Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hippie
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 11

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Hippie

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Posts
24
The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

· Washington now concentrating on timing
· State of union address to 'turn up the heat'
· Blair faces nightmare scenario over war decision

Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall
Friday January 24, 2003

President George Bush is determined to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the next few weeks, without UN backing if necessary, according to authoritative sources in Washington and London.

The US president is "to turn up the heat" in his state of the union address on Tuesday.

"The pressure comes from President Bush and it is felt all the way down," a European official said. "They're talking about weeks, not months. Months is a banned word now."

Mr Bush wanted the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to force the issue of military action by presenting evidence of Saddam Hussein's violations of UN resolutions immediately after weapons inspectors give their report to the UN on Monday. In Washington circles such an event is being referred to as the Adlai Stevenson moment.

The "Adlai Stevenson moment" has become Washington shorthand for the US presentation of its intelligence case. Stevenson was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, who dramatically confronted the Soviet envoy with vivid aerial photographs of nuclear missiles being unloaded in Cuba.

Downing Street was alarmed by the Bush administration's sudden haste in moving towards a climax. It was adamant that the decision to go to war should not be declared before Tony Blair flies to Camp David for talks with Mr Bush next Friday.

An informed source in Washington said: "Blair is a good guy. They won't want to do that to him. They want it to look like he played a part in the policy-making but the decision has been made."

A key moment will now be the state of the union address. According to a Washington source, the US administration remains divided along old fault lines about the precise timescale of war. The US secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld, wants Mr Bush to set a clear and imminent deadline. But Mr Powell, is resisting, asking for a little more time for diplomatic coalition-building.

But both sides of the divide are making it increasingly clear that the end result will be military action, with or without UN backing.

The chief White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, yesterday brushed off mounting anti-war feeling across Europe, led by France. It was "entirely possible that France won't be on the line", he said, adding that Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain and "virtually all of the eastern European countries" would provide support.

Mr Powell echoed this, saying: "I don't think we will have to worry about going it alone."

The impatience within the White House for action against Iraq came on a day in which the cracks in the international coalition against Iraq widened. China and Russia joined France and Germany in warning the US against precipitate action and calling for Washington to work within the UN.

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, revealed the extent of European anger over the US position when he told Washington to "cool down". The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq."

But Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ratcheted up the rhetoric by claiming that Iraqi scientists were at risk of death. "We know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientists who cooperate during interviews will be killed, as well as their families," he said.

Britain believes it has won a short reprieve before the US presents its own intelligence evidence against Saddam Hussein, in effect a declaration of war, but only for a fortnight at most.

Mr Bush will lay out the broad case for toppling President Saddam next Tuesday but White House officials insist the speech, a year after the president coined the phrase, "axis of evil", will stop short of being a declaration of war. That will await a more detailed presentation of intelligence evidence in the next few weeks, after Mr Blair visits Camp David.

"We said that has to be a substantive consultation, not a fait accompli," one British official said. The British argument is that the longer the US waits before showing its hand, the better the case it will have to put before the UN security council, as the inspectors come across more Iraqi infringements.

The Foreign Office had initially sought to defuse the rising tension around next Monday's inspectors' report by denying that it represented a "moment of truth", but in recent days a source conceded: "That was never going to be realistic. Of course it's important."

At his meeting with Mr Powell yesterday, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, clung to the official line. "There are still ways that this can be resolved peacefully," he said. Mr Straw repeated that the British preference is for a second UN resolution before any further action against Iraq but Mr Powell, in a change of tack, refused to commit himself to seeking a second resolution.

One of the factors behind Washington's haste appears to be the annual rise in temperatures in the Iraqi desert over the next few months. In theory, US and some allied troops have the capacity to fight in any weather but the effectiveness of both soldiers and equipment diminishes rapidly when the temperature rises over 35C.

"The planes have been designed for the cold war. They start losing lift, carry lighter loads, and must make shorter runs when the temperature goes over 35," said one government official involved in Anglo-American debates over the timing of an attack.
 
