To: stockman_scott who wrote (43803 ) 9/14/2002 3:35:25 AM From: frankw1900 Read Replies (1) | Respond to How does this sentence: BUSH SET NO deadline for the United Nations to act, which left lawmakers wondering whether he would simultaneously seek a resolution from Congress backing military action in Iraq, using one body as leverage on the other. Bush went beyond calling for disarmament and inspection to invoke democracy and human values as future goals for Iraq. Since so few places in the Middle East subscribe to democratic values, a congressional aide thought the networks should pan to the Saudi delegation to see if they?re snickering.? ??? When it comes to the selective application of values, Bush is a master. His rhetoric about dictators and weapons of mass destruction is compelling, but what about Iran and North Korea, the other countries in his axis of evil? What about Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the way he terrorizes his people? What about India and Pakistan, who could blow up much of their region, along with themselves? Even if Saddam Hussein is an evil psychopath, is he crazy enough to annihilate himself, which is what would happen if he launched deadly weapons? The more Bush talks, the more he gets tripped up with questions he can?t answer. So he suggests that anybody who disagrees with his strike-now-ask questions-later strategy is an appeaser. Likening the U.N.?s inability to enforce weapons inspections on Iraq to the failed League of Nations and the appeasement of Hitler is an argument designed to embarrass and humiliate the world body, not to shed light on a dangerous mission. ?Bush needs to make a very precise case for pre-emptive military action,? says a Reagan-era ambassador to the region. ?Otherwise this is the Vietnam syndrome all over again. I thought never again would we fight a war without the support of the American public.? That brings us to the ultimate question: Why would Bush take such a huge risk with the military, the economy and the map of the Middle East? A psychiatrist might be best equipped to answer that one?.. And even though he was draft-age during the Vietnam War and in an academic environment where people were protesting, he seems remarkably untouched by the Vietnam experience. It?s as though he slept through that period, or wasn?t mature enough to grasp the enormity of the nation?s disillusionment with its leaders. Bush approaches foreign policy as he approaches life, with a very narrow, Reaganesque view that something is either right or wrong. But prosecuting a global war against terror is filled with moral ambiguities, shifting alliances and cold-eyed tradeoffs of risk and reward. Bush doesn?t want to be deterred by theoretical scenarios about how a good mission can turn bad. At consults with other leaders, he would be wise to at least maintain the fiction that he is feeling their pain even if he is only going through the motions. nice ! The leader of the super power has to be strong and smart. That's what the leaders of non-joke countries expect and desire.
