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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (36725)	8/9/2002 5:49:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In the big articles I read they always make much more of an effort at balance than any of the neocon bloviating pundits I've ever read. The pundits don't claim to be covering the news; they are writing opinion pieces. The Times claims to be an impartial news source and the paper of record. Can you not see the difference? I know the pundits are just expressing their opinions, but when I read news sources my hope is to learn some facts. For instance, how does the Congress really feel about the proposed war in Iraq? "Deeply Uneasy" as the Times says, or just asking hard questions about our preparedness, as the Post says? Which is it? Compare the two stories, both covering the same event: Edit: I would also note that the Post story spends all but one paragraph on the Iraqis, while the Times story headlines the Iraqis but then spends almost all the story talking about Armey and reactions to Armey. Only the first two paragraphs, reproduced below, even mentioned the Iraqis. ___________________________________________________________ U.S. Pushes Unity for Iraqi Opposition Administration to Urge Factions to End Squabbles, Prepare for Post-Hussein Era By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 9, 2002; Page A20 The Bush administration intends to tell leaders of the fractious Iraqi opposition at a rare State Department meeting today to end their squabbles and unite in preparation for the end of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, administration officials said. A carefully staged session with U.S. diplomatic, military and intelligence officials is designed to convince Hussein's opponents that they must organize in concrete ways after years of fruitless attempts to undermine him. The administration also wants the opposition to endorse an alternative democratic, multi-ethnic vision marketable to Iraqis and skeptical countries in the region ... The session with six of the most prominent Iraqi opposition groups comes as President Bush, who is aiming to topple Hussein, faces questions from Congress and foreign allies about the depth of U.S. preparations for the use of force. Senators from both parties emphasized during hearings last week that the administration must develop credible Iraqi partners and a realistic plan to establish stability if Hussein is targeted. washingtonpost.com _________________________________________________________ Hussein Foes Hold U.S. Talks as Capitol Hill Unease Grows By ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 — Leaders of Iraqi groups that oppose Saddam Hussein were meeting today with senior administration officials amid growing signs of unease on Capitol Hill over the prospects of war against Iraq. The opposition leaders conferred with high-level State and Defense Department officials only hours after the House majority leader, Representative Dick Armey, warned that an unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law and undermine world support for President Bush's goal of ousting President Hussein. ... The remarks by Mr. Armey, a Texas Republican who is retiring this year, were the most prominent sign of Congressional unease that the administration is moving rapidly toward a war against Iraq and were especially striking coming from a leading conservative and a staunch Bush ally. nytimes.com

To: Win Smith who wrote (36725)	8/9/2002 7:44:30 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cheney remarks dampen hopes of Iraq solution By Carola Hoyos in Washington Published: August 7 2002 21:44 \| Last Updated: August 7 2002 21:44 Dick Cheney, US vice-president, on Wednesday said that sending back United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq would not be enough to counter the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, its president. The comments put in doubt Washington's commitment to not undermine attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the impasse with Iraq, and are likely to frustrate even the US's closest international allies. "Many of us, I think, are sceptical that simply returning the inspectors will solve the problem," said Mr Cheney, becoming the highest-ranking US official to come out so strongly against UN weapons inspectors. He added: "A debate with [Mr Hussein] over inspectors simply, I think, would be an effort by him to obfuscate, delay and avoid having to live up to the accords that he signed up to at the end of the Gulf war." Nearly every other member of the UN, including the UK, Washington's closest ally, is counting on a diplomatic breakthrough that would allow inspectors back into Iraq and avert war with the US. Washington has long taken a lukewarm attitude towards the diplomatic approach of Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, but US officials have so far been careful not to undermine his efforts. Mr Cheney's comments come on the heels of the UN's decision this week to decline Iraq's invitation to continue negotiations in Baghdad with Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector. Russia in particular had hoped Mr Annan would accept the invitation, but the US and UK made clear the UN must not reopen negotiations on Mr Hussein's terms. Baghdad has blocked UN weapons inspectors from returning to the country since 1998, when the teams evacuated ahead of a US-led military strike against Iraq. President George W. Bush on Wednesday said: "I will explore all options and all tools at my disposal: diplomacy, international pressure, perhaps the military. But it's important for my fellow citizens to know that as we see threats evolving we will deal with them. We must deal with them." He added at a later fundraiser: "We can't let the world's worst leaders blackmail and threaten the United States with the world's worst weapons." Mr Cheney said the US had not yet decided whether to strike Iraq. But, he said: "It's the judgment of many of us that in the not too distant future [Mr Hussein] will acquire nuclear weapons. And a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein is not a pleasant prospect. Sooner or later the international community is going to have to deal with that."