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.

Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.

But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.

"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."


© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
In his book, The Right Man, former Bush speechwriter David Frum said that taking out Saddam was one of Dubya's priorities from Day 1--the implication being that alleged al Qaeda ties and UN violations are mere pretext for settling a family score. Bush is a Texan; they do that sort of thing down there.

Personally, I think we're being pushed into another Vietnam.
 
VFR on Top said:
Personally, I think we're being pushed into another Vietnam.

ditto, it seems as though W lost the momentum...we shoulda went in earlier, and not beat around for so long
 
How Quickly We Forget

Come on guys, Vietnam?! Just because of public opinion? I'd be willing to bet Bush's numbers are higher for Bush than it was for Johnson. It’s not about public opinion it’s about terrorism. If the chance that Saddam could support any group, that is against the US or Israel, with either money or weapons, is greater than zero then we must remove him from power. A question often asked after 9/11 was, “why didn’t we respond earlier?” We are responding now. How can we not respond? Iraq has known terrorist training camps and ties to Okalahoma City and the USS Cole.

Back in the cold war, Reagan didn't care about his numbers, he did what was right, which is why he will be remembered as a great president. Clinton will be remembered as the president that did nothing against terrorism. Once this month long (at most) war to Baghdad is over, the economy will start to recover and Bush’s numbers will remain strongly in the high 50’s. High 50’s equals landslide reelection.
 
Last edited:
ceo_of_the_sofa said:
ditto, it seems as though W lost the momentum...we shoulda went in earlier, and not beat around for so long
I agree, but I still want us to go. We should have been in and out of there by now. I think if it had been up to Bush alone, we would have been. But you have all these sissies in the UN that want to follow rules and stuff, most of whom we had to either rescue or destroy in the last big war. Hell, after that speech W made in (I think) Tennessee back in the fall, I was ready to sign up myself!

Who gives a damm if Iraq is not tied to 9/11? Who said they had to be? That's not the litmus test. Have the media and the rest of the left forgotten the war on terror? This will be both a preemptive effort against weapons of terror and also a sanction against the blatant violation of the disarming agreement signed 12 years ago. How many times do we have to say, "OK, just ONE MORE CHANCE, and I mean it this time!!"? F* that guy, and F* the media! I'm sick and tired of their anti-Bush/anti-US propaganda. You never hear or read anything bad about Saddam on the evening news.

Personally, I don't think there will ever be another Vietnam, not in my lifetime anyway. I think there will be difficult wars with high losses on our side, but that does not mean it's a Vietnam. That word is tossed around by anti-war protesters like the word "racist" is thrown about by the Sharpton/Jackson set. Vietnam was a war with obscured goals and a vague chain of command. We will not have that in Iraq. This mop up is going to be not much worse than Desert Storm.
 
Last edited:
Iraq 'preparing for chemical war'

Iraq 'preparing for chemical war'

Saddam Hussein has been rallying support at home

Iraqi documents obtained by the BBC indicate that Baghdad is equipping key units with protection against chemical weapons.
We know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered any scientist who cooperates during interviews will be killed

The hand-written papers, said to have been smuggled out by the Iraqi opposition, refer to new chemical warfare suits to protect soldiers and distribution of the drug atropine to counter the effects of nerve gas.

The notes, passed on by the opposition Iraqi National Coalition, also included details for attacking ships in the Gulf.

Commenting on the reported Iraqi plans the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams says "this is not necessarily true - but it's very likely".

"American and British planners have speculated on the possibility of Iraq using drones to spray chemical weapons on coalition troops, but there is no conclusive proof this has been done," he says.

"They recognise there's a real possibility that the Iraqis will try to take them on that way.

"Military commanders don't regard Iraq's use of chemical weapons as a likely conclusive factor in the war."

The Iraqi National Coalition is a group of former Iraqi army officers who have turned against Saddam Hussein and are now living in exile.

The Secretary General of the coalition, Tawfik al-Yassiri - a former brigadier-general - told the BBC's Today programme that the documents originated from serving members of the Iraqi military.

