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 (43766)	9/13/2002 4:29:20 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

MY "REPREHENSIBLE" SUSPICIONS ON IRAQ By Matthew Miller Columnist Tribune Media Services For release 9/11/02 I know Dick Cheney finds it "reprehensible" that anyone could think the White House's timing on Iraq is politically inspired, but the administration has exhibited a pattern of behavior that (as Cheney rightly warns with Saddam) creates a context that raises extra concerns. What else should reasonable people make of these facts? - In June a floppy disk found in Lafayette Park across from the White House turned out to contain a Powerpoint presentation used by Karl Rove to detail the White House's strategy for the midterm elections. "Focus on war" was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to "maintain a positive issue environment." - Around this time Rove was upbraided (at least for PR reasons) after he told a Republican gathering that the war and terror themes and the associated military buildup could and should play to the Republicans' advantage in the midterm elections. - When White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to launch its campaign to convince the American people that military action against Iraq was necessary, Card replied: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." - Cheney's own language in dismissing political concerns on "Meet The Press" the other day was quite careful. He spoke of how he and the president have been "talking about Iraq for months," a formulation consistent with the possibility that they've been talking for months about fall being the right time to ratchet up public discussion. - A mere two months ago inquiries about Bush's past business practices, corporate scandals, the sagging economy and stock markets dominated the front page. A little Iraq invasion talk and - presto! - they're all gone, creating the "positive issue environment" Rove wanted. Every top media outlet has redirected manpower and managerial attention to the question of Iraq. It's worth noting how easy it is for a president to transform the political/media culture by invoking national security. - Lawmakers coming out of classified briefings in recent days say they don't understand Bush's urgency. According to the Washington Post, a senior GOP leader opined that if "top secret" information was not enough to sway Democrats and some Republicans here, "Bush would have trouble winning over a skeptical international audience." Let me offer the obvious but sincere caveats. It may well be that the cumulative threat of Saddam's activities require action, even invasion, very soon. The president's warning that this new era will require acts of preemption rings reasonable to anyone (including me) who thought Israel entirely justified in taking out Iraq's nuclear plant two decades ago. But a cynic might imagine a different scenario - one that should at least be on the table as events unfold. In this Stage Manage Events For Political Purposes Scenario, we'd see Bush and the GOP ride the benefit of today's calculated Iraq focus between now and November. Then, in a show of eminent reasonableness, Bush would agree to work first through the United Nations, which would authorize a resumption of inspections. Bush would allow these inspections a year to see whether they work, as any patient global statesman would. Then, just as the presidential campaign heats up in 2004, something will happen, and Bush will say that time has run out, that inspections have proven fruitless, that the danger is even closer than we thought, and the nation cannot wait. Another "positive issue environment," in other words, that would shift attention from the administration's budget deficits, economic mismanagement and bankrupt domestic agenda. Again, let me be clear because I know some people will misread this: It may be an entirely sound judgment that we need to act against Iraq because of imminent threats to U.S. security. Like every patriot, I'm ready if this is the case. I respect the experience of Messrs. Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld and don't doubt their sense of duty and responsibility. And yet - is it just me? - I can't shake the suspicion that we'll be doing this again in 2004, when the real invasion is close at hand as Bush's reelection campaign looms. And Dick Cheney will again be calling questions of timing "reprehensible." _____________________________________________________ Note to editors: Matt Miller would greatly appreciate it if you would consider running his e-mail address, mattino@worldnet.att.net, at the bottom of his column. Columnist Matt Miller is a senior fellow at Occidental College in Los Angeles and host of "Left, Right & Center" on KCRW-FM in Los Angeles. © 2002 MATTHEW MILLER DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC. tmsfeatures.com