the flag on public ground for any purpose. He felt the need to clarify that if people wanna fly it at home that is their right

paradox, did you forget East Timor?

Its not the UN that is becoming irrelevent. Our allies seem pretty unified against a war in Iraq at this time. Just because the Washington doesn't get what it wants doesn't mean the UN didn't work. Its the nation state that is possbily becoming irrelevent.

Paradox

I know the Hidi's in this country are frustrating because of their seemingly lack of historical information regarding why "we" are not liked or trusted, but let's not call them names. I am finding that a great many people are absolutely clueless as to the history of the US, clueless and resistant to finding out, fear I think, of accepting our responsibility of "marching people to the gas chambers" so to speak. We as a country have to get over ourselves. Other countries have faced their faults, why can't we? But it isn't going to help all the "Hidi's" in the US by calling them names, anymore than calling names is helping Bush with the rest of the world.

Bush and Fleischer are again trying to put the U.N. on the defensive by demanding that the U.N. fulfill its "moral responsibility" and approve war. But day-by-day, it's Bush who is looking increasingly defensive. He's now grasping at any weapon that Blix hasn't mentioned to justify a full-scale war and trillion dollar occupation.

Bush may yet get the nine votes on Thursday or Friday. It is possible. But if he doesn't and still demands war, watch for Blair to start distancing himself from Bush.

I know perfectly well I'm not supposed to call anybody names. You know what? After 2 years of the Bush junta I just don't give a damn anymore.

Run as a moderate--a Big Lie. Steal the election. Govern as the new Conservative Radical. Completely blow pre-9/11 intelligence signs that lead to the worst attack on our soil. Trash the federal budget. Gut any environmental law possible. Have the AG persecute Californians and Oregonians for state lawas passed by the voters. Start an illegal war, kill tens of thousands.

There's much more. The country's gone to hell, plain and simple, but I'm still supposed to be an an advanced human and play by the rules?

I know you're right. It's just that today I don't care. The mo-fo's trash our country right in front of us but they're still "Mr." and "Mrs." Uh-huh.

Hey paradick, enjoy it for another 6 years, you obnoxious shithead. "The country's gone to hell, plain and simple..." Blah, blah, blah. Yada Yada Yada. Are you done yet? Puh-leeze!!! You sound like a Republican during the Clinton years. What would be different now if Gore was selected President? You would then have had at least 12 straight years of a Democrat in the White House. What would be different? Not much. Kyoto was never going to be ratified by the Senate, the ABM Treaty was of no value, whereas developing "star wars" is of a value to us (especially after it was revealed that Clinton/Gore's North Korea Agreement was violated immediately), the economy would still be in the same position it is today. You know why there is a lot of stuff going on today?? Because Clinton punted. Terrorism wasn't dealt with, Saddam Hussein wasn't dealt with, Social Security reform wasn't dealt with.

Have a drink or smoke a joint or do whatever it is that will calm you down and let you think straight.

Now that I threw some chum in the water, I will enjoy all of the responses from you "progressives". :) :)

PS - ChicagoBurbs is homophobic, racist, SOB.

Paradox, you hit the nail on the head.

As for the thread regarding Americans' ignorance of their country's history, I believe part of that can be laid at the feet of the Reagan administration. Their "morning in America" BS was just propaganda to anesthetize Americans and partly blind them to reality and make them more pliant and sheeplike. After all, if you don't see the bad, it's not there, right? This myth that Americans are always the "good guys" is so utterly ingrained in this country; anyone who dares to point out that the mass murder of civilians in many parts of this globe has frequently been conducted on behalf of US interests(Chile, Central America, Iran, Vietnam) is branded an America-hater. I say the true patriots are those who see evil and injustice and stand up to make their voices heard against it. These are the people who are fighting for a just America and better treatment of all people. Those who blindly follow the corporistas of this administrations are the "bad" Americans.

I kinda like "Corporista". That is rather original. I've never heard that one before (in fact, I may know go by "Mike the Troll" or "Mike the Corporista". Thank you. I really mean that). But in this case, isn't the evil and injustice being committed by Hussein?

