U.S. Offers Iraqis $25 Million for Finding Saddam Hussein [New York Times: International News]

David Remer of Political News & Analysis Comments:

He started out saying we would get Osama bin Laden. Oh, well. Then he said he would get Saddam Hussein. Oh, well. Then he said, be patient, it is only a matter of time. Oh, well. Having failed all that, he is at least willing to implicitly admit that he failed and move on to Plan B. Offer a bounty.

Straight out of the 'Old West' when there was too much territory and not enough sheriffs. This Bounty at least has a chance of succeeding. Can't wait to hear President Bush say, "See, I told you I would get him". No, the tax payers footing the bill for $25 million dollars got him. You failed, Mr. Bush, in every way, save to indebt my daughter's future with huge tax increases to pay back the Bush credit spending binge. The American people have little to show for all this credit spending, a mediocre Rx drug plan, failing schools and teacher salaries, horrendous budget deficits and national debt, and absolutely no more security against terrorism today than we had the day before Sept. 11.

President Bush, the cowboy, has picked up the tax payers budget six shooter and is twirling it around, pretending to be John Wayne. Watch out! You could shoot yourself in the foot, you greenhorn.

8:49:41 PM  Google It!  

Bush Says No Decision Yet on U.S. Troops to Liberia. "I am in the process of gathering the information necessary to make a rational decision," the president said today. By Eric Schmitt and Richard W. Stevenson. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]

David Remer of Political News & Analysis Comments:

Bush said he cannot now make a rational decision. That is understandable. Condoleeza Rice and Collin Powel are out of the office and Karl Rove is catching up on some much needed sleep. Without anyone around to tell him what to think, he provided the only appropriate answer for a politician. President Bush is, if nothing else, a very good politician. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

8:32:40 PM  Google It!  

Next challenge in Iraq: Sabotage. The country's electrical infrastructure and oil pipelines are being targeted. [Christian Science Monitor | Top Stories]

by David Remer, July 3, 2003 -- Political News & Analysis

In the Viet Nam War, it was a hidden and mobile guerilla army that defeated the U.S. In Iraq, it may be a hidden and mobile group of saboteurs that sends the U.S. packing. The enemy in Iraq, will be coming from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and other Arabl countries for the foreseeable future, in the form of saboteurs. It won't take an army of them, just a couple hundred. They need not engage American forces to battle them. They only need to prevent stability from taking hold in the country during the American sponsored and shaped new government.

Though President Bush says, "Bring them on" in response to attacks on U.S. military personnel in Iraq, it may be the last thing the President actually wants to see happen. It may be that President Bush foresees enemies of the American invasion grouping for an all out WW II type military assault on American forces. If so, America needs a new president, in a hurry! It is obvious such a tactic would not work. However, should the enemies of the American invasion decentralize their forces into groups of just a few or couple, and target Iraqi infrastructure, it will be extremely difficult for American forces to stop them.

If the new government cannot stop the attacks on the infrastructure, and the weekly count of American dead and wounded shows no sign of abating over the foreseeable future, the cost of maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq may become too high for the American public to accept. Such a strategy worked in Viet Nam to defeat the mightiest nation in the world. It is no wonder, that President Bush is now asking other nations of the world for their military presence in Iraq. It is no wonder that now President Bush is seeking that which he felt unnecessary in the beginning, a united nations coalition force, which could maintain a presence for years without incurring shame or accusations of defeat in the event stability in Iraq proves to be unattainable for years.

It is also no surprise that other nations such as Germany and Russia do not want to get involved. Also, no surprise that of all the nations who are willing to participate in Iraq, their exposure will be minimal; such countries sending only small complements of personnel to the region to minimize their losses. It will come as no surprise to this writer, if Iraq conjures up American memories of Viet Nam in the months and years ahead.

11:53:44 AM  Google It!