« And they smell like rotting beef carcasses1

| Main | orange crush »

and so it comes

48 hours.

I don't think the 48 hours will even come to pass because Saddam will try something very, very foolish to get in one last grasp at being a martyred hero to some.

We shall see.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference and so it comes:

» Bush's Speech from American RealPolitik
All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result [Read More]



I personally think he will take a swing at Israel.

Another "last deadline" ?

What "rush to war"? Six months of negotiations, internal debate, deadline following deadline. Seems like endless foot-dragging to me.

George W. clearly never expected things to go this far. I pray that Gen. Franks is a better strategist than his C-in-C.

And what if there are no "weapons of mass destruciton" in Iraq? Will Busj say "Opps, I guess we got that one wrong. So sorry."



EVEN Blix has you refuted your assinine fantasy.


Instead of giving Saddam 48 hours to leave the country, we should have given him 48 hours for a preemptive strike. Obviously the US isn't good at taking their enemies by surprise.

I'm curious to see how the "morale" issue plays out among the Iraqi people and soldiers. It's really odd to see our military compared to Iraq's - there's basically no comparison. We will vapoirze them in no time and with no siginficant resistance, yet somehow they are a threat to us. Bush said they'd be more of a threat in 5, 10, or 15 years - but then again the rate of change of our military is much higher than theirs, perhaps invalidating that as well.

I'm also interested that Bush continually sites evidence of weapons, yet the inspectors don't seem to have the same information. Why does Bush say one thing and the inspectors another? Regardless of questions, the game's on now.

If Hussin uses a weapon of mass distruction during our war with him then we were right all along weren't we? I almost hope he does, not so that lots of people will die, but so that we are proven right in offing that crazy SOB.

"It's really odd to see our military compared to Iraq's - there's basically no comparison. We will vapoirze them in no time and with no siginficant resistance, yet somehow they are a threat to us."

Get with the program. No one is--or ever has been--worried about the Iraqi military. It's the HARDWARE. As in NUCLEAR WEAPONS. As in a FOCUSED PROGRAM TO DEVELOP SAME. You don't need to have good morale to launch a missile at Saudi Arabia or pass along fissile material to a group willing to use it in an American city.

Bush did not say anything about the "Iraqi military" becoming more of a threat in 5, 10, 15 years. Go read the transcript.



Surprise is irrelevant here. We WANT them to wait a while. We WANT them to stew in the fact that they're about to get their asses kicked. Someone said it before in a post somewhere, "This will be the most telegraphed punch in history". That amount of time is better mentally than any bomb.

What Dubya did was perfect. He set seeds of doubt in Saddam's inner cabinet. He gave them a free ticket out. He told the Iraqi people the true plan (which, I guarantee you will NOT be translated properly).

Plus, he bitch-slapped the UN with his "You failed in your job" comment! Classic.

P.S. Ken probably still thinks this war is about the oooiiillll..

Why yes Ian, thank you very much. Maybe you should be our president. I am deeply sorry for not being with the program.

"..In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm..." I'm also sorry for misquoting Bush. I was reacalling from memory that he referenced that Iraq would be a threat some time in the future. I understand now that our purpose should be to scour the earth and eliminate anyone who would or could potentially transfer "hardware" that could potentially be used against the US. I usually hang on Bush's every word trying to understand his actions, and am always left with more questions than answers, perhaps as a result of my training. You've made it crystal clear.

No, I don't think the war is about the oil. Here are some possibilities:

1) Iraq / WMD was a convenient distraction from economic problems at home that meant the Democrats would have made signficant victories in the November 2002 elections. But it all got away from Bush. Wag the Dog?

2) It is a "problem" Bush can solve. North Korea is too touchy, economics are beyond him and his team.

3) The ultra-conservative fundamentalist "Christians" that are the power behind Bush see this as a way of hastening Armageddon and the second coming.

And I am sure there are even crazier "reasons" for war. Now if we hadn't armed Iraw in the first place, maybe the problem would never have arisen, Saddam would have remained just another petty, brutal Middle East despot - just one more of many - posing no threat outside his own country.

Anyone prepared to refute that?


I appologize for Bush's lack of detail in the speech. I should have suggested that he talk in more detail to explain every action that had been discussed ad naseum. Granted, you could just pull it up yourself on the web, but why bother?

If he had walked up, said "We're removing Saddam Hussein immediately" and stepped down, it would not have surprised me. Nothing he said was news. It reminded me of my wife when my daughter was due. All she said was "I think it's time". She didn't need to explain the exact location of each pain and how her legs felt. After 9 months, what else did she need to say.

What training are you talking about? I've got lots of training too.

3) The ultra-conservative fundamentalist "Christians" that are the power behind Bush see this as a way of hastening Armageddon and the second coming.

Ken, I have a nice tin foil hat you can have.

Have you been reading the "Left Behind" series by any chance?


You are a nut case. Christian movement...geeze get a better cliche.

Oh, and you're right. It's ALL Bush's fault. Clinton would have NEVER bombed a pharmaceutical plant to take away press from his blowjob.

Oh, and in case you think the democrats are perfect, let me quote two of the "we don't support war" crowd, ok?