PS - I thought the use of the word "evil" is wrong (at least according to "regressives" like the those on the left)

Bush and/or the ruling cabal can hardly be called conservative anymore. A better description would be "right wing ultra hawk."

Former President Bush was an actual conservative. He worked within the U.N., had respect for the U.N., excelled at diplomacy and generally had for his no. 1 goal maintaining the existing order of things.

There wasn't any of this rabid hatred for the U.N. (now rabid hatred of all things French), ditaste for diplomacy and overall cowboy-ish "you're with us or you're against us" routine.

The current President Bush is frighteningly naive, reckless, horrible at diplomacy and has given his heart to an extremist element who has been plotting U.S. imperialism for at least 10 years.

Why would we want to be Imperialist? Please tell me why? There is no way that an imperialist candidate/government would win any nationwide elections in this country. I am very conservative, and I have no desire to be imperialist. Furthermore, we have elections every 4 years, and the same people would not remain in power to preside over this empire. So please provide arguments that make sense, otherwise you are just making yourself look like an emotional trainwreck who crys "wolf" for everything that George "Darth" Bush does in office.

Though, I may be mistaken, and Bush will use the power of the Force to melt our minds so that we amend the constitution to allow for more than two terms and so that we always vote for him. I never really thought of this option, but now that you present it, I do see the seriousness and likelihood of it. In fact, I'm going to call you "lifesaver".

Yes the UN is an irrelevant debating society. It worked great for Clinton who loves to talk slick shit and accomplish nothing. He fits in perfectly with the UN.

And yes we were VOTED off the committee on human rights and Libya was VOTED on. Although we were able to get voted back on latter, the fact is valid.

Every one of these problems we now face are a direct result of the Dummycratic policies that let them fester and grow for 8 years: From the stock market bubble that ballooned the economy into an unsustainable growth rate made worse by unchecked corporate fraud...

To the Muslim terrorists that grew exponentially when the inept Dummycrats in charge as did not confront them directly when we were attacked over and over again...

To the North Korean threat we now face that is a direct result of the failed Dummycrat agreements that enabled them to build a nuclear bomb in the 1990s with the help of United States supplied food and oil...

To the Iraq problem where the Dummycrats let Saddam build weapons unchecked because the inspectors were out of the country after 1998. Even though Clinton then changed our policy to one of regime change instead of containment, once again he did nothing to back it up.

Bush has had a hard time cleaning up this terrible mess he inherited. He has the additional burden of fighting the Dummycrats in the congress who will sabotage any help for the economy. And the UN who cares more about sticking it to us than they care about doing anything relevant.

We won’t be like the poor Tutsi people in Rwanda who waited for the UN to act. Fortunately, we don’t need to wait on the worthless UN.

ATTN: LIBS
RE: NAMES

Please use a funny/ingenious name to decry Tim. Show us your originality. No more "warmonger", "hatemonger", "fascist", etc. Extra points will be given out for originality.

Thanks,

Mike the Troll/Corporista!

I think you are neglecting the overall strategic thrust. It seems clear to me that the president's broader message in his Feb. 26 speech to the American Enterprise Institute is that the war on Iraq is a first step in a long march toward promoting democracy throughout the Middle East. Never mind that this notion of empire will threaten U.S. security, harm economic prosperity and impinge on individual liberties-it is the clear vision of a man who talks to god daily.

I would guess that as we speak, the CIA is orchestrating a “peaceful regime change in Iran” to address what would be truly problematic – our blatant empire building.

Tim: Yes the UN is an irrelevant debating society.

One to which I'm sure you'll never be invited to speak.

Tim: It worked great for Clinton who loves to talk slick shit and accomplish nothing. He fits in perfectly with the UN.

Certainly better than Dubya, as Clinton's high popularity in foreign countries attests.

Tim: And yes we were VOTED off the committee on human rights and Libya was VOTED on. Although we were able to get voted back on latter, the fact is valid.

I'm not disputing it, though I was unaware of it. Why were we voted off the human rights committee? There must have been a reason at the time. Also, what year did this happen?

