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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (2600)2/4/2002 12:23:01 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Reading Bush's lips

By Thomas Oliphant, 2/3/2002

WASHINGTON WHAT FOR THE Bush administration and most
of this country and the world has become a just war against
terrorism often degenerates into a roar against terrorism in the
undisciplined Bush White House.


See, I just did what people in the president's immediate official
family, including Bush himself, too often do - play with a
couple of words for effect, rhetorical or political or both.
Fortunately, I do not make foreign policy, and nothing I say
could possibly mess things up internationally in the middle of
a war. Not so the people in the White House, who have a bad
habit of confusing one-liners and phraseology with substance.
No harm, no foul on domestic topics; but in the deadly serious
business of war, loose lips can do a lot more harm than sink
ships.

The problem surfaced immediately after the terrorist attacks on
Sept. 11, and it reached its apogee in last week's ill-advised
creation of ''an axis of evil'' out of thin air. Moreover, it has
involved the most ridiculous of questions for a White House to
be discussing in public. Even before we are close to finishing
the immediate task ahead, too many words have been wasted
talking about what or who is next.

On the night of the attacks, as well as in his State of the
Union, the president used speechwriter language that he
instinctively liked without any serious thought - by Bush or
those closest to him - about what it meant or how it might be
interpreted or misinterpreted.

When he said on Sept. 11 that the American response would
be aimed not only at the people responsible for the attacks but
at international terrorism itself and nations who ''harbor''
terrorists, he read a sentence crafted by his chief writer, Mike
Gerson, that got more attention for how it sounded than what
it meant.

That is why, nine days later, when Bush appeared before
Congress to help rally the nation, the phrase had been
substantially altered to focus more narrowly on terrorist
organizations that threaten the United States and which have
''global reach.'' That only compounded the error, since no
assault on terror should permit any terrorist to think that we
distinguish between OK and not-OK terrorism, and our actual
policy in fact doesn't. The wise course has always been to
denounce terror and let every cell in the world wonder.

He also disregarded cooler heads beyond the White House and
indulged his own impulses and anger to single out Osama bin
Laden (dead or alive) and even the leading Taliban big shot,
Mullah Omar, for attention neither deserved. This put
unnecessary pressure on the military to find needles in
haystacks instead of to stop threats.

The word games, however, not only diverted attention and
official energy, they also set off another pointless diversion -
discussing a possible war with Iraq that has yet to make it
beyond war game computers.

Then, simply because it sounded neat, Bush took another
Gerson phrase - ''axis of evil'' - and read it to the world adorned
with rhetoric that painted North Korea, Iran, and Iraq with the
same alarmist, pessimistic brush and made conflict appear
inevitable, if not imminent. Bush also grouped four, distinct
operations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and
Jaish-i-Mohammed) into a ''terrorist underworld'' that
immediately raised questions about countries he didn't
mention - Syria, Libya, and Lebanon.

The effect of all this has been to confuse the country, the
Congress, and our allies, not our enemies. He has undercut
the government of South Korea, endangered internal
opponents of the powers-that-be in Iran, and put premature
pressure on allies we will need down the road if war with Iraq
actually becomes necessary - above all Turkey.

Naturally, the president isn't officially sorry for all this loose
talk, but officials behind the scenes around here and around
the world have been uttering the telltale phrase (''what the
president meant'') that acknowledges a goof.

What Bush did last week was step clumsily on his most
important message - that finding and shutting down Al Qaeda
cells that are active and dangerous is a task still ahead of us
and our coalition partners.

Like his dad during the Gulf War, he needs to let actions
speak.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.

This story ran on page C7 of the Boston Globe on 2/3/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

[ Send this story to a friend |E



To: Mephisto who wrote (2600)2/4/2002 10:36:23 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
US prepared to go it alone, allies warned

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday February 4, 2002
The Guardian

Tension between the US and its European
allies intensified yesterday as senior US
officials warned that Washington would
act alone in its "war" on terrorism, stoked
up their rhetoric against Iraq, and chided
their Nato partners for failing to increase
defence budgets.

"What happened on September 11,
terrible as it was, is but a pale shadow of
what will happen if terrorists use weapons
of mass destruction," Paul Wolfowitz,
deputy US defence secretary, told an
international security conference in
Munich.

"Our approach has to aim at prevention
and not merely punishment. We are at
war," he said, adding: "Those countries
that choose to tolerate terrorism and
refuse to take action - or worse, those
that continue to support it - will face
consequences."

Mr Wolfowitz, one of the leading hawks in
the Bush administration, made it clear the
US would act whether or not all its allies
agreed.
The war against terrorism would
need "flexible coalitions", he said.

Richard Perle, a senior Republican foreign
policy adviser, told the conference in
Munich: "Never has the United States
been more unified, never has it been more
purposeful, never has it been more willing,
if necessary, to act alone.

"If we have to choose between protecting
ourselves against terrorism and a long list
of friends and allies, we will protect
ourselves against terrorism."

Differences between the US and Britain
over Iran emerged yesterday when the US
defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
accused Tehran of letting Taliban and
al-Qaida members escape from
Afghanistan.

"There isn't any doubt in my mind that the
porous border between Iran and
Afghanistan has been used for al-Qaida
and Taliban to move into Iran and find
refuge," he said.

Mr Rumsfeld also said the US has "any
number of reports" that Iran has been
contributing to instability inside
Afghanistan by arming Afghan factions.

British officials give a very different picture
of Iran's attitude towards the al-Qaida
network, which consists of Sunni
Muslims, unlike most Muslims in Iran,
who are Shia.

They say Iran has adopted a positive
stance against al-Qaida terrorism and has
detained a number of its fighters.

Tehran supported the Northern Alliance
against al-Qaida and the Taliban during
the Afghan civil war.

Senior Foreign Office diplomats say it is
in Britain's "national strategic interest" to
engage with Iran, and encourage
reformers in the country.

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary,
reflected growing European dismay at
Washington's hard line during a visit to the
US capital on Friday when he suggested
that the president's remarks were
motivated by US domestic politics.

Mr Bush's address was "best understood
by the fact that there are mid-term
congressional elections coming up in
November", he told reporters. The Foreign
Office, and the US state department,
firmly believe it is in the west's interest to
engage with Iran to encourage reformers
there.

The Foreign Office has also said there is
no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
implicated in the September 11 attacks.

As the US Congress prepares to raise
defence spending by $120bn (£85bn) over
five years to $451bn, Lord Robertson, the
Nato secretary general, said yesterday
that Europe was "militarily undersized".

"American critics of Europe's military
incapability are right," he warned the
European allies. "So, if we are to ensure
that the United States moves neither
towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all
European countries must show a new
willingness to develop effective crisis
management capabilities."

European politicians expressed deep
concern about the US warnings.

Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat
foreign affairs spokesman, said that
"action against Iraq, it seems to me,
requires uncontrovertible evidence in order
to act, and I speak as a member of a
parliament of a country willing to put boots
on the ground".

The $48bn Mr Bush plans to increase
military spending by this year is itself a
third higher than the total military budget
of Britain, the next-largest military
spender in Nato.

But Geoff Hoon, the British defence
secretary, faces a tough battle with the
Treasury to increase his budget. A big
rise is essential if Britain is to maintain its
existing commitments, defence chiefs
say.

guardian.co.uk