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: SirRealist who wrote (39605)	8/23/2002 2:28:10 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting.

To: SirRealist who wrote (39605)	8/23/2002 6:49:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

President needs OK by Congress for Iraq war By Scot Lehigh Editorial The Boston Globe 8/23/2002 FOR A COUNTRY that President Bush likes to call united, there has been an awful lot of division about Iraq. A large portion of the public is skeptical about any war that would lead to significant loss of American troops. The military itself is so riven with doubts that confidential discussions about war plans regularly leak to the press. Although everyone agrees he's an evil thug, foreign policy experts are split about how dire a threat Saddam Hussein actually poses to this country. Even some of the most prominent Republicans in Congress are dubious. Richard Armey, the House majority leader from Texas, has said we shouldn't attack Iraq, while US Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has warned about the regional consequences of such action. Those doubts run all the way to the Bush family's extended circle. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under both President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush, has publicly counseled against military measures to oust the Iraqi dictator. Down home on the ranch on Wednesday, the president, facing what he calls a ''churning'' of speculation about potential war plans, seemed to have cooled his jets some, saying he would take his time on Iraq. ''Not only will we consult with friend and allies, we'll consult with members of Congress,'' Bush said. But much more than consultation is needed here. If the president really intends to attack Iraq, he should take his case to Congress and seek a formal declaration of war. Presidents have fallen out of the habit of doing that, certainly. The fifth and last time Congress formally declared war was prior to our entrance into World War II. During the 41/2 decades of the Cold War, an imperial executive largely usurped war-making powers, sometimes committing the country to military action without any sort of congressional approval. But with the Cold War a decade behind us, it's past time for the legislative branch to reassert its constitutional prerogative. Certainly the arguments against congressional involvement are well short of persuasive. The need for swift action? Bush himself has said this can wait. Secrecy? Leaked war plans are already in the public realm. Intelligence sensitivities? As we saw in the war in Afghanistan, evidence can be credibly evaluated without compromising sources. As to the contention that authorization for the war in Afghanistan stretches to cover Iraq as well, Congress purposefully tailored its Afghanistan resolution to avoid granting carte blanche to the president. Contrariwise, arguments in favor of seeking a declaration of war are compelling. First and foremost is this: In contemplating military action against Iraq, Bush is proposing a fundamental reordering of the US foreign policy paradigm, a shift from the concept of deterrence to that of preemptive action against potential adversaries. A change in foreign policy philosophy of that magnitude should only be undertaken with the specific approval of Congress. Second, though Iraq remains troubling, suspicions that Saddam's agents were involved in the Sept. 11 terror attacks or the anthrax letters or that Saddam's regime represents a real danger to the United States hasn't been established in convicing fashion. It's not just Bush who seems reluctant to abide by constitutional formalities, of course. So far, congressional Democrats have been mostly content to see events go forward without vocally insisting on their constitutional prerogative. ''In the exercise of its foreign policy power, and especially its war-making power, Congress has basically ceded to the president over a period of years the decision in going to war,'' notes Lee Hamilton, former chairman of the House International Relations Committee and now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. US foreign policy is poorly served by that development, says Hamilton, who thinks Bush should seek a new congressional authorization before taking military action against Iraq. That would be better than nothing, certainly. Yet ultimately that, too, is a half-step. If the president is truly determined to commit American troops to a war against Iraq, he should take the case to Congress, subject his evidence and reasons to its scrutiny, and seek a formal declaration of war before moving forward. _____________________________________________________ Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com. © Copyright 2002 Boston Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com

To: SirRealist who wrote (39605)	8/23/2002 6:59:34 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Wag The Puppy Rumors Of Iraqi War Help White House Norman Solomon is the author of The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media. He writes Media Beat, a nationally syndicated column. Some people are suspicious that President Bush will go for a "wag the dog" strategy -- boosting Republican prospects with a military assault on Iraq shortly before Election Day. But a modified approach now seems to be underway. Let's call it "wag the puppy." After a number of GOP luminaries blasted his administration's war scenarios, Bush claimed to appreciate "a healthy debate." The president offered assurances that he would consult with Congress rather than take sudden action. But his handlers were simply adapting to circumstances that probably make it impractical for the Pentagon to kill a lot of Iraqis prior to Nov. 5. Before initiating vast new carnage abroad, the White House wants its propaganda siege to take hold at home. Countless hours of airtime and huge vats of ink are needed to do the trick. Like safecrackers trying first one combination and then another, the Bush team will continue to twirl the media dials till their war-making rationales click. The most widely publicized critics of attacking Iraq are hardly inclined to withstand the hot rhetorical winds that would accompany the first U.S. missile strikes. Objections from the likes of Dick Armey and Brent Scowcroft are apt to swiftly morph into pseudo-patriotic deference if Bush gives the order for the initial terrorizing launch of missiles against Iraqi cities. And history gives the president ample reasons to believe that most hand-wringing punditry will turn into applause when the Pentagon begins its slaughter. Delaying war is very different than preventing it. In fact, many of the arguments marshaled in the mainstream media against a precipitous attack on Iraq appear to be accepting the need for the U.S. government to afflict that country with massive violence. Whether on Capitol Hill or in media venues, most of the criticism seems largely concerned with style, timing and tactics. Quite a bit of flak has also come from pro-war commentators who want Bush to get his militaristic act together. The bloodthirsty editor of The Atlantic magazine, Michael Kelly, used his Aug. 21 column on The Washington Post's op-ed page to lament "the president's refusal to wage a coherent campaign to win public -- and, let's force the issue, congressional -- approval for the war." While President Bush huddled with hawks at the top of the pecking order in Crawford, war enthusiasts were on the offensive across the nation's media landscape. Their efforts were adding to a sustained volume of valuable news coverage. The mid-summer media focus on Iraq has offered tangible benefits for Shrub's party -- including real progress in changing the subject. The more that Iraq dominates front pages, magazine covers, news broadcasts and cable channels, the less space there is for such matters as the intensifying retirement worries of many Americans, the Wall Street scandals, and specific stories about entanglements that link Bush or Dick Cheney with malodorous corporate firms like Enron, Harken and Halliburton. In August, the "healthy debate" over Iraq has displaced a range of negative economic stories from the top of the news. Bush's advisers would hardly mind if a similar pattern held through early November. For the next couple of months, the president has domestic political incentives to keep "wagging the puppy" while floating a variety of unsubstantiated claims -- like references to wispy dots that implausibly connect the Iraqi dictatorship and al Qaeda. Meanwhile, sending more ships and aircraft to the Persian Gulf region can be calculated to evoke plenty of televised support-our-troops spectacles. With Old Glory in the background as tearful good-byes are exchanged at U.S. military ports and bases, how many politicians or journalists will challenge the manipulative tactics of the commander-in-chief? Another twist to those tactics came on Wednesday, Aug. 21 when Bush voiced disquiet about recent media coverage of Iraq policy options. "I know there's this kind of intense speculation that seems to be going on, kind of, I don't know how you would describe it," the president said. "It's kind of a churning frenzy." If so, it's a churning frenzy that's being fueled by his administration. Bush's comment was akin to a pyromaniac complaining about the smell of smoke. Even if the White House doesn't sic the Pentagon on Iraqi people before the November elections, its efforts to boost pre-war fever between now and then could have enormous media impacts with big dividends at the polls. This fall, our country may see something short of a "wag the dog" extravaganza provided by leading officials of the Bush administration. But unless we can stop them, the full-grown dogs of war are not far behind. tompaine.com