Tim: Every one of these problems we now face are a direct result of the Dummycratic policies that let them fester and grow for 8 years:

The Dems had control of executive, Senate & House for only 2 years 1992-94. After that, the Repubs had control of Congress. So the policies were from both parties.

Tim: From the stock market bubble that ballooned the economy into an unsustainable growth rate made worse by unchecked corporate fraud...

I agree that it was an irresponsible disaster, on everyone's part. No one is getting out easy. But Dubya has had two years now to provide a solution - and hasn't.

Tim: To the Muslim terrorists that grew exponentially when the inept Dummycrats in charge as did not confront them directly when we were attacked over and over again...

They were confronted by Clinton, after Bin Laden's gang blew a hole in the U.S. ship in the Gulf. The Dems also gave extensive security briefs to the incoming Repubs about the problem - all of which were dismissed in '00.

Tim: To the North Korean threat we now face that is a direct result of the failed Dummycrat agreements that enabled them to build a nuclear bomb in the 1990s with the help of United States supplied food and oil...

I wasn't aware part of the ingredients of a nuclear bomb was food and oil. Newsflash: the North Korean situation is a direct result of the Repubs discontinuing all talks with that country when they took over in '00. If you were standing in a room with several other people, but all refused to talk to you, yet you needed to get the keys to get out of the room from one of them, what would you do?

Tim: To the Iraq problem where the Dummycrats let Saddam build weapons unchecked because the inspectors were out of the country after 1998.

Where are all these weapons, built in the past 4 years? How many can be built in that timeframe? Where are they hiding them all?

Tim: Even though Clinton then changed our policy to one of regime change instead of containment, once again he did nothing to back it up.

When did he do this?

Tim: Bush has had a hard time cleaning up this terrible mess he inherited.

Indeed, he's making it much worse. Not very good, is he?

Tim: He has the additional burden of fighting the Dummycrats in the congress who will sabotage any help for the economy.

Did you sleep through the midterm elections? The Repubs control both houses of Congress now. The only thing the Senate Dems have filibustered over is the Estrada nomination.

Tim: And the UN who cares more about sticking it to us than they care about doing anything relevant.

What have we possibly done to make them want to stick it to us?

Tim: We won’t be like the poor Tutsi people in Rwanda who waited for the UN to act. Fortunately, we don’t need to wait on the worthless UN.

And unfortunately, we don't have enough troops to set up bases in the entire world. Have you enlisted yet, Tim? What is the sign-up stint these days, 5, 6 years? We could use a good hand over in Iraq for that time during our occupation.

Keep squeezing us with that right wing, er, hand, of yours. The tighter you grip, the more people are slipping through your fingers (to paraphrase Star Wars).

To those who would insist that the U.N. is irrelevant, it certainly was not irrelevant in 1990-91.

No matter what happens now it's not going to go away.

The questions are really "why is American prestige drying up around the world?" and "what's happened to the goodwill and sympathy that most of the world had for the United States right after Sept. 11, 2001?"

Respect for America is really what's going away right now.

Bush and his ultra right-wing advisors such as Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz are determined to implement their vision of an imperialist America. They don't want any compromise that forestalls their grand plan and they never took the original U.N. resolution last fall very seriously. They would rather see a failure and/or have the U.N. reject invasion so that they can go ahead with their ultra-"might makes right" policy.

Clinton left a mess? How about the surplus that Clinton left? What's happened to that? Where have the financial markets gone? Did Clinton destroy our relationships with the NATO allies? Did Clinton give up on Middle East peace? Did terrorists get away with any major plots on Clinton's watch? Don't think so. Clinton holdover George Tenet and his associates were the ones warning the Bush people about terrorism right as soon as they came into office, but, no, they chose not to make anti-terrorism into a priority. They had to go with missile defense (a boondoggle that's also closely related to the Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz think tank-produced National Security Strategy), instead. Might eventually work on missiles; won't do squat to help stop terrorists in small boats and planes.

Correction: I meant to say "Did terrorists get away with any major plots on U.S. soil on Clinton's watch?"

