posted on March 6, 2003 11:26:45 PM new
Vincente Fox reports that Bush is retreating from his hardline approach and is ready to negotiate with the opposition in the Security Council.
Too early to tell exactly what is happening, but at home Blair has been talking concessions very pointedly the last few days.
"The American position, as I was informed of it today by President Bush, opens the door to changes in what was previously a hard-line stance, as well as possible modifications of the (U.N.) resolution they are planning to present."
posted on March 6, 2003 11:34:11 PM new
I dunno Antiquary. I've been hearing all osrts of opposing reports. It might be disinformation to keep the enemy confused. I know it sure is keeping ME confused!
posted on March 7, 2003 04:44:05 AM new
There has been room for compromise all along. Saddam could always admit to and destroy his weapons. He won't.
It's nice to think, antiwar. Gives one a warm and cuddly feeling. Unfortunately to have the freedom for that warm and cuddly feeling, sometimes you have to pay for it.
I bet the Kurds bedding down for the night don't have time for that feeling of safety nor should you, knowing this despot has the ability and will to manufacture, distribute and use Bio and Chemical weapons. Not to mention a New-Q-ler capability.
posted on March 7, 2003 09:57:11 AM new
Yes, some sort of invasion has seemed a foregone conclusion but exactly the nature of the involvement of other countries in that and the subsequent "reconstruction" isn't settled yet. The degree of commitment to the elaborated goals of the reconstruction, the sharing of costs, and the strength of world opinion will be critical to determining whether or not PNAC pre-emption is pre-empted with Iraq. Korea is related but separate in that there's no potential financial reward; it's entirely out of pocket, no resources involved.
posted on March 7, 2003 10:08:48 AM newBush's reason today or yesterday. I have read this or a similar statement before. My answer to it is this:
Each time the President explains his reasons for what he's doing, he doesn't give the full list of ALL the reasons he is doing so, he mentions ONE of those reasons. So while some see that as changing his reason for the war on Iraq, I see it as mentioning one of the MANY reasons for doing so.
posted on March 7, 2003 10:46:57 AM new
One of the many relevations Bush refuses to make:
By Terry Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; 12:00 AM
In his prime-time press conference Thursday night, President Bush did not address the pink elephant in the room.
Given that the public is so split on that question of going to war, it's astonishing that there has been so little debate on the potential costs of war and what the impact of those costs will be over the long term in terms of meeting other priorities and securing the economic health of the nation.
Few rational people would argue against spending large amounts of money or even running large deficits to allow a nation to defend itself. But there is legitimate debate among the president's detractors and his supporters about whether attacking Iraq really will increase the security of America and its allies.
The White House has assiduously avoided the debate over the cost of war. When President Bush's former economic adviser, Lawrence B. Lindsey, broached the subject in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last fall and predicted that the war and its aftermath could cost as much as $200 billion, he sealed his fate as a short-timer in the administration.
...................
If you want to remain in Dubya's employment, the last thing you should ever do is try to be truthful.
posted on March 8, 2003 05:14:36 AM new
I believe it's clear who will pay for the war. Iraqi oil will pay for the war. If the French and German's don't get there act together shortly they will have paid for the war with the monies already paid to Iraq for illegal oil.
