# Why did G.W Bush wait so long to say anything about Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858 "2002-11-21T02:57:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/1 "2002-11-21T02:57:36Z")
Ok, let’s say the Hawks are 100% right and that Saddam Hussein must be taken out of office at any cost. Why did George W. Bush wait until a couple of months before the midterm elections, and after hope of capturing Osama Bin Ladin floundered to say “we need to attack Iraq”? Seems to me he could have made this an issue when he was first inaugrated into office. What compelling new developments have happened in the past few months that make Iraq more a threat than they were two years ago? So, if Bush is so terribly concerned about our national security, why did he wait to push the matter? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/2 "2002-11-21T03:14:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*So, if Bush is so terribly concerned about our national security, why did he wait to push the matter? \*\* Well, in Bush’s [State of the Union Address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html) back on January 29, 2002, Bush said > [@](#): > > Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens – leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections – then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. > > States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. > > We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security. > > We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. That last paragraph, in particular, was a pretty good hint of the current Iraq policy. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/3 "2002-11-21T03:19:20Z")
Perhaps it took them a year to build up consumer awareness of the product’s possibilities to the point that they felt it was feasible to launch production ? > [@](#): > > From a marketing point of view," said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, "you don’t introduce new products in August. [Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/politics/07STRA.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/4 "2002-11-21T03:21:04Z")
Well, if you saw his speech he gave, he offered plenty of evidence that Saddam is a threat. He explained that… um… well, something. He talked about Saddam’s “Nucular Holy Warriors,” which is plenty odd, since Iraq’s regime is _secular_. A ruler like Saddam wouldn’t stand for a powerful religious political faction in his country. Bush waited until he could market a war in Iraq to benefit Congressional campaigns—_that’s_ what the urgency was. His urgency, you’ll notice, has dropped off some since then. Oh, he’s still pushing for war, but he’s calmed down considerably. President Rove got what he wanted. Of course, if anyone has access to the Bush administration’s sudden offering of “proof,” I might just change my mind. And I might also change my toothpaste to Tony Blair’s brand. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/5 "2002-11-21T12:04:37Z")
Maureen Dowd, in her column yesterday, made the assertion that, at least in terms of public utterances, the words “Osama bin Laden” had not passed the President’s lips in four months. IIRC, she’s right. I think that’s a rather telling point. It wasn’t that long ago that OBL was “priority number one”. Gotta get him, gonna get him. Our Leader loves being seen in assertive, macho poses making flat statements like that. Didn’t happen. Viewed in that light, the Afghan campaign was a flop. As much as was plausible, public attenton was focused on the removal of the Taliban, skillfully evading the original intent. But it was over, there was nobody there left to bomb. Public attention began to drift toward certain unseemly subjects. Of course, it should be noted, in the interests of fairness, that the existence of intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax had not been confirmed at that point. Certain less than loyal elements have asserted that this is “embroidering the truth”. This blurs the distinction between “embroidering” and “making up out of whole cloth”. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/6 "2002-11-21T13:39:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > I think that’s a rather telling point. It wasn’t that long ago that OBL was “priority number one”. Gotta get him, gonna get him. Our Leader loves being seen in assertive, macho poses making flat statements like that. Didn’t happen. Viewed in that light, the Afghan campaign was a flop. As much as was plausible, public attenton was focused on the removal of the Taliban, skillfully evading the original intent. But it was over, there was nobody there left to bomb. Public attention began to drift toward certain unseemly subjects. > \*\* [Here](http://www.c-span.org/executive/presidential/bush_war.asp) is President Bushs address to the nation on October 7, 2001 explaining why we initiated military action against Afghanistan. In this address you will find the following: > [@](#): > > These carefully targeted actions are **designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime**. > > More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. **By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans**. > Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. > > This military action is a part of our campaign against terrorism, another front in a war that has already been joined through diplomacy, intelligence, the freezing of financial assets and the arrests of known terrorists by law enforcement agents in 38 countries. Given the nature and reach of our enemies, **we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes** , by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose. > > **Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader**. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers, themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril. > > In the face of today’s new threat, the only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it. > > In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our strengths – patience with the long waits that will result from tighter security; **patience and understanding that it will take time to achieve our goals** ; patience in all the sacrifices that may come. > > The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Please read the entire speech. You will not find the name Osama Bin Ladin in it. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2002, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/7 "2002-11-21T14:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\* > Why did George W. Bush wait until a couple of months before the midterm elections, and after hope of capturing Osama Bin Ladin floundered to say “we need to attack Iraq”? > > What compelling new developments have happened in the past few months that make Iraq more a threat than they were two years ago? > > So, if Bush is so terribly concerned about our national security, why did he wait to push the matter? \*\* Well, first of all, Sept.11 happened. That makes some folks believe that Iraq poses a greater threat than it did two years ago. But [here](http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2001/02/iraq-010222zwb.htm) is a press conference from February of 2001, 7 months before the NY tragedy, where Bush states: > [@](#): > > The Secretary of State is going to > go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, the primary > goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein, we won’t tolerate you > developing weapons of mass destruction and we expect you to leave your > neighbors alone. > > I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese. That meant > that they weren’t very effective. And we’re going to review current > sanction policy, and review options as to how to make the sanctions > work. But the primary goal is to make it clear to Saddam that we > expect him to be a peaceful neighbor in the region and we expect him > not to develop weapons of mass destruction. And if we find him doing > so, there will be a consequence. [Here]([http://209.50.252.70p](http://209.50.252.70p) en/articles/archives/00000010.htm) and [here](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/12/wnext.xml) are articles from December of 2001 which make Bushs attitude toward Iraq abundantly clear nine months before the election: > [@](#): > > PRESIDENT BUSH gave warning yesterday that “rogue states” with weapons of mass destruction would be his next priority in the war against terrorism, in a signal that Iraq could soon be targeted. > > Within the Bush administration, a debate is raging > over where the war on terrorism goes after > Afghanistan. But contrary to press reports, the > argument isn’t about whether to extend the war to > Iraq–that question has largely been settled. Last > week national security adviser Condoleezza Rice > declared Saddam “a threat to us because he is > determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” > Echoing that appraisal, President Bush argued, “As for > Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in > his country, to show us that he is not developing > weapons of mass destruction.” Asked what would happen > if the Iraqi dictator declined to comply, the > president said, “He’ll find out.” You can agree or disagree with Bush on the necessity of action against Iraq, but suggesting that it is only an election ploy is, at best, silly. He has made his position clear all along. The reason why Iraq has recently moved to center stage is simply that our first priority, the situation in Afghanistan, has become relatively stable. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/8 "2002-11-22T00:47:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener \* > \*\*Well, if you saw his speech he gave, he offered plenty of evidence that Saddam is a threat. He explained that… um… well, something. He talked about Saddam’s “Nucular Holy Warriors,” which is plenty odd, since Iraq’s regime is _secular_. A ruler like Saddam wouldn’t stand for a powerful religious political faction in his country. > \*\* His regime isn’t entirely secular, you know. While Ba’ath ideology may be, take note of that Qu’ran Saddam made with his own blood, or perhaps the “Mother of All Battles” government built mosque in downtown Baghdad (3rd largest in the world, IIRC). ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/9 "2002-11-22T01:43:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Maureen Dowd, in her column yesterday, made the assertion that, at least in terms of public utterances, the words “Osama bin Laden” had not passed the President’s lips in four months. IIRC, she’s right. > > \*\* Yesterday, as in Nov. 20? She’s using Nexus wrong. Try just “osama.” [Here he is on the 18th.](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021118-6.html) As to your other, equally factually incorrect “point,” administration officials said from the very start of the Afghanistan campaign that it was about more than getting Osama, that it was about breaking up Al Qaeda. ISTR pentagon officials going on and on about ‘maybe we’ll get him, maybe we won’t, but we’re gonna break up al qaeda.’ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/10 "2002-11-22T03:52:54Z")