I don't mean to be discounting the USS Cole and other incidents that happened overseas.

I think most of us remember that the New Year's Eve 1999 plot was stopped at the Canadian border.

Bush has been if office 2 years and is directly responsible for our greatly diminished world standing, wrecked federal budget, degraded environemental laws, blowing the guard for the terrorists of 9/11, and a complete failure across the board in our shoddy economic picture.

Blaming Clinton for that is profoundly immature. Republicans may delude themselves to this very day that somehow Bush will not be held responsible because of Clinton, but it will never work--indeed hurt a great deal--with Greens, Independents and Democrats.

I can see thse little kids now. They run Bush's campaign against, say, Dean. "Vote for Bush, he's not Clinton! Never mind that Dean guy!

Enough of this bullshit.

Do you know what the Army is reading today?

It isn't how to pick up Iraqi women and opportunities in oil well repair.

They're reading about fratricide, desert and urban warfare. Why? Because they expect to be in one hell of a fight when they get to Baghdad. They don't expect anyone to roll over for them.

Not need the UN?

Who is going to feed the Iraqis? Who's going to rebuild the food program? The US?

All you idiots knocking the UN, the reason Roosevelt wanted it was so that other countries would share the burden of keeping order. That it wouldn't just be the US pushing people around. It would serve as a break on our power, a needed break. We could get things done which benefitted us, but which the US Congress would NEVER pay for.

God, you people are so dim. By next week, the Kurds and the Turks will be killing each other for real. All those "deserting" Iraqi troops will pick up guns to kill Turks and whomever else who comes along. You think this will all end neatly, with a parade and some smiles. Well, no. It won't. It's going to be ugly, grim and brutal.

Oh, and that's not including the riots and murders of Americans throughout the Arab world. Sattelite TV is for everyone and with live pictures of Americans killing Iraqis, complete with bloody bodies. Wait until live pictures of dead children pop up.

This isn't some fucking game for the PC. This isn't SOCOM or Ghost Recon. Those kids you see on TV in their platoons and companies, some of them are going to die. If we have to take Baghdad, and you can find a nice big map of the city online, thousands of people are going to die.

Did you know US troops in training take 30-70 percent casualities per day on exercises? That US forces in Somalia took 61 percent casualities in 14 hours of combat.

Think about their odds against trained troops fighting to protect their homes.

Make no mistake. I hope the Iraqi Army runs like scared chickens. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Take estimated casualities in training in Urban Warfare (MOUT) environments, which is what I meant to say. The US has never trained its troops in a modern, high rise filled city like Baghdad.

Richard P., Does the first world trade center bombing ring a bell?

You sure have a selective memory. Three years ago today the NASDAQ started its long trip down. It’s been a little over three years ago that the DOW started its long decline. Clinton was the president then. You all tried to pin it on bush in the last election and it cost you dearly. It won’t work. The public knows the truth.

The Clinton Administration went to congress in 1999 and received approval for the U.S. official policy in Iraq to be regime change. Clinton signed it.

Bush has had only a few months with the Republicans in control of the Senate. Bush IS good, but even he will need more time than that to get the economy going again.

You asked what happened to all the world sympathy that has dried up after 9/11. Talk is cheap. They were not attacked on 9/11. I don’t expect the other countries to be as steadfast as we are. It’s our fight.

NATO has not been destroyed just because France is openly blocking our every move. Would Frances actions have some connection to France being Iraq’s biggest European trading partner? They even built the Iraqi nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israeli’s.

More people are realizing that the UN is irrelevant. In the latest CBS poll, the support for the war even if we don’t have the UNs blessing is up 10 points. 55% now support Bush going into Iraq WITHOUT the UN.

Three countries currently have contracts to control 100% of the Iraqi oil fields. They can’t cash in while the embargo is in effect. They are France, China and Russia. What a coincidence. Saddam owes 10 billion to Russia and 6 billion to France.

CONNECT THE DOTS.

