article edited - click link for complete article The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks' · Washington now concentrating on timing · State of union address to 'turn up the heat' · Blair faces nightmare scenario over war decision Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall Friday January 24, 2003 The Guardian President George Bush is determined to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the next few weeks, without UN backing if necessary, according to authoritative sources in Washington and London. The US president is "to turn up the heat" in his state of the union address on Tuesday. "The pressure comes from President Bush and it is felt all the way down," a European official said. "They're talking about weeks, not months. Months is a banned word now." Mr Bush wanted the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to force the issue of military action by presenting evidence of Saddam Hussein's violations of UN resolutions immediately after weapons inspectors give their report to the UN on Monday. In Washington circles such an event is being referred to as the Adlai Stevenson moment. The "Adlai Stevenson moment" has become Washington shorthand for the US presentation of its intelligence case. Stevenson was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, who dramatically confronted the Soviet envoy with vivid aerial photographs of nuclear missiles being unloaded in Cuba. Downing Street was alarmed by the Bush administration's sudden haste in moving towards a climax. It was adamant that the decision to go to war should not be declared before Tony Blair flies to Camp David for talks with Mr Bush next Friday. An informed source in Washington said: "Blair is a good guy. They won't want to do that to him. They want it to look like he played a part in the policy-making but the decision has been made." A key moment will now be the state of the union address. According to a Washington source, the US administration remains divided along old fault lines about the precise timescale of war. The US secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld, wants Mr Bush to set a clear and imminent deadline. But Mr Powell, is resisting, asking for a little more time for diplomatic coalition-building. But both sides of the divide are making it increasingly clear that the end result will be military action, with or without UN backing. The chief White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, yesterday brushed off mounting anti-war feeling across Europe, led by France. It was "entirely possible that France won't be on the line", he said, adding that Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain and "virtually all of the eastern European countries" would provide support. Mr Powell echoed this, saying: "I don't think we will have to worry about going it alone." The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." But Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ratcheted up the rhetoric by claiming that Iraqi scientists were at risk of death. "We know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientists who cooperate during interviews will be killed, as well as their families," he said. Britain believes it has won a short reprieve before the US presents its own intelligence evidence against Saddam Hussein, in effect a declaration of war, but only for a fortnight at most. Mr Bush will lay out the broad case for toppling President Saddam next Tuesday but White House officials insist the speech, a year after the president coined the phrase, "axis of evil", will stop short of being a declaration of war. That will await a more detailed presentation of intelligence evidence in the next few weeks, after Mr Blair visits Camp David. At his meeting with Mr Powell yesterday, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, clung to the official line. "There are still ways that this can be resolved peacefully," he said. One of the factors behind Washington's haste appears to be the annual rise in temperatures in the Iraqi desert over the next few months. In theory, US and some allied troops have the capacity to fight in any weather but the effectiveness of both soldiers and equipment diminishes rapidly when the temperature rises over 35C. (95°F) "The planes have been designed for the cold war. They start losing lift, carry lighter loads, and must make shorter runs when the temperature goes over 35 (95°F)," said one government official involved in Anglo-American debates over the timing of an attack. -----
If we are going to go to war, there is no sense in delaying it. The sooner the job is done the sooner the healing can begin for all involved.
What worries most about this is that as many people who lost their lives in the war against Iraq and Iran, the Irainians still support Saddam. That should tell us something about this.
Ref, how are you so sure we will be able to heal our relations with France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera? Maybe you're right: Rumsfield has already pissed everybody off so much that we may as well go it alone. Regardless of you political leanings, I think you have to find the "diplomacy" of our government disappointing. Nearly all of the 9/11 sympathy has been exhausted now internationally. Sad.
Multiple Choice: 1) A US attack would be very wrong (implies Iran has a good sense of justice); 2) Iran hates us more than they hate Iraq; 3) They are racist; 4) They could be next.
Yes, IF: 1) No or few civ casualties; 2) Iraq becomes democratic; 3) No one touches Iraqi oil but Iraqis; 4) Iraq becomes democratic (although some Arab countries might not like that); 5) Iraq is kept together; 6) We leave quickly, no bases; 7) No threatening overtures are made to any other 'evil' nations after leaving Iraq. It would also be a plus if we could evacuate the Saudi bases after Saddam was gone. We could probably provide sufficient stability for the region from Kuwait and Qatar w/o having to be keep un infidels ( ) in Mecca.
Iran doesn't hate us. The government is a religous nut government, but the citizens are pro-American. We don't give them any foreign aid or have any troops there, so they can't blame us.
Cohen, Nobody would be happier than me if your list comes to pass, particularly if Iraq becomes democratic twice!
The Iranians don't support Saddam. Hell, quite the opposite. They hate his guts and would love to see him dead. They just don't want to see what they think would be a client state of the U.S. smack dab in the middle of the region. A weak Iraq, more subject to their influence, is seen as preferable to a post-invasion/non-Saddam Iraq under our domination with an uncertain future. It's true, from what I've read the last few years, that the majority of the Iranian people and the elected government, along with the business elite, would like normal relations with the U.S. and the West. But the real power in Iran, the Mullahs and their supporters, are calling the shots. Until they are marginalized, I don't see Iranian moderates taking charge.
Choice 4, but I hope not. Iranians do not hate the US. In fact, the younger generation of Iranian citizens look up to the US. Also, they are also not a fan of Saddam. They hate the guy and would like to see him removed from power. I see the current regime in Iran lasting no more than 5 years.