Oh? So Al Queda is broken up? Well, great! I feel better already! Said it then say it now: the 9/11 attack was a criminal act, criminals should not be pursued by armies and air forces, but by police. We didn’t accomplish d for diddly squat in Afghanistan except to make a miserable and Godforsaken place more of the same. “Well, we disrupted thier training camps!” Well, whoop-de-fucka-doo! At least then we knew where the hell they were! And now, the big operatives being captured? Are being captured by police, intelligence and snitches. Just like we said in the first place. We are further reassured by Mr. Woodward that Our Leader operates on “gut instinct” (as seen on _60 Minutes_). Well, at least he’s playing from his strong suit. No doubt his revelation that he hates Kim Il Jong will go a long way to calming a jittery world. We’re just lucky that Vlad “the Impaler” Putin didn’t launch a nuclear strike when he was called “Pooty Poot”! Luckily for us our fate lies in his hands, rather than President-elect Gore. You know, all stiff, wooden and intellectual. Oh, happy day. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/11 "2002-11-22T05:15:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Oh? So Al Queda is broken up? Well, great! I feel better already! > > Said it then say it now: the 9/11 attack was a criminal act, criminals should not be pursued by armies and air forces, but by police. We didn’t accomplish d for diddly squat in Afghanistan except to make a miserable and Godforsaken place more of the same. > > “Well, we disrupted thier training camps!” Well, whoop-de-fucka-doo! At least then we knew where the hell they were!\*\* So you think that letting OBL and his terror network stay in place so they could plan more attacks is a good idea because we would know where they were located? Well, when the criminals are in a different country with a Government that hides and aides the criminals the local cop really can’t just go arrest someone. When another country attacks the US the only response is war. At the same time the US took out the base for OBL and his sick little friends. > [@](#): > > And now, the big operatives being captured? Are being captured by police, intelligence and snitches. Just like we said in the first place. First, who exactly is ‘we’? Second, the people being arrested are not in Afganistan. The fact that OBL’s terrorist network is spread through out the world does not invalidate attacking OBL’s homebase. In fact cutting off the head of the network is a damned good idea. [QUOTE] We are further reassured by Mr. Woodward that Our Leader operates on “gut instinct” (as seen on _60 Minutes_). Well, at least he’s playing from his strong suit. No doubt his revelation that he hates Kim Il Jong will go a long way to calming a jittery world. We’re just lucky that Vlad “the Impaler” Putin didn’t launch a nuclear strike when he was called “Pooty Poot”! Luckily for us our fate lies in his hands, rather than President-elect Gore. You know, all stiff, wooden and intellectual. Oh, happy day. [QUOTE] I trust Bush’s gut reation way more than I trust your rant that has no logic behind it. Bush and his gut reaction: We will hunt down terrorists and kill them if we have to in order to make the US and the world safe. Your rant: Well, Bush and the military weren’t perfect, they didn’t capture all of OBL’s men so Bush must be wrong. Attacking Afganistan was meaningless and we should just let the cops deal with this. Oh, and Gore would have done better. Grow up man. Get a clue. Slee ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/12 "2002-11-22T06:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener \* > \*\* Bush waited until he could market a war in Iraq to benefit Congressional campaigns—_that’s_ what the urgency was. His urgency, you’ll notice, has dropped off some since then. Oh, he’s still pushing for war, but he’s calmed down considerably. President Rove got what he wanted. \*\* My father is much farther to the right than I am, and listens to a lot of right-wing talk radio. One of the shows he told me about had some military person on it claiming to know that Bush plans to make an assult on Iraq in December if the weapons inspection has any hitches, and that there is already ground assult weaponry and personal gathered in some corded off section of Kuwait that the media has been banned from. The person could be a crackpot, probably is, but if he’s not I guess we’ll see how serious Bush is about this thing in a couple of weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/13 "2002-11-22T08:09:33Z")
What I find scary is the idea that many people wont even consider the possibility that the existence of a worldwide terrorist organization dedicated to carrying out large scale attacks against civilian targets without rhyme or reason is a good reason to reconsider the way military force should be used. I understand that people might be suspicious of Bush and his motives. But at least on principle, shouldn’t it at least be plausible that a new kind of enemy demands consideration of new sorts of responses. Sure, police can handle things, and that is how we’ve conventionally delt with them: but every new event in the world should be a time to re-evaluate the rationales behind convention. ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/14 "2002-11-22T08:25:53Z")