Tim:

Halliburton will get contracts to "rebuild" Iraq after we bomb it to shreds. As you say, "what a coincidence." How very conveeeeeeenient for Dick Cheney's gang of corporate criminals.

Tim says "Bush IS good, but even he will need more time than that to get the economy going again."

HA HA HA HA HA!

Thank you, Tim. I needed a good laugh.

Yep, if Junior works really hard, maybe he can add another trillion to the deficit!

JB, maybe you have correctly called this one; April 17 seems to be well past the best time frame; the average daily high temperature in May is 96 degrees F; in June it is 105, and 120 degrees is not uncommon. So a UN delay until late April seems to push the most likely attack date back to fall. But- that is a pretty close parallel to the '91 time frame that killed Daddy Bush's re-election hopes via recession. Since the likelihood of war-induced recession is much stronger now than it was then, there's at least a chance we will squeeze free this time.

Beyond that, in Great Britain the Labor Party is melting down fast. Blair promised UN support or no-go, so he doesn't appear to have any wiggle room left. It is hard to think he will turn down a month's delay, or even argue seriously against it, regardless of US wishes. His political survival is at stake.

Steve G, thanks for the good and angry post. Kids I used to teach- not kids anymore- who joined the Army have been telling me approximately the same thing. They very much do not look forward to this. The idea that military personnel strongly support this war is in my opinion greatly overblown.

Tim: Richard P., Does the first world trade center bombing ring a bell?

You mean the attack that took place 37 DAYS after Clinton took office in 1993? Why not hold Bush 41 accountable for not stopping that one? After all, you're trying to hold Clinton accountable for not stopping terrorism in the 9/11 attacks, which happened 9 MONTHS after Bush 43 took office.

At least Bush did something in response to the terrorist attack. Clinton did nothing. And what would Clinton have done if he were still President? Immediately launched some cruise missiles for a few days and nothing more ever? Most likely. Bush is dealing with events that are far more complicated than what Clinton had to deal with. They are complicated because Bush is choosing to deal with them and preparing to succeed and to change the world into a safer place for all people, not just rich white republicans as you regressives believe. Tell me - who are the immediate beneficiaries of a free Iraq? Arabs! Not whitey! Although you regressives would have us believe that you really do care about the non-whites, your policy initiatives do not help them, and your cowardice in times that try mens' souls illustrates how unfit to govern you are.

You love to blame Bush for the recession that took place about the same amount of days into his term, aren’t you going to be consistent OhioDem?

Tim: Richard P., Does the first world trade center bombing ring a bell?

As someone else pointed out, Clinton had just taken office. AND, there was a huge investigation into it that went on for years. In fact, if I recall correctly, a trial about it was going on in NYC when 9/11 hit us.

Tim: You sure have a selective memory. Three years ago today the NASDAQ started its long trip down. It’s been a little over three years ago that the DOW started its long decline. Clinton was the president then.

Sorry, buddy. The decline started under Clinton but it hasn't stopped under Bush. Let me see him stop it, rather than point a finger and say "It's all his fault", then maybe I'll be impressed. His much-ballyhooed tax cut hasn't helped a thing, has it? Though I did cash my $300 check.

Tim: You all tried to pin it on bush in the last election and it cost you dearly.

In my opinion, the Dems didn't go after Bush enough in the last election, and so lost the Senate majority. That's OK, they needed a defeat. They are far too complacent and corporate kiss-up for the good of the country anyways. They need to get a fire in their belly again. I think, with what I've seen of the Dems in Congress so far, they can plan on losing more seats in '04.

I love Harry Truman's quote, but can't remember the exact words: "If you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose a Republican."

Repubs have overtaken the Dems in grassroots organizing, in the majority of the U.S. (though not yet in my home state of CA). The Dems need to get vocal local, quick.

Tim: It won’t work. The public knows the truth.

The public that knows the truth (about Bush) is in the minority, and leans left. The vast majority of the public have no initiative to research the truth, and so take what they're spoon-fed.

Tim: The Clinton Administration went to congress in 1999 and received approval for the U.S. official policy in Iraq to be regime change. Clinton signed it.

