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: jcky who wrote (38081)	8/16/2002 12:26:54 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It was a direct reflection of his immaturity and inexperience in the arena of foreign policy. Whatever you can accuse Rumsfeld and Cheney of (and I believe they formulated this policy), immaturity and inexperience in the arena of foreign policy aren't among them. I believe going out in front on this was deliberate. building a case against Iraq, not upon national interest or imminent threat, but on moral clarity their 'moral clarity' is designed to line up with our national interest, jcky. The case for Saddam's supporting Al Qaeda is thin, but for his training terrorists and supporting Palestinian terrorists is rock solid. The core of the argument is, the situation in Iraq is too dangerous to be let alone to degenerate further. We don't care much if he threatens his neighbors; it's our own political position in the region we care about. 'Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy' nytimes.com Ah well, the Times is beating its anti-war drums again, I see. I can't remember the last time the Times quoted Henry Kissinger as an expert on anything, as I recall, they don't like him much. They've certainly never quoted him on the Mideast, an area where he has some experience. But now, he's a fave. Trouble is, the Times coverage has been so lopsided it's hard to tell what's really going on. The War on Terror has opened fissures in both the Left and the Right; it's hardly suprizing that we should find some traditionally isolationalist Republicans against it. Is there really 'massive unease' in Congress as the Times keeps telling us? Or does Bush just need to make his case, as Cokie Roberts says and the Washington Post coverage implies?