"We have members of our organisation in most of the camps and cities in Iraq, from soldiers to generals," he said.

Mr al-Yassiri said the information had been verified through various sources.

Iraq's Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard are among the recipients of special suits and atropine, according to the documents.

A former arms inspector, Bill Tierney, told Today that "if both these two units have new equipment, then it would indicate that they are prepared to use chemical weapons".

The report of Iraqi war preparations is bound to intrigue UN weapons inspectors, the BBC's Rageh Omaar reports from Baghdad.

According to a UK Government report last year and UN inspectors' findings, Iraq has undeclared stocks of VX and sarin nerve agent. It is thought Iraq could deploy such chemicals quickly.

Meanwhile, the US Government has been stepping up its case for tougher action against Saddam.

In a key speech in New York, US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recited a long list of instances in which, he said, Iraq was still lying about and concealing its weapons programmes.

"Today we know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered any scientist who cooperates during interviews will be killed, as well as their families," Mr Wolfowitz said.

Earlier in Baghdad, Iraqi officials had said they were encouraging scientists to speak to the UN, but six had so far resisted efforts to question them alone.

"We did our best to push the scientists but they refused such interviews without the presence of representatives of Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate," Iraq's chief liaison officer Hossam Mohammed Amin told a news conference.

The weapons inspectors are due to present their crucial report to the Security Council on 27 January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2690163.stm
 
Quick War

A quick and decisive war would put the rest of the fundamentalist of the world on notice that we do not put up with this crap. I think the media completely overrates the Iraqi armed forces and we will have it all over in 2 months or less. The media will have to hang its head in shame and the war supporters will be gloating. WE simply will need to ensure the vacuum of loss is successfully filled properly in Iraq when it is allover. Hopefully this will turn the stock market loose, and people will not be so afraid to spend money again.
 
Does this bother anyone else?

<<Downing Street...was adamant that the decision to go to war should not be declared before Tony Blair flies to Camp...>>

THERE WILL BE NO DECLARATION OF WAR because the US Congress handed over the US Constitution to the Bush Administration and effectively said, "Here. We don't need this anymore. We trust you to do whatever you feel is appropriate."

Does that part bother anyone else besides me?

Doesn't the word 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' bother you?

This is BY FAR the most ABUSIVE administration since Nixon.

We have become a nation of lazy, fat, blind sheep unwilling to think for ourselves. How disgusting. People who've died to preserve the democratic process are rolling in their graves.

I'm sickened by the so-called "discussion; debate; discourse" or whatever in the national media. They are the voice of the Wizard saying, "Do not look behind the curtain."

Isaac Newton said of himself: I seem to be like a child fascinated with a single shell on the beach when behind me there lay an entire ocean.

The national media is the child on the beach telling you about the single shell--together we are ignoring the ocean.

Turn off your frickin' TV and think for YOURSELF for a change!!
 
You know, the lack of historical knowledge in America never ceases to amaze me.

From mar:
THERE WILL BE NO DECLARATION OF WAR because the US Congress handed over the US Constitution to the Bush Administration and effectively said, "Here. We don't need this anymore. We trust you to do whatever you feel is appropriate."

Does that part bother anyone else besides me?

Doesn't the word 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' bother you?

1) There is nothing unconstitutional about the President of the United States committing troops to combat action. This falls squarely within the powers explicitly given to the President under Article 2.
2) There hasn't been a declaration of war since 1941. Since that time American troops has been involved in combat actions all over the globe. Mar, did you call Kenedy and Johnson abusive because they sent troops to Vietnam? Or Clinton for Yugoslavia?

From mar:
This is BY FAR the most ABUSIVE administration since Nixon.
I can't believe this. You will have to substantiate that claim with some fact other than "Well, I said so." What has he done that is abusive?

Below, in your posts, you say we need to think for ourselves. How am I not thinking for myself?
 
