----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Alexander" <rick.blackchip at virgin.net> To: "Freedom Anarchist Fortnightly" <FreedomAnarchistFortnightly at yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 4:29 AM Subject: AA-antiwar :: Fw: American Elections Dictate Timing Of An Attack On Iraq
> more smoke and mirrors /disinfo
> or a reasonable comment ?
>
> richard
>
> American Elections Dictate Timing
> Of An Attack On Iraq
> >From Roland Watson in Washington
> The Times - London
> 7-11-2
>
> The rhythms of the American electoral cycle mean that if President Bush
> fails to attack Iraq at the beginning of next year, he may have missed his
> chance.
>
> The Pentagon is unlikely to consider launching thousands of US troops across
> the desert in the following summer months, when temperatures rarely fall
> below 100F.
>
> There is an opportunity to strike in the autumn of next year, officials say,
> but waiting until then risks the fighting spilling over into 2004, leaving
> President Saddam Husseinís fate unresolved at the start of a presidential
> election year, something that Republican political strategists are loath to
> contemplate.
>
> Despite Mr Bushís early rhetoric against Saddam, his room for manoeuvre has
> always been limited by the calendar. Reports of an invasion being launched
> this autumn were always likely to be wide of the mark. Americans go to the
> polls in early November for the critical mid-term elections and Republican
> strategists do not want their quest to regain control of the Senate wrecked
> by the unpredictability of war.
>
> Although Mr Bush enjoys the tacit support of many leading Democrats for
> taking on Saddam, that could change in the ruthlessly partisan atmosphere
> likely to prevail in 2004. Mistakes and reverses in a war that left
> thousands of Americans dead could hurt Mr Bush in a presidential campaign,
> especially if exploited by a canny Democrat who presented criticism as
> patriotism.
>
> There are early signs that Mr Bush will not enjoy a free political ride. Joe
> Biden, the Democrat chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said
> yesterday that he wanted to question administration officials in public this
> autumn about their proposals for Iraq.
>
> Mr Bush has public opinion with him in targeting Iraq, but there are signs
> that is weakening. A recent Gallup poll found that support for sending
> troops into Iraq has fallen from 74 per cent in November to 59 per cent.
> White House officials want to use support while it is there.
>
> A Fox News poll found that 75 per cent of Americans would support Mr Bush
> authorising the CIA to use deadly force to overthrow Saddam, a step that he
> has not taken. Fifty-five per cent think that Washington should try to
> assassinate Saddam.
>
> Mr Bush set a clock ticking in his State of the Union address in January,
> when he labelled Iraq as part of an axis of evil, along with Iran and North
> Korea. Mr Bush said that the trio posed a ìgrave and growing dangerî. He
> said that time was not on Americaís side and added: ìI will not wait on
> events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and
> closer.î
>
> By the time that Mr Bush stands before Congress next January, he will need
> to demonstrate that he is living up to his own rhetoric, and acting. Yet the
> Administration remains deeply divided about what precisely the mission
> should be, let alone how to accomplish it.
>
> Personality clashes have also frustrated the war planning. Donald Rumsfeld,
> the Defence Secretary, believes strongly that the mission should be focused
> entirely on Saddam. The toppling of the Iraqi dictator should mark the
> successful completion of the operation, he believes.
>
> Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, wants a broader brief, to include the
> transition to a democratic successor regime, the kind of nation-building
> that Mr Bush derided in his 2000 presidential election campaign. The success
> in Afghanistan has emboldened some in the Administration, who say that it
> shows that intervention will be welcomed if it is swift and decisive.
> Officials talk increasingly about the search for an ìIraqi Karzaiî,
> referring to the new President of Afghanistan.
>
> In the past the Presidentís National Security Advisers have thrown their
> weight around in debates between the Pentagon and State Department. The role
> assumed by Condoleezza Rice is different. She takes a back seat in debates,
> acting as a private summariser for the President.
>
> The arrangement pitches Mr Rumsfeld against General Powell, a faultline that
> is likely to grow as planning intensifies. Mr Bush confirmed this week that
> he was playing a central role. ìIím involved in the military planning,î he
> told a press conference.
>
> However, some diplomats in Washington doubt whether an invasion will happen.
> One said: ìI know he wants to do it, but when you look at everything
> involved, I still donít see how he does it.î
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-352826,00.htm
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02
>
> _______________________________________________
> AA-antiwar mailing list
> AA-antiwar at lists.mutualaid.org
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/aa-antiwar
> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
>