http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.eceBush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.
The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict.
The leaders discussed the prospects for a second resolution, but Mr Bush said: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway." He added that he had a date, 10 March, pencilled in for the start of military action. The war actually began on 20 March.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/02/26/sequal.htmlBush vs. saddam the sequel
Faced with a new threat, the President hits hard and offers a hint of a steely policy for Baghdad
February 19, 2001
It's easy to forget that the Gulf War isn't over. Since the mother of all battles ended in apparent success 10 years ago this month, the U.S. has been engaged in protracted low-intensity combat to bring the conflict to final victory. Washington has unloosed a raft of modern weapons--economic sanctions, an arms embargo, weapons inspections, money for opposition groups, no-fly zones and the occasional bombing--to unseat Saddam Hussein. To no avail. The vexing enemy left in position in 1991 by the first President Bush has managed ever since to keep the Iraqi threat alive.
Last week the second President Bush took his first whack at the problem: 24 U.S. and British warplanes slammed five Iraqi radar and communications centers that had become a danger to the planes patrolling the no-fly zones imposed on Iraq after Operation Desert Storm. The military objectives were easy enough to accomplish. Pentagon officials believe the target sites to the south of Baghdad were nicely "degraded," and all planes returned safely to base.
The U.S. has always been especially leery about losing a pilot, says a senior Pentagon officer. "Saddam is eventually going to get lucky. We just want to delay that day as long as possible." The wily boss of Baghdad had been pouring money into reconstructing his dated (but deadly) "Tall King" and "Volex" radars and linking them together with new underground fiber-optic cables. That would give the dishes much sharper eyes in the sky and antiaircraft shooters a faster bead on their targets. Pilots on no-fly patrol have lately noticed newly aggressive Iraqi tactics in picking up their aircraft, and they have complained that some surface-to-air missile operator might soon earn the $14,000 reward Saddam has offered for shooting down a U.S. plane. Because 4 out of 5 radars lay above the 33rd parallel that marks the edge of the southern no-fly zone, they had to ask Bush for permission to attack.
Friday's two-hour assault was heavier and ran closer to Baghdad than was the norm over the past two years, but it was essentially just a stronger dose of the same old policy. ...
While U.S. officials like Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talk of aggressive new strategies to get rid of Saddam, Powell speaks mainly of reinvigorating the sanctions. To do that, he will need to convince Arab and European allies that Saddam is playing and winning a propaganda game by letting his people starve. And to bring the allies back aboard, Powell will need to draw up an approach that reduces civilian hardships while concentrating embargoes on things that count. Powell has taken to saying sanctions are really about ensuring that Iraq complies with 1991 cease-fire agreements limiting its weaponry of all kinds. So the U.S. will "refocus" on stopping sales of arms and weapons materials, shortening the list of controlled items and allowing more ordinary commerce.
Arriving at a fresh approach the entire Administration supports and selling it abroad will be tough. Even if Powell does, the odds on successfully squelching Saddam still look awfully long. In the meantime, Bush has little alternative to the occasional raid.
But it is hard to see that these lead to anything other than the same old policy of containment--unless Bush II is ready to finish the job the way Bush I started it. I think this flashback is relevant when analyzing the current reports out of Iran...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1U.S.: Voices on Recording May Not Have Been From Iranian Speedboats
Chilling Threat Could Have Come From the Shore or Another Ship, Navy Says
Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship.
The near-clash occurred over the weekend in the Strait of Hormuz. On the U.S.-released recording, a voice can be heard saying to the Americans, "I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes."
The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.
Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't."