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: Hawkmoon who wrote (40523)	8/28/2002 12:28:02 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually John, I have to say that I'm finding myself underwhelmed by the case the Bush administration is making vis-a-vis Iraq. That's rather telling, Hawk. You and I start from different places. I'm far more skeptical of their aims and their claims of evidence we can't see than I thought you were. The fall politics of this could be interesting, perhaps disturbing. One of the surprising things to me has been the apparently inept way the Bush folk have played the domestic politics of this. It's been very, very bad. They can't seem to get started. And that has to go to the very top. And what makes it most surprising is I had come to believe that Bush Jr was good with the politics, that is he was a capable player. I would have thought that a couple of somewhat pump up the troops speeches from Bush and they could get a resolution through the Senate. No doubt, it would get amended to include a provision for a restored but very strict inspection regime with time limits but they are going to have to go there anyway. But I think it unlikely that any Senator up for reelection would vote against doing something about Iraq if they could find the cover of an inspection amendment. The one thing that says I'm wrong on the ease with which that could take place is my own scenario, that American public opinion bails out on all this when the first or second set of seriously bad news comes through. Senators could see that possibility and simply not want to vote either way. Then what would they do? As for the UN security council, I would expect that to be a tougher nut to crack but that basically, it's the same bit. Get a resolution for strong inspections with a tight time table, get it voted through. And go. Such resolutions can be vetoed by permanent members but even a veto would serve the Bush administration's purposes. Right now, they appear to be doing nothing. Perhaps they will crank up their political machine come fall.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (40523)	8/28/2002 1:08:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Good post, Hawk. On Jim Baker, But what really interests me the most is James Baker stepping forward and expressing his opinions. Baker is the heavy hitter (as we know from his representation of Bush Jr. during the election legalities and Reagan-Bush days). He's a no-BS kind of guy and certainly no wimp. I remember reading somewhere that Baker was 41's man, W never liked him or agreed with him? He is certainly conspicuously absent from the current administration, even though you think he would be owed something for pulling out the election in 2000.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (40523)	8/28/2002 1:39:22 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The case made so far is "underwhelming"...One has to ask WHY?? It is as if the Administration really in fact, doesn't want to make the case right now. Are we waiting to get all materials and forces in place? Or for more information? Or to get allies fully informed? Or to get inoculation materials made? OR are we trying to totally confuse our enemies as to what actions we will take? And from what direction? Rumsfeld said months ago that this war would be waged in a completely different manner than any war previously fought. Perhaps a complete review of Bakers transcript~actual remarks would be a start. Maybe someone has a link.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (40523)	8/28/2002 5:18:11 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Question: If America shouldn't attack Saddam before he obtains weapons of mass destruction, when should we ever attack a dictator which threatens world peace? Will we be safer to attack in 3-5 years when he has nuclear weapons? Will we be safer to let him laugh at our weapons inspectors, and attack after he launches WMD against Kuwaiit, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Israel? Should we just hope for the best. Hope this madman comes to his senses one day? The case to attack Iraq and remove Saddam from power is a far easier one to make then the one President Clinton made in Kosovo to remove Milosovic. Hussein is a much greater threat then Milosovic ever was. Being the world's only superpower places a unique responsibility on our shoulders. Sometimes we must lead where others are unable or unwilling to.