I see he now has changed his prescription to an ultimatum. The unlikely-to-be-fuffilled ultimatum is a traditional way to begin a war. So I am somewhat OK with that, if the President decides to go that way, though it would be better millitarily to go with a suprise attack.. The only caveat I would have for an ultimatum is that it have a firm deadline. We should count on Saddam refusing by trying to delay things. We would stick to the deadline – and soon after it passes, let him have it.

But he he burbles on about “getting Saddam to play ball” – nonsense. Never happen. At best (or worse, take your pick) he will just stall us and try to make inadequate counteroffers. He also will try (in fact is already trying) to drag in third parties, like the other Arab states or maybe the Europeans.

I can’t believe you’re giving this guy the time of day, Kevin.

1) It’s not a “treaty.” It’s an ultimatum.

2) It forces Saddam into a box. Either he accepts our terms [which cannot be legitimately objected to by anyone in the international community, even other Arab states, or he’s toast.

If he accepts the terms, and lives up to them, we win.

If he accpets the ternms, and renigs, we have a justification for military action, and we “win.”

If he rejects the terms, we have a justification for military action, and we “win.”

Simple really.

Of corse the klutzes running the Bush Iraq policy will never grasp this concept.

–Hesiod

2: Would he live up to it if he signed it?

The answer to the first is “not likely” and the answer to the second is “probably not.”

Thus, why bother with the treaty.

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_counterspin_archive.html#79947251

–Hesiod