CNN is reporting that Bush will give an address at 8pm tonight, demanding that Saddam Hussein abdicate to avoid a war. Put that alongside this Kuwaiti press report, via talkingpointsmemo.com, that Saddam has named his son Qusay to succeed him, and arrested those who wouldn't swear allegiance. So President Hussein steps down, and his son succeeds him. Is that progress? Isn't that exactly the kind of sneaky thing Hussein would do to prolong this un-war? Why would the Administration give him this opportunity? Update Mon Mar 17 20:32:30 EST 2003 Less of an issue now that he's included Hussein's two sons in the ultimatum. Surely this is a concern: all three leave town, and install some puppet. If I were an incorrigible despot, I'd be giving that some thought.

Today is Irrational Alarmist Day at OnePeople: the leader of Serbia was assassinated. The nations of the world are integrated through treaties and trade like never before. A major world power is starting to act more and more beligerent. It's smelling like WWI. What's missing? A worldwide flu epidemic... until now.

I just received a note from the Democratic party. It reads:

Democrats have consistently asked Bush the hard questions on Iraq. Democratic lawmakers, led by Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, are speaking up for Americans concerned about the rush to war without the support of our allies and the world. Democrats continue to try and work toward a resolution of the conflict in Iraq and believe the administration must do more to address the national security issues raised by North Korea.

You gutless cowards. You sniveling, shifty, cynical opportunists. I am willing to tolerate plenty of bluster and crypto-fascism from the Republican Party -- as long as there's a strong opposition to keep them in check. Let me refer you to the Senate and House roll calls on Public Law 107-243. You don't get to vote one way and then walk it back when you find that opinion has changed. The Democratic Party has no leaders, it has polling numbers. Shame.

What Bush might say if he said what he meant. http://www.fuckitall.com/bsh/

If you missed the press conference last night, like I did, have no fear. The White House has a full transcript and video. Read on for pithy armchair-wonk commentary.

Last week Newsweek reported that Hussein Kamel told the CIA that Iraq did destroy all its chemical and biological weapons. You'll remember Kamal as the son-in-law who defected, became a Western informant, then stupidly went back to Iraq, where he was quickly executed. Newsweek had been one of many publications that had held Kamel up as an information goldmine, one that proved Iraq was up to no good. The Newsweek story failed to make clear how this information fit in with their years of other reporting. The Guardian tried to put the whole thing together, saying that the former UN inspector now thinks Kamel was a "consumate liar." Nobody gives much guidance on how much of what we think about the programs is based on Kamel. Much of what he said was backed up by documents, so it can't be all wrong.

"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.