I wasn't very politically active back in '99, and missed this. Like most of the country, I was too busy inundating myself with Monica-scandal details.

Is there any link where I can read about Clinton's rationale for this?

Tim: Bush has had only a few months with the Republicans in control of the Senate. Bush IS good, but even he will need more time than that to get the economy going again.

Well, he seems to be focused on Iraq, first and foremost. I haven't heard one recent idea from Bush about jump-starting the economy, except another tax cut. As the first one didn't make a dent I'm not going to hold my breath.

Tim: You asked what happened to all the world sympathy that has dried up after 9/11. Talk is cheap. They were not attacked on 9/11. I don’t expect the other countries to be as steadfast as we are. It’s our fight.

Uh huh. And what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We should be overthrowing the Saudi royal family.

Tim: NATO has not been destroyed just because France is openly blocking our every move. Would Frances actions have some connection to France being Iraq’s biggest European trading partner?

Probably. So can you blame them? What if France came to us with "We know you get a lot of oil from the Saudis, but we are going to overthrow the Saudi royals because they're a threat to the world. French corporations will take over the oil fields, and if you join our fight, we'll share some with you."

Tim: They even built the Iraqi nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israeli’s.

If we're going to go over every Western country that helped Iraq build something military, we'll be here for weeks. France hasn't helped Iraq build a new reactor, has it?

Tim: More people are realizing that the UN is irrelevant. In the latest CBS poll, the support for the war even if we don’t have the UNs blessing is up 10 points. 55% now support Bush going into Iraq WITHOUT the UN.

This is the saddest thing of all. I wonder what the support for this Iraq invasion is in New York City, Oklahoma City, and Hawaii? Places that have suffered attacks on their soil in living memory and experienced the ravages of violence.

All I can say is that the majority of people in Los Angeles oppose an Iraq invasion.

Tim: Three countries currently have contracts to control 100% of the Iraqi oil fields. They can’t cash in while the embargo is in effect. They are France, China and Russia.

So, if you were Bush, what would you do? If France, China and Russia are motivated solely by their oil contracts, wouldn't you make sure those contracts stay exactly the same after Saddam is overthrown?

It's very simple, Dubya can tell them, "France, Russia, China, I'm not going in there for those oil fields, I'm going in there to overthrow a fascist dictator. I don't care about Iraq's oil, I'll guarantee that your contracts as they exist now will remain."

But Bush has awarded the oil fields to Halliburton. So either A) Dubya never made that offer to them, and is doling out Iraqi oil fields to enrich his corporate sponsors and further enrage France/China/Russia; or B) Those three countries did receive an offer from Dubya of those oil fields, and they oppose the invasion anyway, which means there are probably more reasons for their opposition than just oil.

Tim: What a coincidence. Saddam owes 10 billion to Russia and 6 billion to France.

And we are in debt trillions. Is that why nobody invades us?

Tim: CONNECT THE DOTS.

When I do, they all lead to a nasty little right-wing think tank with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle as members. They play war games in their hidden bunkers, arms deal with everyone, and have the world at their mercy for the moment.

What they have been allowed to achieve is staggering. But now their games are public - their scenarios are becoming reality. They have been handed the keys to the kingdom and been given carte blanche.

No one has been able to conquer the world yet, and I doubt that these are the guys who will make history and do so. They have climbed to a pinnacle of world power that I don't think even Truman and Eisenhower had post-WW II.

It's an awfully long way to fall.

Good.

If Clinton can be blamed for the 1993 WTC attack then Bush has to take blame for intelligence failures leading up to Sept. 11. That's only fair.

I'd like to know what's happened to the investigation of intelligence failures leading up to Sept. 2001. That sure seems like a quiet story lately, although FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley has continued to indicate displeasure over the way things are being handled.

Bush wants to make this Iraq business sound like it has to do with protecting us? Alright, how about funding for domestic security? How about remembering to fund the rebuilding of Afghanistan so that it doesn't fall back into chaos? How about funding for first responders in New York? They can manage to offer all these "inducements" to Turkey, but not fund necessities on the domestic side? Insane! And, at the same time, we can have these massive tax cuts but still be able to pay for invasion and military occupation? The deficit isn't important any more but the feds are still willing to have the states suffer tremendously?

