I predict...

[Michael Eisenstadt]

There is another "war" going on, between the US Army and its 
civilian commander(s). Rumsfeld for example is for one kind
of military, the US Army a different kind. Moving tanks and
vehicles into position is no small thing. One issue is how
fast can this be done. Rumsfeld wants a miniaturized high-tech
military, the US Army wants to keep its forces doing what 
they have been doing 

The reserves called up are NOT many men, 95,000 troups is
a tiny amount. Its moving the gear which is a USEFUL 
exercise in seeing how well this can be done -- for future
operations

Sen. Biden said last night that Bush is NOT yet committed 
to a military option. Rep. Nancy Polosio said also last 
night that Bush does NOT need Congressional approval to act

but if he begins to feel the country is NOT behind him
doing this UNILATERALLY, will he dare to do it anyway?

That's the $200 question folks

let's hope that Rumsfeld is JUST running the military
and is prepared to leave the final decision to Bush

Jon Ford wrote:
> 
> Connie-- The US  either really means war, or this buildup is the biggest
> waste of time and money in our nation's history--or both!  A few days ago I
> might have agreed with Mike, but Hans Blix's  critical report would seem to
> give Bush the minimum to proceed  as Powell and the rest of the Bush regime
> have already said that we can go on without UN approval or a large coalition
> behind us. We can only hope a miracle happens  in the next month. Hey! What
> if we offered  Saddam a few million to go live in Paraguay?  We could even
> build him a couple of palaces.