Why not? Hussein is using the dark side of the farce to make Bush look like he's full of shit.
This morning I turned on NPR to hear YET ANOTHER report of Bush running his mouth, talking about "War is the last option but it is an option" and "We'll give Saddam ONE MORE CHANCE to disarm voluntarily and peacefully." What, in addition to all the other one-more-chances he's gotten in recent months? No wonder Saddam's over there doing whatever he wants. To him, the U.S. is nothing more than big talk and no action. I'm so tired of hearing all this useless rhetoric.
Friday, November 8th, 2002 was the date that the UN Security Council passed a resolution stating that Iraq had to comply with their demands to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. About the resolution, Bush said that it gave Hussein "one final chance" to get rid of his weapons. Bush said that "his cooperation must be prompt and unconditional."
That resolution, UN resolution 1441, cites at least ten previous resolutions going as far back as August 6th of 1990 as its basis. Resolution 1441 was portrayed by the media as yet another of Saddam's Last Chances.
That one final chance was three months ago and all we've done is ship a bunch of soldiers over there. Ooooh, scary.
So - We have a farce going on. Bush and the UN are doing lots of talking and no acting, and Hussein thinks/knows they aren't going to do anything. All those big mean bully threats (sorry - resolutions) appear to be a farce. Four days ago the AP reported that Bush is ready to propose another resolution to the U.N. Security Council. The real question is, will it be as scary effective as all the rest?
So we have two resolutions from the UNSC. Resolution 1441 says "Hey, Iraq, you have to give up your WMD, or else." Three and a half months later comes the speculation on the next as of yet unnumbered resolution which says "All right guys, Iraq isn't cooperating, what are we going to do about this?"
But there is another side to this.
In 1976, President Ford signed Executive Order 12333, explicitly prohibiting the CIA from taking part, directly or indirectly, in assassinations. Last night ABC Nightline reported on a story from the Chicago Daily Herald in which Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R - IL) said the following regarding a conversation he (allegedly) had with President Bush: "President Bush would probably sign an executive order repealing the executive order put in place by President Ford that forbid [sic] the assassination of foreign leaders."
(On a slightly funny note, he said he thought Bush had spoken publicly about the matter previously. "I don't want to betray any confidences of the president," Fitzgerald said. "I assumed he had said that somewhere else. But maybe if he didn't say that anywhere else, I shouldn't have said that just now." Bush currently says he does not recall that conversation. I bet he's pissed.)
In any case, there's probably more going on here than we know about. If Bush is willing to let the CIA turn Hussein's head into a canoe, maybe he really does mean business.
So the question is, what the hell are we waiting on?
1. International Support.
Why that might be true: Of course the PC and Diplomatically Correct way to go about this is to have the support of the U.N. and any other nations who care to throw their support behind us. [sarcasm]We have to preserve our excellent international reputation for foreign policy, you know.[/sarcasm] Governments like Belgium, France, Germany, and even Mexico have been making this difficult. Mexico simply opposes war and seeks a peaceful, diplomatic resolution. (But what do they know? They have bad water and a practically ruined economy, and all their people are trying to escape to the U.S.) Belgium, France and Germany initially opposed a proposal to allow NATO to equip Turkey with the necessary defenses to protect against a potential counter-attack that Hussein might launch against them in the event that Iraq comes under military attack.
Why that might not be true: That proposal was passed last week through a sub-committee of NATO (the Defense Planning Committee) which France dropped out of in the mid-sixties. Without France's presence there, Belgium and Germany immediately dropped their objections and the decision was passed. Nice bit of political maneuvering there; well done. This leads me to potential reason number two as to why we are waiting.
2. Implementation of Military Forces.
Why this might be true: Um... I got nothin.
Why this might not be true: We've been ferrying troops and equipment to the Middle East for a couple months now - it seems to me that we ought to have things in place by now. U.S. military forces are positioned in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Diego Garcia, and Bahrain in preparation for possible military action. Using Turkey as a staging area will allow quicker access for U.S. troops to get to Iraqi oil fields and other key areas in northern Iraq, and the way has now been cleared for this to happen. Turkey's government has been agreeable to this since the beginning, so the details of that arrangement are expected to be worked out this week. On the other hand, we didn't utilize Turkey in 1991, so it would stand to reason that we don't absolutely require that staging area this time around either. Furthermore, this would be a different kind of attack utilizing more technology and less troops and equipment.
I guess I'm just fed up with all the talk and I think it's time for Bush to put the hammer to the firing pin.