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-Pres. Clinton 1998

The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraq's full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. So again, it will be diplomacy backed up by force. So long as diplomacy works, force will not be necessary. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. So, let there be no mistake. This is not a question of breathing room. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. It will be there.
-Thomas Daschle's Senate remarks Feb 25 1998

However, using my Christian Mind powers, I can make Clinton say anything so long as he doesn't wear a tinfoil hat...

i would never, ever hope that hussein uses weapons of mass destruction so that bush is proved to be 'right'. wishing to be right at the expense of the men and women of our military is repugnant. at this point all we can hope for is that this war will be of relatively short duration and that the loss of life will be minimal.


"Anyone prepared to refute that?"

How can we? I mean, they're just bizarre speculations filtered through your dislike of Bush. There's nothing to "refute" because you don't actually present any facts or evidence to back up your positions. Nothing we write is going to change your mind, so why bother? Read Ken Pollack's book "The Threatening Storm" and Khidir Hamza's book "Saddam's Bombmaker" if you're truly interested in evidence and arguments in favor of invasion.

Robb, you needn't apologize for Bush, and I would further submit that having babies and conquering nations are different subjects with different kinds of communication required. I listen to all of Bush's speeches, as well as those of people associated with him, and yet I still don't understand many of his actions. As many have noticed, he's not the most articulate person - and has sometimes expressed that he's unconcerned if others don't understand or agree with him. I also look things up in the web. Believe me, I bother. My training is in philosophy and science. Examining data and evaluating what can be said about it - in other words evaluating notions of certainty when it comes to people declaring reality. As I said, Bush usually leaves me with more questions than answers. I don't expect that to change. Anyone who examines evidence should have a mind full of questions - to me, that's being with the program.

Chris: Bush may not be "articulate" in an off-the-cuff situation (although I listen to him frequently and tend to think this is just a cheap shot taken by those who disagree with him who know that there is a certain segment of the population that will accept that criticism uncritically), but his speeches are written carefully, delivered clearly, and not at all hard to understand. In addition, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney are all very intelligent and articulate, and have spoken at length on all of the subjects under discussion here. If you still don't get it, maybe it's not that they aren't explaining it clearly, it's just that you don't want to hear their answers.

Saying we are fighting Iraq for oil is like saying we fought Japan for electronics.

I think it's a nice psych-war touch that we're SO confident that we don't have to depend on surprise. It very clearly says, "you're so outclassed that you can't even threaten us." It's also creates a chance to avoid violence which is a good thing on a number of levels.

Ken you forgot a possibility:
#4 you're ignorant to understand the issues involved in the decision to go to war.

Sorry Harry, my comments on Bush's linguistic skills are in earnest. In fact I think it would be an interesting project to measure the bit content and sentence structure of his speech, and see how it compares to other leaders. I haven't said whether or not I agree with Bush so I certainly hope you're not accusing me of taking cheap shots. What I have said is that his actions and speeches leave me with more questions than answers. Speaking at length on a subject doesn't necessarily make clear and convincing arguments, and I've been thoroughly unimpressed with what I've heard from Dr. Rice, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Cheney, mostly due to ommission and follow up. If Dr. Rice conducted her thesis defense the way she conducts her interviews, she wouldn't have earned her doctorate. This is a highly underdetermined system, there are more variables than equations. I believe it is fully possible to have heard and read all the speeches, and still question the actions, the agenda, of Mr. Bush. Different minds evaluating evidence can reach different conclusions. You needn't speculate on what I want to hear, unless you're telling me I can't be objective.

I don't think that Bush gave Saddam 48 hours. I think the 48 hours is/was for the foreign nationals to get the fuck out!

I will personally take ONE, and only ONE swipe at our president :)

I have a hard time not giggling every time he says "nuke-you-ler" instead of "new-clee-ar". I wonder why no one has corrected him on that.

Chris: Understood. But one thing most people fail to look at is that Bush has people whose jobs are to gather the type of information he needs to make a decision. He's not going to recite every single detail for everyone, so there will always be questions.

Bush isn't very articulate. Personally, I wish he would become more diplomatic with the rest of the world. But he cares about America, and that appears to be his focus.

I still think we should have hired Clinton to handle the UN. Clinton could sell a deep freezer to an eskimo.

Hey Robb, most people I've talked to think he has been corrected, but that to change now would be an admission of mis-pronouncing it in the past (to which I reply: who cares?). It is a glaring faux pas though, that would be so easy to correct.

Also most people I talk to reach the same conclusion you do. After exhausting the information from the press in discussion, they throw up their hands, "they must know something we don't." They must have thought of this or that scenario, etc. Which I'm basically willing to accept. But then it becomes a matter of faith, which I usually don't find comforting.


So, why rely on "the press?" Why are you waiting for Dubya to answer all your questions? I arrived at my support for this action through research, reading, and debate, not by being spoon-fed arguments and answers by my President, his Administration, and popular media.

What I look for from the President is resolve and action. Anything else I provide for myself.

That was me, just now...^

I hope he isn't bluffing this time. This has dragged out entirely too long. It's time to either shit or get off the pot.