Also, we're supposed fighting against the forces of evil dictatorship abroad while at home there's the Domestic Security Enhancements Act, Poindexter's Total Information Awareness network, faith-based initiatives that break down the wall between church and state and the ridiculous Operation Pipe Dreams business to rid the country of such hardened criminals as people who sell glass pipes.

America cast off its subjugation from a tyrant named George before. Time to do it again.

"If Clinton can be blamed for the 1993 WTC attack then Bush has to take blame for intelligence failures leading up to Sept. 11. That's only fair."-Richard P.

Of course neither is responsible. That is my point.

Brad V., You seem to be reasonable person. It is refreshing when most posting here are so full of hate and little knowledge. You made several good points. Sorry I don’t have a link about the change of our policy on Iraq when Clinton was President. I did follow it closely at the time.

Bush has not awarded the oil fields to Halliburton. He has no role in who gets what contracts. And as far as I have heard, the only contract that I am aware of was one for oil well fire control. And as far as I am aware, it is illegal for Bush or Cheney to own any holdings in any company. All their holdings are in blind trusts.

I believe that Bush wants to get in and get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. He will have to keep some forces in Iraq for a while, but I think he wants a free Iraq to take over soon if running their own affairs.

Yes the Saudi problem is a big one. But with our dependency on their oil, it’s tough to do something about it. They have no freedom in that country and that has a direct effect on extremists flourishing there. I don’t have the answer. I don’t know if anyone can.

That’s all the time I have now, but I think we have come to some understanding.

Later Bro,

I can heartily agree with lowering the level of hate. Here or anywhere. Like the bumper sticker I've seen now and then says, "Hate is not a family value."

How about let's stop the hatred of liberals? Let's stop the hatred of those who wish to express dissent with the President's policies. Let's stop the hatred and insulting of other nations and of the U.N.

Stopping the hatred is precisely why I take strong issue with the recklessness and wild abandon of our nation's policies at this time.

Everyone around the world sees the U.S. as the big bully and is duly alarmed. Why?

Even the French had expressed great sympathy for the U.S. after Sept. 11th.

Yes, those countries have their own interests to protect, but that's not the whole story. It's also true that almost everyone among the people in Europe strongly opposes the U.S. invading Iraq. I think you can't just ignore that. You can't just ignore that Tony Blair is in deep trouble with the voters in Great Britain over his stance. As for the people in Turkey, are they more worried about bad old Saddam Hussein or are they more worried the U.S.?

This all boils down to the plain fact that the President made up his mind long ago to have the armed forces attack a country who hasn't attacked us first and is not even an imminent threat to attack us and in doing so, the U.S. will be defying the U.N., defying world public opinion, defying convention, all essentially because 'might makes right.'

Cheney retired from Halliburton in August 2000.

He sold the last of his shares in the company in August 2000.

“Halliburton has made no attempt to ask for his assistance in obtaining federal contracts since he left the company.” Halliburton spokeswoman Zelma Branch said.

Halliburton and its subsidiary companies had many government contracts around the world before Cheney came aboard, and will continue to gain more contracts now that he has no role in the company.

CASE CLOSED!

Richard P., "Let's stop the hatred of those who wish to express dissent with the President's policies." I agree, although I have not seen this hatred. Honest dissent is a essential part of a free society.

"Everyone around the world sees the U.S. as the big bully"......"It's also true that almost everyone among the people in Europe strongly opposes the U.S. invading Iraq. I think you can't just ignore that."

I do not ignore that. Most of the world is strongly against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Our unwavering support of Israel has contributed the most towards the Anti-American feelings around the world, especially in Europe and of course the Middle East.

We have done things in our past that have come back to haunt us now, but I think we have done a lot of good also.

