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: LindyBill who wrote (42157)	9/5/2002 1:18:00 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree with your summary but I don't think it was a grand plan. I regret that Bush and Cheney painted themselves into a corner. Why couldn't they have talked to Congress and the Allies first, before saying loudly and often "We are coming to get you."? We would have looked ever so much smarter. I think the way this has unraveled on an international stage is very bad for America. And on top of this everybody keeps repeating: "The President hasn't decided yet." Maybe if he spent less time on the treadmill and raising money for Republican campaigns he would have more time to study. I truly regret seeing the President of the United States with his eyes in the headlights saying "Saddam has been crawfishing, thumbing his nose." Now it is about "disarmament" not to be confused with invasion or weapons inspections or regime change. It looked pathetic. Having said all this the Mandarins have figured a way to wiggle out with a win.They are controlling the news cycle and the November Campaign. If the Democrats can figure a way to articulate a sound bite the nation can digest to counter this Republican mess it will be a miracle. I am really unhappy about the way George Bush's learning curve has diminished the Presidency. Rascal@whatarevoltingdevolpmentthisis.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (42157)	9/5/2002 2:41:01 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think my hypothesis that Bush will go after the Dems in Congress to commit on Iraq is making more and more sense. Bush has a "Win, Win, Win", IMO. Not a lot of evidence out there to argue that you are wrong. But i'll still take a shot. 1. I don't think there's any doubt that the Bush folk wanted to make an election issue out of the Iraq vote. Somewhere I read they wanted a vote by Oct. 4th. Means they think they can start beating up on the Dems for foot dragging for a full month before the election. 2. Moreover, the Dems, like the Republicans, are divided over procedural questions--whether to involve the UN, if so what sorts of questions to ask, what to do if they get turned down, etc. 3. If the Bush proposal is to go without UN approval, then he gives his opposition (let's call it opposition rather than Dems because of 2 above) grounds for discussing, amending, whatever, perhaps to run the vote into November. If, however, he uses squishy language like "involve" the UN, he invites even more amending, etc. 4. Thus, my guess, thinking as I type this note, is that the Bush folk will offer a proposal that says he's going to the UN but is squishy because they will be unwilling to give the Security Council veto power. That will leave an opening for critics on the grounds they are as worried about Saddam as the next citizen but we should not do anything without UN approval, as in the first Gulf War. 5. If that happens, we'll get to see who is the better politician. If it were Clinton we would know who could out politic who. We are still learning with Bush. One minute and on one issue he seems quite adept; on the next not so. Interesting fall. But one thing is certain, Bill, if the US attacks Iraq with the level of evidence now publicly available and with the level of allied support now available--Britian and Israel, the country will divide, sharply, quickly, and scarily. If Bush does that he runs a very serious risk of a one term presidency. He doesn't strike me as that dumb.