Re: How Quickly We Forget

CCDiscoB said:
Come on guys, Vietnam?! Just because of public opinion?
Why is everyone so dismayed by the idea of a leader taking "public opinion" into consideration? Isn't the job of the President to listen to the public? The word "democracy" comes to mind...

If George II goes to war, and if we lose any significant number of troops, and if Saddam responds by burning his oil wells and regular gas goes to $2.15 a gallon, there will be no second term for Bush. Period.

To paraphrase Herman Wouk, Bush's juggling dynamite and giggling happily. He's starting to scare me with this Iraq obsession. I wish he'd put this much energy into N. Korea and Al Queda. Dick Cheney and Colin Powell have got to be embarassed playing second banana to this imbecile.

(I recently flew with a F/O who happens to be British. He asked me if we Americans weren't concerned by the conflict of interest associated with having a president who is an "oil man.")
 
Re: How Quickly We Forget

CCDiscoB said:
Come on guys, Vietnam?! Just because of public opinion?
Public opinion? How 'bout world opinion? Most of the UN Security Council is saying "whoa, big fella", while Bush is yelling "CHARGE!!!" Typhoon1244 is right: Bush is a man obsessed. And that scares me, too.

Presuming we're successful in taking out Saddam, it won't be an in-and-out operation by any means. The military--mostly the Marines (who will be the lead service this time around, as a payback for serving as the decoys last time) and the Army--will be in-country for 18 months at a MINIMUM as a puppet government is established. In case you've missed this point, we're still an army of occupation in Afghanistan and will continue to be for the forseeable future.

By the way: who's paying for this? Oh, that's right--we are.

As for Clinton doing nothing about terrorism, I guess you forget the cruise missile attacks he ordered. They missed bin Laden by only a couple hours.
 
(I recently flew with a F/O who happens to be British. He asked me if we Americans weren't concerned by the conflict of interest associated with having a president who is an "oil man.")

Don't look at me. I, and the majority of Americans, didn't vote for him. I truly hope that this great country can emerge from the reign of G.W. intact.

Interesting conspiracy theory I heard recently. Could 9/11 have been a direct retaliatory attack by Hussein against the Bush family? Would any of us even be living in this nightmare if George and Jeb wouldn't have railroaded the last election?
 
DoinTime said:
Could 9/11 have been a direct retaliatory attack by Hussein against the Bush family?
Interesting...but I doubt it. The goal of the 9/11 hijackers was to kill as many Americans as possible. Making us look like a weak nation was icing on the cake.

Do you suppose Al Queda knew in advance that we'd react to a catastrophic attack by strip-searching our children and grandmothers?
 
The goal of the 9/11 hijackers was to kill as many Americans as possible


????

Were you one of the hijackers?
 
DoinTime said:
Could 9/11 have been a direct retaliatory attack by Hussein against the Bush family?

There's more evidence emerging that Iraq may have had something to do with 9/11. The Bush Administration's fervor could suggest that they have evidence of this, but they don't want to reveal it (to keep from exposing assets inside Iraq).

This would raise another question. If that turns out to be the case, then Iraq would have attacked the US mainland with weapons of mass destruction, justifying under international law, a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iraq.

Maybe we'll be continuing to act with considerable restraint if we just go in and remove Saddam from power!
 
Greetings!


The Arab states in the region don't want a war because, in an effort to detract criticism of their own dictatorial rule, they have fostered fantastic levels of anti-American hatred amongst their people.

Now, if America attacks a fellow Arab state, they will take to the streets and revolt, these Arab governments fear. This is what they mean when the claim that a US war on Iraq will be a "destablilizing" event in the Middle East.

I am of the opinion that a "stable" Middle East got us September 11th, so any change will be better than the current system.
 
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am SICK AND TIRED of everyone jumping on the BASH BUSH BANDWAGON!

It's always easier to criticize and demean than to stand an uncommon ground and be proud.

