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: Ilaine who wrote (39874)	8/25/2002 10:28:53 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush and father at odds over Iraq strike From Tim Reid in Washington August 26, 2002 A GROWING rift between George W. Bush and his father’s senior advisers over whether to invade Iraq exploded into the public yesterday when James Baker, Secretary of State during the Gulf War, said a unilateral US attack on Saddam Hussein would be economically and politically perilous. Mr Baker, who played a key role for George Bush Sr in building the international coalition in 1991, became the most senior member of the previous Bush Administration to oppose an invasion, giving the clearest signal of a split between father and son over how to tackle Saddam. In recent days almost the entire war cabinet of Mr Bush Sr has lined up to warn against attacking Iraq without international support, with one — Lawrence Eagleburger, a former Secretary of State — bluntly denouncing pro-invasion hawks as dangerous and “devious”. Mr Baker, writing in The New York Times, turns his fire on the pro-invasion bloc, a powerful group led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary. It echoed a similar warning from Brent Scowcroft, Mr Bush Sr’s National Security Adviser and still very close to the former President, in The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, increasing speculation that neither man would have made his views so public without the sanction of the former President. “Although the United States could certainly succeed (in effecting regime change in Iraq), we should try our best not to go it alone, and the President should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so,” Mr Baker said. “The costs in all areas will be much greater, as well as the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two countries.” Last week Norman Schwarzkopf, the retired US general who was allied commander in the Gulf War, warned the President against “going it alone”. A senior Republican with close ties to the current President’s inner circle told The New York Times last week that Mr Scowcroft would not have made his warnings so public without receiving the blessing of the first President Bush. “This is a clear, direct signal,” he said. “I think the first President Bush is telling his son: ‘Be prudent, George’.” timesonline.co.uk I'd call that a bad read. Father & son speak regularly. This signal is for worried allies or Arab leaders, to assure them that Little Shrubya is no maverick.