Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution

[skywalker]

Read this on Capitol Hill Blue:

Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jan 22, 2003, 01:18

Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding “no first strike” policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.

“We have a dangerous role reversal here,” one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. “The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution.”

Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of State Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.

“This is not Desert Storm,” one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. “We don’t have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don’t have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we’re advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies.”

Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

The rest: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_1587.shtml

It's interesting how Mr. Bush considers dissent to be no less than treason. I remember the same was said against the Democrats about homeland security.

Mark

[Luvian]

This won't help his Dictator reputation...

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally quoted by Doug Thompson: An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief. “The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

Your right Luvian..

Is he looking for a bunch of yes-men.. or real opinions?

Originally quoted by skywalker: It's interesting how Mr. Bush considers dissent to be no less than treason. I remember the same was said against the Democrats about homeland security.

McCarthyism kind of thing.. If you aren't with us... then your against us.

[Timber Loftis]

This is sad. Papa Bush, ex head of the CIA, was smart enough to listen to the very same men, during a time when there was a *much* greater justification for war. I hope Little Monkey Bush wises up. This whole damned thing is getting really unpopular. Anyone who lived through Vietnam (stateside or in the military) will tell you that an unpopular war can set the nation on its head.

[Ronn_Bman]

Just for clarification...

“The President ...snip... considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

That's an unnamed White House source, and yes those sources can be accurate, but they can also be inaccurate, so I wouldn't completely surrender to the idea that Bush43 considers policy opposition as treason just yet.

It's a great sound byte though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The rest of the article is disturbing if it's true.

[ 01-23-2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Memnoch]

In Australia, support for a non-UN sanctioned war is very low, and the Prime Minister (John Howard) is out on a limb on this, much like Tony Blair, with what the public is starting to feel is "blind support" of George W. People are starting to wonder what deals, if any, have been promised in exchange for that support. If there was clear and irrefutable evidence that Saddam is linked with al-Qaeda then support would be easy to get - but from where people are standing it looks as though the Bush administration has decided to finally tie up its Iraqi loose end. All these things that Saddam has done (and nobody's denying what he's done and that he's building up weapons of mass destruction etc) have happened in the last 10 years or so since the Gulf War. Why is the stick being wielded now? And where's the consistency - shouldn't the world then be chasing after North Korea as well?

I think what's more irritating is not so much that GW is going to war, but the fact that he seems to be trying to pull the wool over people's eyes as to the reasons for doing so - by linking it with al-Qaeda and playing upon the fears and emotions that have built up in people since Sept 11.

What is the feeling in the US? Is support as strong as for the Gulf War 11 years ago?

[Luvian]

Even in my town, there is a walk organised soon, against the war.