This time Bush must act to protect us from what HE believes to be a threat against the country. Even Howard Dean said that Bush has the constitutional responsibility to act in defense of our country when he deems it necessary. (Not a verbatim quote but that’s the gist of it from last Sunday). I think we can respectably disagree with the President to whether his fears are valid or not. I believe that he is sincere and he truly believes the Saddam threat is valid.

Tim: Cheney retired from Halliburton in August 2000.

"In the five years Mr Cheney was at the helm, Halliburton nearly doubled the amount of business it did with the government to $2.3bn. The company also more than doubled its political contributions to $1.2m, overwhelmingly to Republican candidates." - from an article by Robert Bryce, author of 'Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, Jealousy and the Death of Enron', in today's edition of The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html

Tim: He sold the last of his shares in the company in August 2000.

Not quite. From Bryce's article: "Mr Cheney sold most of his Halliburton shares when he left the company, but retained stock options worth about $8m. He arranged to pay any profits to charity."

Tim: “Halliburton has made no attempt to ask for his assistance in obtaining federal contracts since he left the company.” Halliburton spokeswoman Zelma Branch said.

Look carefully at what she's saying - she doesn't say Halliburton has not received assistance from Cheney. She just says that the corporation hasn't asked for any.

It may not be necessary for Halliburton to formally ask Cheney's assistance in obtaining contracts. Cheney could be advocating for them on his own - or, as was the case with Ken Lay and Enron - it could simply be understood that Halliburton receives first dibs on government/military contracts while Cheney is in office.

At any rate, Halliburton can never admit it - they could immediately be sued, and Cheney prosecuted.

Tim: Halliburton and its subsidiary companies had many government contracts around the world before Cheney came aboard, and will continue to gain more contracts now that he has no role in the company.

But Cheney doubled their amount of U.S. government (military) contracts while he was their CEO.

He does still own stock in the company. Whether he pockets the money himself or donates the profits to his favorite charity (the Project for the New American Century perhaps?) doesn't make a difference. IMHO, it's still a huge conflict of interest.

Tim: CASE CLOSED!

Under this current administration, I'm afraid so. There won't be any independent investigations into the matter, that's for sure. If I were a corporation that handled the same type of business as Halliburton though, I'd launch a lawsuit.

It'll all get investigated thoroughly in time.

What a sad, sorry mess.

The hateful and insulting jabs directed at France and the U.N. such as I have definitely seen expressed, along with disparagement of those who choose to question the administration, are purely childish. A different chief executive, such as George H. W. Bush, would have told Rumsfeld to shut up with the wise cracks long ago or would have asked for his resignation. He's an embarrassment and in the earlier Bush administration the president kept the hard-line types in check. OTOH I gather that the hard-liners, to whom Bush the son seems to have given his all of his attention, have never had their hearts into conducting diplomacy.

Part of that same story seems also to be an unwavering backing of the hard-line element in Israel and a backing away from any attempts at being a genuine honest broker for peace in the Middle East. I assert that that's a grave mistake.

You just can't hope to overcome everything by being the biggest bully on the block. The administration's hawks seem to think you can, but I think they're already finding out that the world just doesn't work that way. Sometimes force is justified, as in Afghanistan against al-qaeda, but other times it isn't and/or is not the best alternative. You simply have to be able to use diplomacy and show a degree of respect for other nations sometimes, but these people seem to be utterly clueless in that department.

Bush may believe in his own heart that Iraq is some kind of imminent threat. However, that alone does not grant him the power to do everything he feels like doing. Suppose he says tomorrow that Mexico or Canada is an imminent threat and that we just have to trust him on that. That would be perfectly silly. First, the President has to remember that he's the servant of the people and has the burden to at least make a substantive presentation to the people of the hard facts that justify going to war. To insist that we as the people just have to take his word on it is pure hogwash. If we allow that kind of thing then what control would the people have on THEIR government? Second, invading a country who has not attacked us and isn't really an imminent threat to do so is not some minor police action. This is as drastic as you can get. Where was Congress? I was really disappointed in the lack of thorough debate and in the summary nature of their passage of the Iraq War resolution. For such an action they should have voted up or down on declaring war and debated the subject with commensurate seriousness.