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: Rascal who wrote (40036)	8/26/2002 4:03:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Baker's op-ed fell somewhere between Scowcroft's and Kissinger's, closer to Scowcroft, I think. Baker says, do it, BUT.... do the diplomacy thing, try for a UN vote, hit Israel over the head a few times so we can look evenhanded, etc. As Keller says, full candor would require the caveat "note: I am defending all the decisions I made in office that produced the current predicament" I think something will happen on the diplomatic front, whether we try to control it or not, so those who argue we should strive to control it make sense. But we also need to do a careful cost-benefit analysis on each proposed diplomatic hypocrisy. On the one hand, we don't want to scare our allies and adversaries to death. But somewhat scared might not be such a bad idea for us. As Tom Friedman says, there are good arguments for a "Crazier Than Thou" policy.

To: Rascal who wrote (40036)	8/26/2002 4:04:33 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The entire basis of Baker's opinion seems to be that there is little evidence that Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda or to the attacks of Sept. 11. Hence, the unsaid thing is that absent a finding of ties to AQ or 9/11, W should proceed cautiously. No steps should be taken absent consensus and a detailed plan on what to do after Saddam is toppled. There is nothing new there. His views, though somewhat veiled in the NYT piece, are probably closer to Kissinger's than they are to Scowcroft's. They are nevertheless being spun by the media as being closer to Scowcroft's. Baker does not specifically address the question of what should be done if ties to AQ or 9/11 are found. By implication, it seems that might advocate more precipitous action should a link be found.