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 (4083)	8/7/2002 3:37:46 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The Word That No One Dares Utter - But Crucial To The Coming War With Iraq stevequayle.com August 6, 2002 by Gordon Thomas Preempt. The word is on a thousand tongues in a dozen capitals. You hear it as far apart as Beijing and Washington. In the corridors of London’s Whitehall and in the halls of European power. Not a day goes by without it being spoken, many times, in Israel’s defence headquarters, the Kirya, in Tel Aviv. It can be heard in Aman, Damascus and Cairo – over and again. And, of course, in the very focus of the world, Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad. Preempt. Will he strike first against the ever approaching war machine of the United States? In war rooms around the Western world, the question has been honed down to one scenario. Some time between now and the onset of the holy month of Ramadan, Iraq launches from its southern city of Iraq a scud missile. Its warhead is filled with one of the deadliest poisons on earth: VX nerve gas. As it streaks through the desert night sky towards its target – the American military headquarters in Kuwait – three of Saddam’s armoured divisions roar out of Basra towards the Kuwaiti border. They have less than 40 miles to travel. That is the preemptive scenario senior officers at America’s Central Command have warned President Bush could happen. Worse, they have told him that “at best there is only a 50/50 chance of preventing the Basra breakout from succeeding”. Anthony Cordsman, a former director of Intelligence Assessment at the Pentagon and a ranking expert on Saddam’s potential tactics, told Globe-Intel: “It will be most difficult to stop Iraq from entering Kuwait – the more so as Saddam is clearly ready to accept massive damage from our counter air strikes.” While President Bush has rejected Saddam’s proposal to have a meeting with the head of the UN inspection team, the fact is that Bush also knows his planned assault on Iraq holds more dangers for him than he is publicly admitting. There is the danger from Saddam’s estimated 40 tons of chemical and biological weapons. There is the possibility that Iraq has sufficient nuclear material – obtained from North Korea – to create at least one “dirty bomb”. There is the very real risk that Saddam will launch squadrons of his pilots in kamikaze attacks. Unlike their Japanese predecessors in World War Two, who often had some distance to fly before they reached their targets, Iraq’s suicide bombers are only minutes away from some of the 7,000 US troops already stationed in the broiling Kuwaiti desert. Many are in tent camps close to the Iraqi border. While US forces have been inoculated against anthrax and are training in chemical/biological warfare suits they will have to wear all the time once hostilities start, the truth is that these precautions have reduced their fighting capability. Preempt. The real danger is that Israel, sensing that the Basra breakout will also be the precursor to an attack on Tel Aviv, will launch its own preemptive assault. John Pike, an analyst with the respected Global Security says that “Israel is a factor no one can factor in with certainty.” Senior members of Israel’s own intelligence community have told Globe-Intel that should Iraq launch a bio/chemical attack against the country, then the retaliation will “almost certainly” include a suitable nuclear response. Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons at its facility in the Negev Desert. In the past weeks, a number of weapons have been deployed to front-line Israeli Air Force squadrons. Preempt. When could such at attack come? While Israel remains America’s closest strategic partner in the Middle East, it may, in the end, not follow any pre-planned battle plan Washington is preparing. Tel Aviv sources Globe-Intel have spoken to say Bush’s rejection of Saddam’s invitation to discuss the idea of allowing UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq now makes war inevitable. They predict it will come, in the words of one Mossad analyst, “sometime between early October and January 2003”. The one certainty is that a preemptive Iraqi strike against Kuwait would inevitably wreck the battle plans now being put together for an all-out assault on Saddam. “We would have to divert a huge number of troops, or even assemble another coalition to liberate Kuwait”, said a high-level Pentagon source. There are other imponderables. What would Iran do? There is mounting evidence that it is building up its own nuclear capability. Washington has already warned Moscow about continuing to supply such materials to Teheran. Then there is the role of China. Will it seize upon US preoccupation with Iraq to reinforce its own power base in Iran? Syria and Egypt are also two problems that remain unresolved for Washington. While its leaders remain politically opposed to any attack on Iraq, its people might rebel and drive its hard-line military leaders to strike against Israel. The only certainty is that the furnace summer heat may turn out to be the precursor to something ever fiercer in the Middle East. globe-intel.net

To: Mannie who wrote (4083)	8/7/2002 11:23:27 PM
From: surfbaron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Scott: <<<<<Every personnel move they made in the off season was a bad move expect picking up Ruben Sierra. You think Shiggy was a bad move?

