"Weeks not months," has been the big phrase thrown around in the last month. It's used to describe how long Iraq has to give in to real disarmament and so, effectively, how long we have before the war starts. The issue of when this phrase first became the policy is probably going to become relevant very soon. That's because soon it will have been policy for months, not weeks. I went back looking for the first reference. It seems to have been Donald Rumsfeld on Jan 19. Within a week it was the catchphrase in both London and Washington. Will they meet their own deadline? New York Times By STEVEN R. WEISMAN 01/20/2003 Mr. Rumsfeld said the decision on whether Iraq was cooperating with the United Nations, a determination generally regarded as a possible precursor to war, would be made ''in a matter of weeks, not in months or years.'' He added, ''That judgment call will just have to be made.'' New York Times 01/22/2003 By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JAMES DAO Administration officials said the timetable was still to press for a decision from the Council in a matter of weeks rather than months, on the ground that Mr. Hussein's defiance of the demand for cooperation was already obvious. The French may disagree, one official said, but their argument that the inspections are working to disarm Iraq ''won't stand up to scrutiny.'' 01/26/2003 The Sunday Telegraph Washington and London were agreed last night that Iraq would be given "weeks not months" to disarm or face attack. 01/26/2003 Associated Press Newswires Asked whether they should have weeks or months, Blair replied "Well, I don't believe it will take them months to find out whether he is cooperating or not, but they should have whatever time they need." 01/28/2003 By JOHN TAGLIABUE The New York Times Some legislators said tonight that the inspectors should be given more time, and that Mr. Blair's mention on Sunday of ''weeks, not months'' was not sufficient. 01/28/2003 By STEVEN R. WEISMAN The New York Times In Mr. Powell's memoirs, one of his dictums is: ''Remain calm. Be kind.'' But the time for talking to allies calmly and kindly, aides readily concede, is most likely a matter of weeks now rather than months 01/30/2003 By ALEX BERENSON The New York Times After Mr. Bush's speech, ''the market expects a resolution within weeks instead of months,'' said Harvey Hirschhorn, the head of asset allocation and strategy for the Columbia Management Group, which manages $150 billion, including more than $50 billion in stocks. 01/31/2003 By RICHARD W. STEVENSON The New York Times WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- President Bush all but set a timetable for war today, warning Saddam Hussein that Iraq has ''weeks, not months'' to disarm or face an invasion led by the United States.

This is equal parts alarmist speculation and anonymous sources. That said: When Reagan was considering an invasion of Nicaragua (you remember that, right?) he supposedly signed an executive order providing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) broad powers to control "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad." That's chilling enough, but it gets much, much worse.