First off (just so you know what I meant in the first place), the way it’s used in my family [I looked it up, and the definitions on the internet dispute my definition.], “bum’s rush” is a colloquialism that implies getting someone to do something before they have a chance to think it over. As in America’s pissed-offedness over WTC attacks will only be useful to push the neocon agenda for a limited period of time; thus the “rush” to get it done before the folks who think Saddam had something to do with WTC come to their senses.

Secondly, to take your meaning of the word “rush”, you said things like:
Rush, after years and years of cease fire and UN resolution blatant violations? Rush?

Yes “rush”, as in no time to drum up international support. No time to get the UN involved or NATO involved. No time to do it right.

Rush, months after the Congress voted the President the discretionary powers to attack Saddam with no timeframe or other inhibitors?

Amazing, wasn’t it? You should thank your lucky stars for that vote, and you probably won’t get another like it. With all the BS-slinging (aluminum tubes, “al-Queda training camps”, Nigerian connections, scuds, etc.) the administration did to get it, I think that bridge is a smoldering ruin, no?

Where I see real rushing is the frantic, hysterical cries for the US to Rush out of Iraq so the great minds of the UN have carte blanch. Daily, plaintive whines to rush.

Maybe, but it is not my position. If I had my way, there would be a major coalition in Iraq today, sharing the fighting and the costs. And the opposition would know that they are fighting against a good portion of the world. As it is, we are there and the best we can do is plod through it as best we can.