To: Mannie who wrote (4083)	8/7/2002 11:37:43 PM
From: Cactus Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Scott, Combine the Ms with my Giants and you'd have a formidable team. Pineiro is going to be a good one IMO. jpgill

To: Mannie who wrote (4083)	8/8/2002 8:39:02 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Truman knew how to tame the defense-spending beast By Matthew Miller Syndicated columnist The Seattle Times Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific Calling John McCain and John Kerry: It's time you challenge the perverse silence surrounding George Bush's Pentagon spending spree by co-chairing a special Senate committee (are you listening, Tom Daschle?) to monitor the post-9/11 defense buildup. It's the perfect next step to harness public outrage over corporate fraud, and it could change the defense debate by 2004 in ways indispensable for sound policy. Best of all — in case anyone finds it relevant — Harry Truman rode such a committee during World War II to national fame and into the White House. Why am I so exercised? Bush inherited a bloated $300 billion Cold War defense budget a decade after the Berlin Wall fell. To his credit, Donald Rumsfeld came in planning to reshape the Pentagon in "Nixon to China" fashion, but found the resistance too tough. After 9/11, therefore, he and Bush seized the moment to scrap defense reform and start throwing money. Bush's plan will take the Pentagon from $300 billion to a stunning $470 billion by 2007. That $170 billion increase, combined with Bush's tax cut, will leave not a penny for expanded health care, education and other social needs. We're already set to reach $400 billion by 2004 without a peep of opposition — a base from which it will be very difficult, politically, to cut. The GOP knows you don't need a fresh $170 billion to catch a few thousand terrorists. The party's broader post-9/11 strategy is to use such hikes to run out the clock on social justice in the next few years, until the baby boomers' costly retirement makes any new spending initiatives impossible. If the defense budget can't be challenged, Bush will be able to take $170 billion a year permanently off the table for domestic purposes — enough to pay for universal health coverage, urban school improvement and much more. Democrats privately agree Bush's defense numbers are insane. But the key word here is "privately." Top Democratic consultants and senators have told me that after 9/11, they see no way for a Democrat who wants to be president to challenge Bush's defense plans. Until now, that position was understandable. But the corporate scandals offer a chance to change the climate of debate. It's both credible and patriotic to argue that in the wake of unprecedented corporate misbehavior, the mountains of cash being shoveled out of the Pentagon require the utmost scrutiny. Harry Truman knew this made sense during World War II. The relevant text (are you listening, congressional staffers?) is chapter 7 of David McCullough's biography, "Truman." In February 1941, outraged by what he was hearing about rip-offs by contractors in the war buildup, Truman proposed, and was assigned to lead, the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. Over the next few years, Truman exposed shocking waste, fraud and mismanagement, often thanks to leads from patriotic defense-industry employees troubled by what their bosses were doing. Truman landed on the cover of Time and earned national acclaim. "The man from Missouri," Claude Pepper, his Senate colleague, recalled later, "had dared to say 'show me' to the powerful military-industrial complex and he had caught many people in the act." Kerry and McCain are naturals for the sequel. Kerry has already distinguished himself as the leading Democrat willing to criticize Bush's foreign policy. In a May speech, Kerry said that after 9/11, we need increases in defense spending, but "not just investments that please defense contractors." McCain was one of three senators to vote against the defense appropriations bill because it was laden with billions in pork. They have a proposal pending for a commission to cut pork barrel spending and corporate subsidies. But the urgent need after Enron and WorldCom is for defense-contractor scrutiny. This should be grist for Kerry's coming visit to McCain's Arizona ranch — a tete-a-tete that has Washington abuzz. It will only take a few good $400 hammers and $800 toilet seats to make Bush's defense budget as vulnerable as it deserves to be. This is good policy and good politics. And with "General Rove planning to call in the (Iraqi) air strikes in mid-October" (as one Democratic wit expects), there's no time to lose. _____________________________________ Matt Miller is a senior fellow at Occidental College and can be contacted via e-mail at mattino@worldnet.att.net. His column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com