He said he was going to get 'em and he meant it, you just weren’t paying attention. We will also be going to war with North Korea (hey, it’s been 50 years) and Iran. And he told you this too. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/15 "2002-11-22T20:53:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Oh? So Al Queda is broken up? Well, great! I feel better already! > > Said it then say it now: the 9/11 attack was a criminal act, criminals should not be pursued by armies and air forces, but by police. We didn’t accomplish d for diddly squat in Afghanistan except to make a miserable and Godforsaken place more of the same. > \*\* I seem to have heard something along the lines of “overthrowing the Taliban,” which, in itself, is a noble and humanitarian act. We liberated 20 million people from a group of armed religious extremists. Not a bad day’s work. ---
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/16 "2002-11-22T21:34:48Z")
Bush said he wanted Saddam gone on October 11, 2000, during the second presidential debate. I can’t get the link to work, but here is the address for a transcript of the debate from C-Span: [http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate\_101100.asp](http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate_101100.asp) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/17 "2002-11-22T21:38:03Z")
But not actually the main purpose, either. The enemy was, and is, Osama bin laden in particular, Al Qaeda in general, and terrorism itself longer-term. Helping the Afghan resistance overthrow the Taliban made the world a better place, sure, although the extent to which Afghanistan has thereby become a paradise is debatable. But there has been depressingly little apparent progress against the real enemies, hasn’t there? ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/18 "2002-11-22T21:40:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > But there has been depressingly little apparent progress against the real enemies, hasn’t there? \*\* It depends. We’ve killed hundreds of al-Qaida members (including at least one top leader) and arrested hundreds more (including at LEAST 3 top leaders). Bin Laden is on the run, or dead, and much of their funds have been stopped. More than 60 of their camps have also been destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/19 "2002-11-23T00:31:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Oh? So Al Queda is broken up? Well, great! I feel better already! > > Said it then say it now: the 9/11 attack was a criminal act, criminals should not be pursued by armies and air forces, but by police. We didn’t accomplish d for diddly squat in Afghanistan except to make a miserable and Godforsaken place more of the same. > > “Well, we disrupted thier training camps!” Well, whoop-de-fucka-doo! At least then we knew where the hell they were! > > And now, the big operatives being captured? Are being captured by police, intelligence and snitches. Just like we said in the first place. > > We are further reassured by Mr. Woodward that Our Leader operates on “gut instinct” (as seen on _60 Minutes_). Well, at least he’s playing from his strong suit. No doubt his revelation that he hates Kim Il Jong will go a long way to calming a jittery world. We’re just lucky that Vlad “the Impaler” Putin didn’t launch a nuclear strike when he was called “Pooty Poot”! > > Luckily for us our fate lies in his hands, rather than President-elect Gore. You know, all stiff, wooden and intellectual. Oh, happy day. \*\* In other words, literally every factual assertion you made in your prior post has been shown to be incorrect, so you’ll just make new incorrect assertions. If you’ll recall (you won’t – see below) we asked the “police,” such as they were, in Afghanistan to hand over al Qaeda. When they failed, then we sent in the military. You think maybe we should have dispatched NYPD to Kabul? Has it occured to you even for a nanosecond that perhaps the police, intelligence and snitches are picking al Qaeda guys up in other countries because we made their prior abode an unsafe place to be? We’ll be chasing these guys for years. Some the military will get, some intelligence will get, some will get picked up on a warrant when they get pulled over for running a stop sign. From the very beginning President Bush and his people have said that this war will be fought on many fronts, with many weapons. Military, intelligence, financial, diplomatic, etc. No one has asserted otherwise. But you continue to assert that people have so asserted. You are so addicted to hating the president and resenting the election outcome that you have lost all capacity for factual analysis. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2002, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858/20 "2002-11-23T01:10:37Z")
Well, **Manny** thanks for the free psychoanalysis. I’ll think that over. Ponder, ponder. Nope. Ain’t so. Turns out I’m the very embodiment of clear reason and unbiased probity. You suggest that a threat dispersed is a threat diminished. The strategic nuance of that evades me. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-g-w-bush-wait-so-long-to-say-anything-about-iraq/137858.md?page=2)