Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (3727)	8/1/2002 10:55:15 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Why little opposition in Congress..?? <<...In general there seems little opposition in Congress to the notion of another war with Hussein, although that could change as preparations for physical battle become more apparent. Most lawmakers are convinced that the Bush administration is very serious about removing Hussein, since some administration officials have talked about doing so almost from their first days in office. Most may also believe that the administration will succeed, or at least produce something that could be defined as a victory. Given that context, few want to raise questions, after last year's terrorist attacks, that might leave them vulnerable to criticism about their patriotism. "There is not detectable congressional opposition to this whole idea ... Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history," says John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy think tank. Combined with the administration's frequent warnings that Saddam's days are numbered, the current congressional discussions might seem to be counterproductive, at least in a military sense. They have robbed the Pentagon of what planners might call "strategic surprise." The Iraqi leader has had months to prepare for a final confrontation that might well be fatal for him. But such chatter is simply unavoidable in a democracy, say experts. While the downside might be that the nation telegraphs its actions, the upside is that it is more united when it does move. "I tend to think the US debate over something like this isn't controllable," says Baker Spring, a military analyst at the Heritage Institute in Washington. Not that the Pentagon wouldn't want it to be a little more controlled. Continued leaks about possible war plans – including one that called for upwards of a quarter million troops – have led Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to call publicly for identification and prosecution of the leakers...>> christiansciencemonitor.com

To: Mannie who wrote (3727)	8/1/2002 11:16:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex by Helen Caldicott amazon.com Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly Since September 11, it has become clear that the United States is headed for more military funding to fight the "war on terrorism." But as longtime antinuclear activist, author and pediatrician Caldicott (Nuclear Madness: What You Can Do) shows, this buildup is nothing new with the exception of the first President Bush, U.S. policy has generally favored military spending. But spending on nuclear weapons is ineffective in fighting terrorists holed up in caves, Caldicott contends. Using a medical model, she focuses on what she calls the "disease" before she launches into her "remedy." She is strongest focusing on the ties between the American nuclear arsenal and large corporations, which have only their own interests at heart a point that should resonate in the post-Enron era. In impressive detail, she describes how hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on questionable defense projects such as Star Wars. To her credit, this book also serves as a defense primer: she lays out the various weapons projects in terms accessible to the average reader an accessibility she argues that the government wants to deny citizens. But her remedies for the problem she describes diverting millions of dollars from the defense budget for health care and the environment seem na‹ve and unrealistic. In addition, her strident tone ("the Pentagon thinks about nuclear strategy in a strange and pathological way") might turn some readers off to the book's important message. From Booklist For three decades, physician Caldicott, nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize and founder of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Physicians for Social Responsibility, has tirelessly articulated the drastic consequences of nuclear weapons to a public kept in ignorance by their government. Moved once again by world events to disseminate hard facts in the hope of averting disaster, Caldicott presents a meticulous, urgent, and shocking report on the current state and true nature of America's nuclear weapons program. She explains with chilling precision the medical effects not only of nuclear weapons themselves but also of the carcinogenic nuclear waste that already permeates our environment. Her harrowing descriptions make it abundantly clear that to flirt with the terrible power of uranium and plutonium (which was named after the god of hell for good reason) is to risk the very "death of life." And yet the powers-that-be, an amalgam of arms dealers and politicians, proceed, unchallenged by a distracted and docile citizenry, according to Caldicott. She dexterously exposes the enormous influence that weapons corporations such as Lockheed Martin have on George W. Bush's administration, then illuminates myriad facets of our hubristic and potentially apocalyptic corporate-driven nuclear scheme, from the dogged pursuit of worthless missile defense systems to the real work of the cynically named Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program--the wildly irresponsible creation of new, treaty-breaking nuclear weapons. The Doomsday Clock, the symbol of nuclear danger, has just been set two minutes closer to midnight, so the time to take Caldicott's measured and wise words to heart is now. Donna Seaman Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved ---------------- About the Author The world's leading spokesperson for the antinuclear movement, Dr. Helen Caldicott is the founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Both the Smithsonian Institute and Ladies' Home Journal named her one of the Most Influential Women of the Twentieth Century, and she has honorary degrees from nineteen universities. She divides her time between Australia, where she is standing for Senate, and the United States, where she has devoted the last two years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age.

