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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38014)	8/16/2002 2:50:04 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush may be strikingly inarticulate but I don't think he particularly suffers from foot in mouth syndrome. His reputation as a politician before 9/11 was of discipline and staying on message. The president announced a public policy statement, preemptive strike and regime change, without contemplating the political and logistical framework needed to support such a doctrine. He did not consult with our closest allies, military professionals, senior diplomats, or leading members of Congress to assess sentiment. It was a direct reflection of his immaturity and inexperience in the arena of foreign policy. When we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists, Bush addressed the nation and the world with a very specific speech. In that speech, the foundation for a case against al-Qaida and their network of terrorists, including the complicit support of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, was laid to the public. In the ensuing period to follow, a mountain of evidence was presented to our allies and an alliance fostered to neutralize this imminent threat. The support of the world and the eventual fall of the Taliban government in Afghanistan was the result of this coalition. I want the president to be disciplined and remain consistent with the authority and mandate which brought that support to our cause for the elimination of al-Qaida following 9/11. It is very clear the president has not built such a case with Iraq. Let me summarize. There has been no evidence, whatsoever, to link Iraq to the events of 9/11. Both the FBI and the CIA have expressed their doubts about such a connection. 'No Link Between Hijacker, Iraq Found, U.S. Says' washingtonpost.com To illustrate the dearth of evidence gathered against Saddam for an immediate invasion of Iraq, Condoleezza Rice is now making such a case based upon moral clarity. You know the routine: Saddam is a very evil Arab who threatens his neighbors and Israel. 'Rice Lays Out Case For War In Iraq' washingtonpost.com That's right, a national security advisor whose main area of expertise is Cold War diplomacy and nuclear arms policy, as opposed to Mideast affairs, building a case against Iraq, not upon national interest or imminent threat, but on moral clarity. Has this administration flipped into the Twilight Zone? And all the while, prominent Republicans are beginning to break away from Bush on his strategy of Iraq. 'Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy' nytimes.com Do you see why I am getting a little concerned here?