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: elpolvo who wrote (5008)	8/22/2002 1:46:01 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush snubs doves and says Saddam must go From Tim Reid in Washington August 22, 2002 timesonline.co.uk PRESIDENT BUSH has reaffirmed his determination to oust President Saddam Hussein. He said the Iraqi leader was a threat and that his removal was “in the interest of the world”. His remarks came after he dismayed opponents of unilateral military action against Iraq by meeting what will, in effect, become his war cabinet, made up entirely of pro- invasion hawks. Most significant of all was the absence of Colin Powell, the dovish Secretary of State, from the private talks at the President’s ranch in Texas. After the meeting Mr Bush said that Iraq had not been discussed and promised to be patient and consult allies before any military action. But he added: “One thing is for certain. This Administration agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Regime-change is in the interest of the world.” The White House said the meeting was primarily about the defence Budget. But a guest list including Vice-President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser — all in favour of an Iraqi campaign with or without international support — led to speculation that invasion plans would be discussed. The news that General Powell had not been invited to the meeting in Crawford, but was instead on holiday in the Hamptons, near New York, caused disquiet among the growing list of notable opponents to a hasty invasion, which now includes many senior Republicans and Norman Schwarzkopf, the retired general who led the allied forces in the Gulf War. In recent months there has been no disguising the split within the Bush Administration over plans to invade Iraq and remove Saddam, between those urging caution — General Powell and the US military — and the senior civilian members of the Bush Cabinet, led by Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney. Also absent yesterday was General Tommy Franks, the US commander who would lead any invasion of Iraq. He has refused to comment publicly on plans to invade Iraq, but is seen as part of the military bloc at the Pentagon who are extremely wary of the idea of another Gulf War without an international coalition. Officially, the gathering was described as a “high-level meeting” to discuss the direction of the defence programme since the US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. Also due to be discussed was the President’s desire to reshape the US military to reflect the changing priorities of international combat, which could mean cutting expensive aircraft programmes. But although the White House said there would be no room for a discussion of Iraq, one US commentator said that it would be “the impossible-to-ignore elephant in the room”. Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, said: “Can I guarantee that the word (Iraq) will never come up? No, of course not. But the purpose of the meeting is much bigger than that.” It came after comments by Mr Rumsfeld that members of Osama bin Laden’s al- Qaeda network are inside Iraq, and almost certainly with the support of Baghdad. Responding to reported US intelligence briefings that “ranking” al-Qaeda have taken refuge in Iraq, Mr Rumsfeld said: “They have left Afghanistan, they have left other locations, and they’ve landed in a variety of countries, one of which is Iraq. “In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near-total control over its population, it’s very hard to imagine that the Government is not aware of what’s taking place in the country.” Officials in the Bush Administration leaked yesterday an intelligence report that Arab terrorists linked to al-Qaeda had tested chemical or biological weapons in northern Iraq. Combined with Mr Rumsfeld’s comments, the leak was the clearest sign yet of how eager the Bush Administration has become to uncover any links between Saddam and the terror network of bin Laden. Despite many millions of dollars spent by the FBI and CIA, no evidence linking the Iraqi leader to the September 11 attacks has been found. Tom DeLay, the Texan Republican House Majority Whip, further bolstered the pro-invasion camp when he said that the US “must move ahead” with war plans against Iraq. “Despite weeks of handwringing over the supposed missing body of evidence against the dictator ruling Iraq, the case is self-evident,” Mr DeLay said.

To: elpolvo who wrote (5008)	8/23/2002 7:07:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Has Bush heard of diplomatic relations? By MARIANNE MEANS SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Friday, August 23, 2002 WASHINGTON -- The overheated temperature currently in the nation's capital is not merely a matter of too much hot weather but also the ominous rise of political tension over the administration's intensifying saber-rattling toward Iraq. Is President Bush deliberately promoting a phony war fever to stoke new fires of patriotism, which work in his favor? That could distract voters from the shaky economy and corporate corruption, which work against him and his party. Or is the president really serious about invading Iraq any minute now with no clear legal justification or support from our allies and with little understanding of the consequences? The first course would be despicable; the latter, absolutely terrifying. This gossipy political city is suspicious that he may time a military assault to precede the November election before the arguments against war can fully sink in with voters. That dubious strategy assumes a rally-around-the-flag reaction. In times of serious international trouble, voters become defensive and supportive of their political leadership. President Kennedy's approval ratings, for instance, actually rose after the humiliating failure of the CIA-supported invasion at Cuba's Bay of Pigs in 1961. The White House insists that domestic politics will play no role in the president's planning about Iraq. But it would be astonishing if one of the most politically oriented administrations of modern times failed to notice that Republicans are in danger of losing control of Congress. An accelerated war scenario, however, would almost certainly require presidential action without the official approval of Congress since lawmakers are eager to adjourn in little more than a month to campaign for re-election. Going to war without consulting Congress and preparing the public would be a tragic mistake. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp sagely advised Bush that a little humility is in order here. President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, warned that we could be viewed around the world as "a global gangster" if we jump precipitously into war. A Lone Ranger decision to put thousands of Americans in harm's way without specific enemy provocation could even be grounds for presidential impeachment. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and fund it despite creative White House efforts to reinterpret that document as cutting out the legislative branch. Bush's new doctrine of justifying an unprovoked attack as "pre-emptive self-defense" violates traditional concepts of international law and our own moral principles. And if we can get away with that particular tap-dance, other countries may follow suit and start their own wars against their neighbors. There are tentative signs the president might be having second thoughts in response to the chorus of objections being raised from prominent foreign policy experts, including his father's philosophical buddy and national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. But Bush has surrounded himself with ardent hawks who warn that a political leader caught bluffing will never be taken seriously again. Bush has already talked so tough about forcing "regime change" in Iraq that he might look like a wimp if he fails to follow through on his threats. Yet better a wimp than a bully. Saddam Hussein is just a sideshow in the current battle against the worldwide terrorist al-Qaida organization that has attacked us. The administration has produced no proof that he is linked to Osama bin Laden's killers. In fact, an al-Qaida video archive recently discovered in Afghanistan surprisingly included a documentary critical of Hussein. The rationale for going to war against Iraq is that Saddam is an evil man who has gassed his own people and is developing chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The militant hawks argue that we must go after him now before he can stockpile such weapons in large numbers capable of destroying whole populations. Saddam refuses to allow unfettered United Nations inspections of his arsenal although he promised to do so when he was driven from Kuwait after losing the Gulf War. If Bush knows the extent of Saddam's military preparedness and his ability to disperse his weapons over large areas, he isn't telling the rest of us. Certainly, a lack of hard information is no excuse for war. Nobody thinks Saddam is a friendly, harmless fellow. But, as a nation, we cope with all sorts of unfriendly countries without killing and being killed. The process is called diplomatic relations. We do business with China. We sometimes talk to North Korea. We do nothing to harm Iran, Libya or Syria. We have not finished fighting our war against terrorism and we may not be finished for a long time. One war at a time, please. We are the only world superpower, but we are also, as Bush keeps reminding us, Americans. And that means human life and the rule of law take precedence over presidential hubris. Surely Bush cannot wish his legacy in history to be a foolish, bloody confrontation with Iraq that will inflame the whole Middle East. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2002 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-298-6920 or means@hearstdc.com seattlepi.nwsource.com