I'll add my two cents... I'm proud of my country and where it's going. I'm proud of my President and I believe he is doing a REMARKABLE job. I find it refreshing to have a president not afraid to stand up for what he believes in and for the morals of the country. Something I must say our last president didn't even know the definition of....along with the word 'IS'. Give me a break!

To everyone that feels it is necessary to bash our commander-in-chief:


You try to do a better job!!
 
I can't believe this BULLS***!

1st- Before you read any further I would like to warn all the pussies and cry baby bastards that this post is going to be nasty and upset many readers. I say this because I'm really not interested in reading replies that will continue to bash our nation or the bush administration!

2nd- Where in the fuc# do you people get off saying that this administration or our president is going about this all wrong! I haven’t heard 1 compelling argument to justify where most of these claims are coming from. WTF do you people expect! Think about what you are saying! 9/11 was terrible and will be a day to always remember but.....Lets think about the possibility of a 1000mt nuke going off in Downtown NYC and then I would like to cram all your lame ass excuses of why this administration is wrong straight up your asses! All I can say is there are a lot of fuc$ed up Americans that are either blind or really fuc$ing stupid! I say lets just lie down and let these sand rats **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** us up the ass. Bullsh*t this will never happen.

3rd- Really think about this whole situation. Lets play make believe here for a minute. Let’s say S.H. and the Iraq government had nothing to do with 9/11. Does this still mean we allow this fuc*ing bastard to get away with repeated U.N. violations. HELL NO! I really could care less about what S.H. has done or will do his time is about up and that’s all there is to it. Remember late 80's when S.H. used chemical weapons against his own people and did this with no remorse. He is a sick asshole who needs to move down the block or straight to hell.

4th- Also you better get prepared baby because we going to war. Oh yes. They don't just put I.T.'s (Like my sister) on aircraft carriers and say ok lets go for a boat ride to the Middle East. Oh yea almost forgot. If your from Texas checkout what going on at bases like Ft. Hood. Constant railheads being filled with military vehicles being prepared to ship to the gulf. Think about dumbasses.

5th- I say we stand with our nation not against it. Hell I'm really thinking about leaving college to help with the cause. This is serious **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** here so don’t be blind.

6th- Like many other posts I would like to inform any assholes from even trying to contest this post. I think it would be a real mistake on your part. Just STFU and live with the facts!

7th- Furthermore I love this ostrich mentality of sticking our heads in the sand and hope the big bad wolf passes us by!
 
PilotV said:
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am SICK AND TIRED of everyone jumping on the BASH BUSH BANDWAGON!

It's always easier to criticize and demean than to stand an uncommon ground and be proud.
It's also easier to be a mindless sheep than to think for yourself--but hey, whatever works for ya, bro.

PilotV said:
I'll add my two cents... I'm proud of my country and where it's going.
Yeah? How's your stock portfolio doing? Since you clearly haven't noticed, the country's economy is going down the sh!tter. Economic power--not "good ol' fay-shuned val-yuhs"--is what makes us the strongest nation in the world today; when that erodes, so does our nation's strength.

I'm proud of my President and I believe he is doing a REMARKABLE job.
A point also raised in David Frum's book; he may be your president, but he's not mine--remember, the majority of American voters VOTED FOR GORE. The only remarkable thing about his presidency is that he's proven one can indeed fool most of the people, most of the time!

I find it refreshing to have a president not afraid to stand up for what he believes in and for the morals of the country. Something I must say our last president didn't even know the definition of....along with the word 'IS'. Give me a break!
What he believes in?! This president believes in one thing and one thing only: MONEY. Stand for the morals of the country?! He doesn't stand for my morals--in fact, his preachy born-again bible thumping sickens me. Again, he represents the minority interest--most Americans voted for GORE, remember? In the same stroke of his pen, he'd take away both a woman's right to an abortion and her means to take care of a child she didn't want and wasn't prepared to support--and put the savings in the pockets of the people who ride around in private jets because rubbing elbows with the unwashed masses in first class on the airlines is simply too lowbrow for them.

And morph--stay in school; you clearly need the education more than you realize. Take an anger management class while you're at it.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top