If It Ends Without War: Because of or in Spite of Bush?

I always wish, and am never quite able to believe, that the US and Europe are playing “good cop/bad cop” with Iraq, with the US saying “We’re going to whip your ass!” and Europe saying “Listen, we understand your position, but we can’t really control Bush, there’s no telling what he might do if you don’t comply more fully with what they want.”

I do believe, however, that there may be a whole lot going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about.

This almost certainly is true. There was a published report last week – Washington Times, I think, if only because they get the Bushie intelligence scoop – that Colin Powell established a back-channel to the Iraqi govrernment for negotiations. According to the report, Iraq asked, “what can we do to prevent war.” Powell responded, “come clean about something. anything. just show good faith.” The next day Iraq “found” four warheads but nothing else. Powell got angry.

Perhaps. But consider that the Cold War went on for close to 50 years, and there are those who still consider the US to be the bad guy in that situation (or at least consider the US the moral equivalent of the USSR), even long after horror stories about communist Russia came pouring out.

I would seriously hope not, given the motivations of the Franco-German axis. Unless by “heroism” you mean “hypocritically self-interested stonewalling.” I would wager that, were peace to “prevail” in such a way as to bring about the demise of the Saddam regime and instill democracy in the country, it would be the US that would garner the credit, not Chirac and Schroeder, as they were opposed to us strong-arming Saddam to begin with - if they had their way, we’d still be ignoring Iraq’s lack of compliance with UNSC resolutions. If by “prevail” you mean that Saddam’s brutality is maintained, while his regime grows in power, then yeah, France and Germany would get all of the - ahem - credit.

ElJeffe said: “…and there are those who still consider the US to be the bad guy in that situation (or at least consider the US the moral equivalent of the USSR), even long after horror stories about communist Russia came pouring out.”

Maybe there are those that give equal weight to horror stories coming out of Central/South America, you know the “backyard”. But I will not attempt to hijack this thread to Cuba. :wink:

It depends who is interperting it. Did Ronald Reagan defete the former Soviet Union or did Gorby?

I am a big believer of peace through strenght and if SH basically gives up and leaves, to me it will be because of the Bush policies.

Oh, we don’t need 20 freakin’ years to figure this out.

Look, the Bush administration has been leaving all kinds of doors open to avoid war. They have even offered Saddam asylum if he’ll leave the country. And, they are trying to build a situation where Saddam may be taken out in a coup before the war starts.

If either of those things happen (and that’s pretty much the only way war can be averted now), then CLEARLY the Bush administration will have been responsible. Because the Democrats and other countries pushed hard to get the Bush administration to stop forcing the situation in Iraq at pretty much every step along the way.

But I’m sure the spin against the administration is already starting, just in case.


Yeah, Yeah, maybe a bit of a hyperbole, but IF we do see S. Hussein flee, Bush will be the cause. A lot of folks won’t like it, but it will be hard to refute.

I wonder what the US will do if S. Hussein DOES flee. I can see us “nation building” after a war when we have a huge military presence in Iraq. If there is no war, but S. Hussein is gone, what pretex to we have for steering Iraq away from the next mad dictator? Or maybe there is a civil war, and we go in on the side of one of the factions. Could get interesting…

…praise him to the skies, put his silly chimp mug up on Rushmore, let the pundits write ten thousand essays in praise of his statesmanship, his courage…

Anything to stop this stupid goddam war.

OK, I might end up puking my guts out for the next six years. It’d be worth it.

Both, I’d say.

Sam: I think you discount international opinion in averting this war. I hardly think it’s a foregone conclusion at this point.


I wish Bush could see that, too. But he’s said nearly nothing about what happens after his war, other than his 2000 campaign comment that he is opposed to nation-building. But the ramifications of that wouldn’t settle in until after the next election, right?

True enough that someone likes to make the ‘wag the dog’ claim but in Shrub’s case I think it is easier to make stick than at most times.

WTC and Pentagon get hit by planes. We go after Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Generally we were pretty successful over there. Afghani regime change and Al Qaeda on the run (but not dead).

All of a sudden Saddam pops onto the stage as the evil bad guy. Ok, he always was one but where was the rhetoric before 9/11? The links between Saddam and Al Qaeda are thin at best. Heck, I don’t even think they like each other much. Nevertheless we get the President of the US going hell bent after Iraq almost out of the blue. Sure Saddam as been an evil prick all along but if Bush always felt that Saddam needed finishing why wasn’t he making the case before 9/11 for greater UN inspections and the like?