[Lerkfish]

Ok, I"m not suggesting the Bush administration unraveling is the only explanation, but certainly SOMETHING odd is happening.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we had several almost simultaneous bailouts from the Bush camp, including Ari Fleischer, for no apparent overall reason.

Then, we start to get bizarre rumblings from sources you would not have thought to get them from: Rumsfeld admitting Saddam MIGHT have destroyed the WMDs before the war, Wolfowitz making statements about how decisions were made that , even if slightly misquoted, still indicate an openness is discussing a sensitive issue. Intelligence agencies coming out with charges that their reports were not interpreted correctly....etc.

What do you guys think is really happening, here? I'd like to see theories from both sides of the table. Even if you support the Bush administration, don't you still think its odd that these things seem to be happening from within the administration and surroundings?

It is certainly curious.


My gut tells me that the near timing of the recent resignations and the present inquiries is a little too coincidental. If its NOT a coincidence, then what happened? was there a meeting of the group where it became clear the **** was soon going to hit the fan, and the prez said "you're either for me and can stay, or time to go?" Did people decide on their own to save their own backsides?
IF this scenario happened, it still seems premature since the inquiries are only NOW occuring. Do they still know something we don't? Do they know, unequivocably that the weapons were indeed destroyed, or what?

I admit this is mysterious, and I do not have a clear reading on it. What do you guys think?

[davesimondotcom]

Situational speculation:

What if: Saddam had the weapons until he knew the attack was coming for sure. Then he destroyed them. Could not the case be made the it was because of the military pressure from the U.S. that the weapons were finally gotten rid of?

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had several almost simultaneous bailouts from the Bush camp, including Ari Fleischer, for no apparent overall reason.

One report I read said that Bush issued a "bail out now" option if people weren't going want to go through the re-election process with him. Prudent, I would say, 'cause who wants a staff turn over at that time.

I don't know if it is unraveling. I don't even know if we can say the resignations and the current firestorm are linked. If they were, I would expect both Powell and Rice to bail too.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Situational speculation:

What if: Saddam had the weapons until he knew the attack was coming for sure. Then he destroyed them. Could not the case be made the it was because of the military pressure from the U.S. that the weapons were finally gotten rid of?

did you mean for that to go in this thread? It certainly seems more suited for a different thread.

but to address it anways, if true, then that would mean the invasion was unnecessary. All that had to happen, as I've previously suggested, was for the inspectors and the troops to announce they were going to inspect, and spread out the tanks and what not in a line that swept through the entire country. No shots fired, and if there were weapons, they'd be found. Bush still gets to look powerful, weapons eliminated.

[vmarks]

Suppose that one person wanted to get out, and made a the big announcement.

Suppose that another person had an announcement or statement, that taken on it's own would cause a big stir.

Wouldn't person number two be much better off if he introduced that statement right after person one, so that it didn't seem as big on it's own?

And then, what if a bunch of people jumped on this bandwagon, so that no single event stood out, and in this way, all the collective statements would blow over together?

Additionally, one of the lessons learned from the Clinton-era, and re-learned from the Trent Lott fiasco is, make disclosure early and move on, versus letting things fester, apologizing feverishly, and suffering damage for it.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Situational speculation:

What if: Saddam had the weapons until he knew the attack was coming for sure. Then he destroyed them. Could not the case be made the it was because of the military pressure from the U.S. that the weapons were finally gotten rid of?

Yep, that is certainly a viable option.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by boots:
One report I read said that Bush issued a "bail out now" option if people weren't going want to go through the re-election process with him. Prudent, I would say, 'cause who wants a staff turn over at that time.

I don't know if it is unraveling. I don't even know if we can say the resignations and the current firestorm are linked. If they were, I would expect both Powell and Rice to bail too.

Yeah, I think people are ready way too much into this. Cabinet resignations are very common. The timing is just coincidence because they are gearing up for the re-election and there are these possible scandals starting up. Just coincidental timing.

The real question surrounding the cohesion of the administration is: when Gingrich and other conservatives blash the state dept for being inept, are they acting contrary to the neocons--trying to reign in these super aggressive policies--or assisting the neocons in ousting Powell?

[Timo]

1. I agree that in my looking into the tea leaves I don't see the signs of unravelling myself,

2. I think there's a push to keep Powell on a very short leash, to keep his ability to brake in some ways the naked projection of power to a minimum.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by boots:
One report I read said that Bush issued a "bail out now" option if people weren't going want to go through the re-election process with him. Prudent, I would say, 'cause who wants a staff turn over at that time.

I don't know if it is unraveling. I don't even know if we can say the resignations and the current firestorm are linked. If they were, I would expect both Powell and Rice to bail too.

Rice is a possible candidate for governor in California. (She's been approached about it.) If she left for that reason, I wouldn't call that a "bail". Rather, I'd imagine Bush would move heaven and earth to help her.

[boots]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Rice is a possible candidate for governor in California. (She's been approached about it.) If she left for that reason, I wouldn't call that a "bail". Rather, I'd imagine Bush would move heaven and earth to help her.

Agreed, but I was tying it to the current controversy. Or more precisely, I was saying that her not "bailing" is one reason I don't think the mass exodus is linked to the controversy.

[chris v]

I think that if Powell were thinking about quitting, he might be hesitant to for fear of what the Rumsfeld camp would do with that power vacuum. He more than likely feels like he needs to stay on as a voice of moderation to counterbalance the Rumsfeld Cabal as much as possible.

At least, I sincerely hope Powell isn't thinking about quitting.

I don't see overt signs of disarray yet, but there's an eentsy weentsy tear in the fabric that could start to grow if they don't squash the missing WMD thing in the next month or so.

CV

[MacGorilla]

I'd like Powell to quit and run for President but I know thats a pipe dream.