Bill Sammon reports in today's Washington Times that Bush says decision on war with Iraq is just beginning:
President Bush said yesterday that he is "not close" to a decision on whether to strike Iraq but predicted that an attack would be supported by NATO, which begins a historic summit here tomorrow.
"We're not close to that decision point yet because we're just beginning the process of allowing Saddam the chance to show the world whether or not he will disarm," Mr. Bush said of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Anybody buy the line that POTUS is undecided? Anyone? Anyone at all?
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
I think when Bush gave that speech to 9 year old school kids and used it to argue for more war powers…
It was kind of a giveaway he was… determined. The man has talked of nothing else for months now.
11/10/2002 13:52:00
I believe it\’s possible he might have temporarily forgotten he has already decided.
But no… I don\’t think anyone buys it.
11/20/2002 14:35:00
People are buying it though. All the same ones who bristle when it\’s implied that maybe they\’re a little too eager to go to war. But probably no one outside the US. Our troop movements are just a little too much of a giveaway.
11/20/2002 2:56:00 PM
Ooh, my cynic sense is detecting a mysterious “pattern of deception” by the Iraqis…
Iraq capitulated on weapons inspections in order to frustrate and confuse the Bush administrations march toward war. I think the POSTUS has learned from this, his evil plan is to feign disinterest in war in order to frustrate and confuse NO WAR BLOG participants. Once we become disheartened and give up, he will proceed with the invasion.
Hang on a second.
NATO isn’t going to be helping any invasion. It is a defencive alliance. Bush didn’t say NATO would be fighting terrorism — although he hinted at it of course.
“Mumble, mumble…. mumble… NATO! mumble…. terrorism!… NATO!”
Having said that I’m sure Bush will put the pressure on small countries especially to fill out his alliance from hell, his “coalition”.
Well they\’ve already started to talk up war against Iran. Suddenly Iran has nukes even worse than Iraq\’s. Iran has bigger missiles and Iran is probably going to be said to be worse on women and have a bigger \’link\’ to Al-Qaeda.
Oddly enough I think all these comments are true. Iraq is being invaded first because it and Saddam have good name recognition.
That\’s showbiz!
[url]http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-woiran203011028nov20,0,5909812.story?coll=ny%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines[/url]
If they are serious about invading Iran they need a better name. Maybe Osama will be \”spotted\” there?
11/20/2002 11:55:00 PM