SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (40425)8/28/2002 12:04:47 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
And Saletan just moves the goalposts back again, making it seem as if Cheney based the crux of his argument on Saddam's giving nuclear weapons to terrorists, when the core of Cheney's argument rested on Saddam's aggressive track record and the extent to which we will be deterred from moving against him if he has nukes. It is not as if Saddam had displayed any history of compliance with the UN inspectors or with his signed agreements. As he grows stronger, the compliance will grow less, not more.

Even with regard to Saddam's giving the weapons to terorists, Saletan follows Scowcroft in poo-pooing the idea. Such weapons would have a Baghdad return address on them, he says. What if Saddam was cleverer than that, and the trail was not clear? If OBL had had a dirty bomb on 9/11, how long would it have taken us to trace it? Might the political situation prevent us from moving against Saddam, just as it prevents us now from moving against the Saudi princes who funded Al Qaeda? The thing is far from sure. But the benefits Saddam would reap in the Arab world from the mere perception, those are sure. Henry Kissinger thinks the dangers are real enough to break with his own policies of realpolitik.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext