INCOMING! :

The greatest strategic deception since Eisenhower convinced Hitler the Allies were going to land at the Pas de Calais? (Jack Kelly, 8/01/02, Jewish World Review)

We may find out soon whether all this talk of invading Iraq has been part of the greatest strategic deception since Eisenhower convinced Hitler the Allies were going to land at the Pas de Calais.

Rumors of war have been rife in the news media of late, and they've been contradictory. On July 5, the New York Times published a front page story on a ground heavy invasion plan for Iraq. On July 29, the Times had another, very different, invasion plan - this one involving a quick strike on Baghdad - on its front page.

Meanwhile, the British press has been reporting both a "rift" between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush about invading Iraq, and that Blair has presented to Parliament the case for taking part in a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The London Evening Standard and Pravda report that U.S. and British special forces already are staging in countries surrounding Iraq. A "massive assault" could be likely at short notice, said the London Observer. But unidentified congressional sources say unidentified administration officials told them there will be no invasion before next year.

Confused? That may be the point. Not to confuse you, but to confuse Saddam.

There was an incredible moment in Joe Biden's hearings on Iraq yesterday, which were shown on C-SPAN (yes, I'm precisely that big a policy wonk). Russ Feingold, who we now favor Hillary Clinton shouting down, gave this mincing, self-righteous introductory statement, about how his constituents don't want us sending boys to die unless they know precisely why Saddam's a threat. then asked the panel--Richard Butler, the Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected, and Tony Cordesman--if there is an imminent danger of attack from Iraq, as he interprets the War Powers Act to require before a president could take pre-emptive action anywhere. So Butler says (and I paraphrase until I can find a transcript), within those narrow confines, no. The scientist says, not right now, but that's the aim of Saddam's weapons programs and it's easier to stop him now than when the attack is imminent. Then Cordesman, who's a skeptic about the need to attack Iraq, believing that containment will likely succeed, says : no, an attack isn't imminent in the sense you stated, but if that's what the War Powers Act requires then it's obsolete. We're in a new age, as 9-11 showed, and we'll get no more warning of an imminent nuclear attack from a man like Saddam than we got from al Qaeda. If you wait 'til you know it's imminent to react it's already too late. Feingold looked like a puppy who'd been whipped. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 1, 2002 10:18 AM