SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill Grant who wrote (555)9/20/2002 12:31:03 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
I just saw a headline that says, there will be a new program for 2004, "The American President," similar to "The American Idol." Good Try!



To: Bill Grant who wrote (555)9/20/2002 12:32:20 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1604
 
Bush Pressures Russia Against Iraq
Fri Sep 20,12:07 PM ET
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

URL: story.news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - As Congress promised a quick vote on using military force against Iraq, President Bush ( news - web sites) on Friday pressed a campaign to swing Russia behind the tough American stance against President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).

Bush met at the White House with Russia's foreign and defense ministers amid indications there might be room for compromise.

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was quoted by the ITAR-Tass news agency as saying Russia's position would depend on the information the Bush administration provides about Baghdad's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

However, Russia held to its view that an Iraqi offer to readmit weapons inspectors should be accepted. Information on Iraq's weapons programs could be confirmed or disproved only "on the spot," Ivanov said.

Emerging from the meeting, the defense minister and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov reported no progress in closing the divide between the United States and Russia. However, they said both nations want Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Bush wants Congress to approve a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in what would be a show of unity to back the president's effort to gain support on Iraq from Russia and other wary nations.

Bush called Russian President Vladimir Putin ( news - web sites) early Friday, before the meeting with high-level Russian officials here. The White House had no immediate comment on the telephone call.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders welcomed a draft proposal that Bush offered Thursday, in which Congress would authorize the president to "use all means," including military force, to defend U.S. national security interests against the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said both the House and Senate could vote on the resolution as early as the first week in October before lawmakers go home to campaign for the Nov. 5 election. He said lawmakers would review the president's proposal over the weekend, but "I'm perfectly happy with the language."

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., agreed that "there is absolutely no difference of opinion with regard to the threat that Saddam Hussein poses and the need to address that threat in a multitude of ways." He said Democrats wanted some changes in the wording of the proposal, but were confident a broad consensus could be reached.

Before going to the White House, the diplomats met at the State Department with Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites) and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

At the same time, the White House was releasing a policy document emphasizing a change in U.S. military strategy toward reliance on a first-strike or pre-emptive stance in the post-Cold War era of terrorist threats.

Bush often has talked of this changing national security posture, and "The National Security Strategy of the United States" is a report that the president must, under law, submit to Congress.

"America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones," states the document, first reported by The New York Times.

Asked about this Friday, Sen. Charles Grassley ( news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, voiced some reservations. The Iowa Republican called it "a projection of America's international leadership."

But in an interview on NBC's "Today" program, he said, "The United States should never forecast to the rest of the world that we desire one inch of foreign territory."

Bush initially said he didn't need the approval of Congress to take military action against Iraq. But a show of support from Capitol Hill would be a boost to the president as he presses for a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force and tries to put together an international coalition to force Iraq to disarm.

Russia and France, which hold veto power as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, have voiced strong reservations to a new resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

Sergei Ivanov revealed the gap with the U.S. position on Thursday when, meeting with Rumsfeld at the Pentagon ( news - web sites), he said he believed U.N. weapons inspectors would succeed in settling the question of whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

Romanian Defense Minister Ioan Mircea Pascu, who met this week with Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, said his country had offered its cooperation to the United States for overflights and use of its territory.

Romania, which sent troops to Afghanistan ( news - web sites) to help in the U.S. war against terror in the South Asian country, views the Bush administration's stand against Iraq in the same light, Pascu said.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, meanwhile, repeated to the United Nations ( news - web sites) that Iraq was ready to accept, without conditions, the return of inspectors, and that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Bush belittled Iraqi assertions that it had nothing to hide, saying it was "the same old song and dance we've heard for 11 years." He challenged the Security Council anew to show some "backbone ... or the United States and some of our friends will do so."

The resolution the president presented to Congress would give him broad war-making authority similar to what Congress gave his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1991 before the start of the Gulf War ( news - web sites).

As drafted, it would authorize him to use force unilaterally if he deemed necessary, without waiting for the United Nations to act.



To: Bill Grant who wrote (555)9/21/2002 6:49:01 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire  Respond to of 1604
 
Bush is boxing the Democrats on Iraq
By E.J. Dionne, Jr., 9/21/2002

WASHINGTON

IT IS ABSURD to say that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is driven largely by this November's elections. It is equally absurd to deny that President Bush and his party are playing this issue for political gain and that the buildup to war has come at an extremely convenient time for Republicans.

The president's decision on Thursday to ask Congress for the sweeping authority to wage war on Saddam Hussein, with or without the United Nations, will only aggravate hard feelings in Democratic ranks - even though Bush is likely to get what he wants. Many Democrats have been arguing for a resolution supporting the demands Bush made at the United Nations and urging the very sort of tough UN action against Saddam the administration is seeking.

By demanding a congressional blank check instead, Bush is asking Democrats who would support a war under the right conditions to endorse a war under all conditions. He is effectively asking Congress to cut itself out of the essential debates: What is the best way to wage this war? How long will the United States need to occupy Iraq? How serious are we about building a democratic - or, at least, more democratic - post-Saddam regime?

Will even asking such questions become politically dangerous now that the president has simplified the choice to being either with him or against him?

Let's first dismiss the charge that the current move against Iraq is only about Republican electoral chances this fall. The Iraq hawks in the administration were committed to toppling Saddam long ago - in most cases, before Sept. 11. That the new focus might help Republicans in the elections is, for the hawks, simply a bonus. And if the elections can be used to pressure Democrats to vote for war, so much the better.

But the president and Republicans haven't been shy about using the prospect of war to improve their chances in the elections. Republican candidates in South Dakota, Minnesota, and New Mexico are already deploying soft-on-Iraq charges against their Democratic opponents, and Republican strategists are promising more of the same elsewhere.

It's also abundantly clear that pushing war to the center of the news shoves the Democrats' issues to the side. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's sweeping attack Wednesday on the administration's economic record might have been big news under other circumstances. It became a sideshow.

None of this proves that the motivations behind the current war buildup are political. But its sheer political convenience feeds the opposition's doubts. The president himself did not ease those doubts with his remarkable criticism last week of members of Congress whom he characterized as saying ''I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision.'' Bush went on: ''It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people - say, `Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.'''

A president seeking a unified nation does himself no good by distorting the arguments of others - or by obliquely accusing them of failing to act in the interests of the United States. After all, the core argument of those who want to build a broad coalition is that doing so is in the national interest.

Building an anti-Saddam alliance in association with the United Nations, says Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, could ''diffuse negative reactions'' to the war abroad and would also guarantee that ''the long term commitment (to Iraq) once Hussein is gone would be a shared commitment.''

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, offers this reading of Senate opinion: ''There's a near consensus around here on supporting the president's request that the United Nations lay down a deadline, an ultimatum, and authorize the use of force to support it. Where there's a division here is over whether we should say we'll go it alone and whether we should say that at a moment when we're going to the United Nations and asking them to act.''

Bush may win by playing hardball on the war resolution and perhaps in the elections. But playing hardball has its costs.

A large majority of Americans share the president's goal of disarming Saddam. Bush will nurture that majority far more effectively if he dispels partisan suspicions - and if he treats those who advocate a coalition approach to stopping Iraq as allies and not enemies.

boston.com.