Ari's Comments

[John Cole]

The damn early snow here in New England allowed for a day off, so I spent the day watching Lawrence of Arabia and catching up on the news about Iraq. War seems certain, and I wondered about Ari's comments to the press concerning the situation. Essentially, he said that Irag must prove they don't have WMD. I wonder how, exactly, will Iraq prove they don't have something. It seems that the report due Saturday from Iraq will be looked at carefully to determine this. Is this a Catch-22?

In addition, when asked whether it's ironic that Bush has appointed a war criminal to investigate war crimes, Ari asked for further clarification. Told that Kissenger lied about Cambodia and Chile, Ari responded with "The President doesn't feel that way."

[Clarkmeister]

War has been inevitable since Bush decided he was going to invade several months ago. This is all a very weak attempt to get if not approval, then at least international indifference to actual invasion. The problem is that its so obvious to the rest of the world whats going on that we lose a lot of our credibility.

Meanwhile, Bush has essentially no domestic policy that I can discern. If Iraq somehow disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, just what would Bush use to define his agenda?

[andyfox]

Bush has already decided that Iraq is not complying, even before evaluating the report due at the UN on December 8. The war will start in late January.

[IrishHand]

Yeah...Bush is basically engaging in a common strategy adopted by many superior powers prior to invading them - find a way to put the onus on the little guy in a vain effort to affect domestic and international opinion.

Hitler did the same with Austria, Poland, Belgium, Holland, and France (among others) - making a superficial effort to either place of share the blame for his invading with those countries. The French/British, in turn, did the same to Germany with regard to Poland - ensuring that the blame was on Germany for their declaring war. Before the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. gave Iraq an ultimatum which they failed to comply with. From their part, Iraq justifiaby feels that the US was the initiater of the devastating (for them) war.

It's not good or bad, and you can argue afterwards about who "really" was to blame for a war beginning, but it should be 100% clear with regards to the present-day situation that the US is primarily responsible for the inevitable war in Iraq. Don't get me wrong - I'll be among those attacking Iraq, and I fully support that - but I don't necessarily think the end justifies the current choice of means.

Bush's handlers clearly believe that if he plays his cards right, he'll be able to attack various evil-doers for the next couple years and use this to remain in power. It'll be interesting to see how the US public responds to a drawn-out conflict, since they've never responded well to them in the past. We like to label someone a "bad guy", then lay a swift, viscious smack-down upon them, then relax in our homes secure in the knowledge that we're the only Super Power remaining.

Irish

[B-Man]

From their part, Iraq justifiaby feels that the US was the initiater of the devastating (for them) war.

Considering Iraq's invasion of Kuwait preceded Operation Desert Storm by months, I can't really see how they logically could have that view.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, Bush clearly has political considerations in mind. However, even if his motives are not 100% altruistic, I do think there are valid reasons for the course we are taking.

[Glenn]

We know Saddam has WMD. This whole inspection thing is just a ploy to get UN support (which is silly, we should concentrate on doing exactly the opposite of what countries like France want /forums/images/icons/smile.gif ). It probably won't work, but they figure mabye we'll get lucky. Anyone who thinks Saddam doesn't have WMD is being naive. Maybe I will write an essay on this when I get the chance.

As far as Kissinger goes, I think that was pretty ironic too.

[IrishHand]

Considering Iraq's invasion of Kuwait preceded Operation Desert Storm by months, I can't really see how they logically could have that view.
First of all, we pretty well announced well before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that we wouldn't get involved in regional squabbles over there - in effect, giving Saddam the green light. More importantly, what does his invasion of a neighboring country have to do with the US? If the US decided to annex Mexico, and China attacked us in relation, wouldn't we think that China started the ensuing China-US conflict?

I do think there are valid reasons for the course we are taking.
As I noted in my post, I agree 100%. Saddam's little more than a mini-Hitler without the might of a great nation behind him. The guy and his family deserve the destruction which will soon be rained upon him and his array of palaces.

[ripdog]

It might just be sabre rattling, but I doubt it. Bush's goal may be to intimidate Iraqis into making the leadership change themselves, but again, I doubt it. As to the Kissenger appointment, I'm not surprised that he'd pick someone with a record. John Poindexter is the head of the Information Awareness Office, a high tech spying operation. The funny thing is that Poindexter and Ollie North got caught in the Iran/Contra scandal when they deleted 5,000 e-mail messages regarding this topic from their computers. Neither of them knew enough about the technology to realize that those messages were stored in the backup, so they got busted. Poindexter's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Hopefully he's taken a few IT courses since 1986 /forums/images/icons/smile.gif So there seems to be no shortage of irony in Bush's selections. Makes you feel really secure, eh?

[SammyB]

I would guess that Bush has absolute proof of WMD in Iraq but is not revealing what the proof is. In this way when Iraq makes its report claiming no WMD bush can then prove non-compliance. If I'm right and it works the only recourse Saddam will have is to plead ignorance and blame some intermediate flunky for hiding the stuff.

[John Cole]

"what would Bush use to define his agenda?"

Faith-based initiatives?

John