OK. Looks like the March 1 war timetable fer shootin' is slipping thanks to those pesky French and Turkish demands to see some ID with President Bush's check(s). It's now looking more and more like March 15 or so, as George over at Warblogging argued.
National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice apparently agrees, saying that Bush is "willing to wait until Hans Blix, one of two United Nations chief weapons inspectors, reports on Iraqi compliance on March 7." A vote would come the next week, and then Bush can have his war, or, as the Times put it, "other officials strongly hinted that military action could come immediately thereafter."
I still think I would have been right, calling March 1 as the start of hostilities. I just didn't expect the Turks to hold out like they did.
If the Franco-German plan fails, I’d agree. March 16th is tough, though, since it gives away some of our advantages, since it’s full-moon (or close enough).
I’d almost say April 1st, but Bush wants his war, dang it!
TPFD, Time Phased Force Deployment, there is no other major consideration.
This is a test
(Reading you loud and clear.) You new moon people may have been right, and Mike Ruppert may have been right when he predicted invasion on or about the State of the Union address (scroll down to the 1/24/03 entry). Those may well have been target dates, and maybe there were internal snafus, or maybe the intensity of the opposition tripped them up.