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: JohnM who wrote (45647)	9/20/2002 1:53:42 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If the Bush folk have evidence of something "immediate" there, my feeling is they should offer it up. I disagree completely. If there is an immediate danger, then we should go in like gangbusters now, and explain later. The fact that we are talking about it means it's not immediate, but it is a threat. It's like when you call your doctor's office (well, when I do) the recording says, "if this is an emergency, dial 911." Don't wait, don't hesitate, if it's an emergency, act now.

To: JohnM who wrote (45647)	9/20/2002 2:02:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Hasty Iraq decision risks shortchanging vital debate Op/Ed - USA TODAY Fri Sep 20, 7:29 AM ET story.news.yahoo.com As U.S. allies backpedal from a showdown with Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites), President Bush ( news - web sites) is shifting gears, too. Instead of counting on the United Nations ( news - web sites) to deal effectively with the Iraqi leader, Bush asked Congress on Thursday for a hurry-up vote giving him authority to oust the dictator from power. The president correctly recognizes that such a bold step requires the approval of the people's representatives. But in prodding lawmakers to act in such haste, Bush risks depriving the public of the full debate a potential war with Iraq demands. Indeed, the most pressing deadline weighing on members of Congress comes from their desire to rush home in two weeks to campaign for re-election. Republicans see a war vote as the ticket to keeping a majority in the House and winning back the Senate. Democrats want the vote out of the way to focus instead on what they think is their winning issue: the weak economy. Both parties are rising to the administration's bait, in which a pre-Election Day vote on a war resolution has been sold as a patriotic litmus test. Surely politicking can wait until the reasons for confronting Saddam and the perils of a conflict are fully aired, even if it means lawmakers have to stay in session longer. Bush has made the case that Saddam is a bad guy who can't be trusted. There's plenty of room for argument, however, as to whether the Iraqi leader poses an imminent threat. As USA TODAY reported this week, even Bush's own intelligence agencies don't back administration claims that Saddam has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb and has links to al-Qaeda terrorists. A war's effects on the anti-terror campaign, Middle East oil supplies and the U.S. role in shaping a post-Saddam Iraq also require careful consideration. Recent history shows the dangers that occur when Congress serves as a rubber stamp for a president bent on war, and the benefits of thoughtful debate. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson asked a Congress in the midst of a political campaign for an open-ended endorsement of military action against North Vietnam. He got it in a flash. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which launched the Vietnam War, was rushed through Congress in hours, with only two dissenting votes. Many lawmakers later cited that hasty vote as their greatest regret. In 1991, by contrast, when the first President Bush asked Congress to back military force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait, lawmakers were already engaged in a nationally televised debate lasting more than a week over whether to back the biggest military campaign since the troubling Vietnam War. Though Bush already had troops poised for action, the debate still showed Congress at its finest and helped unite the nation. The Founding Fathers, aware that a president alone shouldn't decide to send the country to war, empowered Congress to weigh the consequences carefully. By refusing to act in haste, Congress can best serve the president -- and the country.