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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (6280)	9/13/2002 9:52:20 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Getting Down to Coalition-Building By E. J. Dionne Jr. Columnist The Washington Post Friday, September 13, 2002 It's now clear: President Bush is resting his case for war against Saddam Hussein on nukes. It's the case most likely to draw a positive response from American voters who became conditioned to nuclear threats during a half-century of Cold War. This, no doubt, is why the president returned repeatedly to Hussein's nuclear program during his U.N. speech yesterday. As Vice President Cheney said on "Meet the Press" last weekend, "That sort of grabs everybody's attention and that's what we're used to dealing with." But this speech alone will not disarm the president's critics. More important, it will not by itself reassure potential supporters of a war against Iraq that Bush is prepared to build the broad coalition a sustained anti-Hussein policy will require. Yes, the president did go to the United Nations. He was rhetorically effective in trying to shame its members into standing up to the dictator who has repeatedly defied the United Nations' wishes. Bush, often accused of unilateralism, cleverly turned the argument around. "We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced," he said. But the thrust of Bush's speech was that the United States would act with or without the United Nations. "The United States will make that stand," Bush said, "and, delegates of the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well." Was Bush wrapping a go-it-alone strategy in the rhetoric of internationalism? The administration reasons that its tough stand has already pushed reluctant allies toward a much harder Iraq policy. Perhaps more of the same might further strengthen the world's will. Maybe, but maybe not. Speaking ahead of Bush, Secretary General Kofi Annan anticipated what he was about to hear. Annan warned that "choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience." Yet when Bush laid out the six demands that Iraq must meet if it "wishes peace," he did not propose, as many of America's allies wish he would, one more try at tough and intrusive inspections. Do it our way, or we'll do it alone. Is this the best way to build alliances and unite the world against a dictator who deserved every bit of the harsh criticism Bush hurled his way? Bush must still explain why the United States sees an urgent need for war now that it did not see last summer. What has changed? Is Hussein much closer to developing those nuclear weapons? The president seemed to suggest this with his talk of Iraq's acquiring aluminum tubes and the other ingredients of a nuclear bomb. But when did we learn what? Cheney said Sunday that "we have to be very careful" to protect "sensitive sources" of information, and so we do. But the case for war in a democracy cannot be made on classified information that no one gets to see. These doubts exist because the administration has offered shifting rationales for going after Hussein and has not been able to draw a clear link between the Iraqi dictator and Sept. 11. Bush called inaction "a reckless gamble," and he's right that doing nothing would be reckless. But the burden on those who would launch a preemptive war should be high. Making a case for such a war is far easier if the alternatives are exhausted first. That is why Congress should not be rushed into a vote on war before the administration has made clear why such a vote is required now. Like it or not, the suspicion would always exist that a war vote was being pushed for political purposes, to influence this fall's elections and to box Democrats into voting to give Bush what he wants or face charges of "softness." Isn't that democracy? No, because the war vote would happen before the voters had their say, and because the result would be locked in no matter how the elections came out. If war comes, the United States will have to make a very long commitment to Iraq. There should not be even a hint that our Iraqi policy has been affected by a spirit of electoral gamesmanship. The case for a more deliberate policy that creates a broad alliance against Hussein was made forcefully by Annan when he spoke of the benefits of nations "agreeing to exercise sovereignty together." This goal is rooted not in some dreamy world federalism but in a practical idea -- that sovereign nations working together can accomplish in common purposes they cannot accomplish alone. The president's United Nations speech must be the beginning of coalition-building -- at home and abroad -- and not the end. © 2002 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com