To: Mannie who wrote (3727)	8/2/2002 4:03:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Blair 'opposes plan to invade Iraq' Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent Friday August 2, 2002 The Guardian Tony Blair has "tremendous concerns" about President George Bush's plans to mount a major invasion of Iraq in a bid to topple Saddam Hussein, King Abdullah of Jordan claimed yesterday. The king met the British prime minister for talks at Downing Street on Monday and claimed he was convinced that Mr Blair opposed an invasion. He then spoke to US newspapers on Wednesday but Downing Street yesterday refused to confirm or deny the impression left on him. King Abdullah, who is close to western leaders but opposed to an invasion, claimed that Mr Blair concurs with most international leaders in believing that the US plan to oust Saddam at all costs is a mistake. In public Mr Blair has been careful not to distance himself from the Bush administration, and there have been reports that he has given his personal go-ahead for an invasion, so long as it has the clear legal sanction from the UN. A determination not to lose the special relationship with Washington has meant that British administrations have always been obsessed with insuring that no distance in policy is ever publicly exposed for fear it will harm Britain's private influence. "Everybody is saying this is a bad idea," King Abdullah said. "If it seems America says we want to hit Baghdad, that's not what Jordanians think, or the British, the French, the Russians, the Chinese and everybody else." He added that the reluctance of the British government and other key US allies to confront Mr Bush may have led US officials to believe there is little opposition to the war. He also hinted strongly that American allies - including the British - had suddenly realised Mr Bush was planning an early invasion of Iraq. "All of a sudden this thing is moving to the horizon much closer than we believed," he said. Privately British officials hint that there is no serious prospect of an invasion until next spring. King Abdullah claimed at his press conference that Mr Blair is a close partner of Mr Bush on many issues but on Iraq he had "tremendous concerns about how this would unravel". Echoing the British Foreign Office view, King Abdullah said he rejected claims by some US officials that a democratic Iraq would increase the chances of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. "Our concern is exactly the opposite - that a miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil." The shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkins said: "It is wrong to assume that the US is not continuing to consult with her allies and countries in the region, or that any decision has been made about any military operation." He urged Britain and the US to remain shoulder-to-shoulder. The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said that the British government must communicate any doubts about military action to the Bush administration. "Britain's duty in this matter is to be a candid friend." guardian.co.uk

To: Mannie who wrote (3727)	8/2/2002 5:38:26 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Powell: Will he stay or will he go? By CLARENCE PAGE SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Friday, August 2, 2002 NEW YORK CITY -- Secretary of State Colin Powell must be feeling a bit like Mark Twain did after hearing that his obituary had been published in the New York Journal. "The report of my death was an exaggeration," Twain remarked. Or maybe he feels like Rodney Dangerfield, who "don't get no respect." Either way, questions have resurfaced in The New York Times and other major media about whether Powell is on the verge of quitting his post out of frustration with the Bush White House over the Middle East, overseas family-planning funds and other thorny issues. Confronted by reporters last week, Powell denied that he was leaving. Instead, he suggested that databases bulge with premature reports of his imminent departure dating back almost to his arrival. "I can go back and do a LexisNexis search and (find many stories)," he said, " ... you've been doing them every two weeks since I came in here last year and I am sure you will keep doing them. They make great reading." They apparently make great writing, too, as a departure from the repetitive tedium of debates between the Bush administration and the Bush administration. A quick surf across the Internet turns up overseas headlines even bolder than the ones published here. "Powell: 'Bastards Won't Drive Me Out,'" shouts London's Sunday Telegraph. "Powell: 'Read My Lips, I'm Not Quitting,'" roars The Straits Times of Singapore. Behind the will-he-stay-or-will-he-go stories, serious policy differences have bubbled up within the administration over what the last big superpower's role should be in the world. Following the pattern of previous administrations, Bush's foreign policy heads constantly jostle with each other for the president's ear. Unlike such predecessors as John Foster Dulles or Henry Kissinger, Powell has been blocked or scuttled on several important issues in recent months. The family planning dispute was particularly embarrassing -- on a global scale. Last year, Powell praised the "invaluable work" the United Nations Population Fund has done around the world. Last week, Powell, acting as megaphone for the administration, withheld $34 million in funds designated for the agency, channeled the money instead to our own Agency for International Development, even though USAID reaches only 84 countries compared to the United Nations' 140. The reason? The administration claimed that if the U.N. received the money, it would help Beijing "implement more effectively" the forced sterilizations and abortions that China's one-child policy too often has encouraged. Yet, a task force that Powell sent to China found "no evidence" in May of such a connection and recommended releasing the funds. The United Nations, as a matter of policy, opposes such family planning coercion, too. Quite the opposite, in fact. The loss of the U.S. funds, which are 12 percent of the United Nation's $270 million family planning budget, will mean 2 million more unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 more abortions, almost 5,000 more dead mothers and more than 75,000 more dead children under age 5 worldwide, according to the United Nations. During an invitational lunch meeting with African American journalists, I asked U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan about Powell's actions. He called his reversal "very unfortunate," then added, "I think the reversal came from someone else in the administration." Annan did not say who the "someone else" was, but administration sources say the family-planning issue, a hot-button favorite among social conservatives in Bush's political base, was pushed by Bush's political advisers. More widely reported are Powell's battles with administration hawks over the Middle East, particularly the eagerness of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary, including a unilateral U.S. invasion. Powell wants to go slow on that option, which is wise. The administration has yet to establish that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction or is linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network or the Sept. 11 attacks. Nor have we secured the backing of our Middle East friends or our European allies, except for Britain's Tony Blair. Small wonder, the hawks seem to want to attack first and find a reason for the action later. Powell, mindful perhaps of his own two tours in the Vietnam War, wants us to avoid future quagmires like that one, which makes him a valuable advocate for caution, pragmatism and common sense. The most recent Harris poll shows Bush's positive approval ratings to be an impressive 62 percent in July, but Powell's an even more impressive 76 percent -- compared to 46 percent for Cheney and 56 percent for Rumsfeld. Powell still holds the respect of the American public. Too bad he hasn't found more in the White House. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Page is a columnist with the Chicago Tribune. Copyright 2002 Tribune Media Services. seattlepi.nwsource.com