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: stockman_scott who wrote (7448)	9/26/2002 2:59:14 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Respond to of 89467

no end to American gullibility, sadly / jw

To: stockman_scott who wrote (7448)	9/26/2002 2:59:44 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Spinning on Iraq Lead Editorial The Washington Post Thursday, September 26, 2002 THE QUESTION of whether the United States should go to war with Iraq ought to be the subject of a full, careful and sober debate by Congress. Instead, it is being treated as a purely political issue, to be manipulated for maximum advantage in the midterm elections. On one side, President Bush is openly employing the subject as a partisan instrument on the campaign trail. Rather than respond to legitimate questions about his race toward a military confrontation with Saddam Hussein, he accuses the Democrats of being weak in defending national security. On the other side, the Democratic leadership in Congress is hurrying to get the issue off the table. Rather than press the administration about a campaign that could risk the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis and cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars, it is moving toward quick acquiescence to a resolution giving Mr. Bush broad authority to wage war. Though many Democrats are uneasy, their doubts are being steamrolled by their leaders' zeal to return voters' focus to domestic economic issues. The president's cynical and irresponsible manipulation of the issue risks devaluing his credibility as he seeks to convince the United Nations and U.S. allies that action to disarm Iraq is essential. We believe Mr. Bush is right in arguing that Saddam Hussein poses an unacceptable threat, and right in choosing to confront that menace. But he undermines his own case by taking it on the campaign trail and thereby feeding suspicions, both at home and abroad, that he timed his initiative for maximum electoral advantage, rather than in response to serious calculation about how and when Iraq could best be dealt with. He also risks emerging with broad but ephemeral congressional and public support for a mission that will likely demand considerable courage, fortitude and staying power from this country. Congress could help ensure that an Iraq mission succeeds by insisting that Mr. Bush -- as well as any resolution -- address the specific challenges of a campaign against Iraq. Will the United States allow a last attempt at the peaceful implementation of U.N. resolutions, and will it wage war only after U.N. passage of an explicit resolution authorizing force? The draft resolution the administration submitted to Congress does not address these questions. Is the United States committed to maintaining order in a post-Hussein Iraq through American occupation forces or peacekeepers, and, if so, for how long? Is it committed to installing and supporting a new government in Iraq, and what kind of government would this be? The resolution does not say how the war and subsequent reconstruction would be funded. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) argued in an article on the opposite page last week that a resolution should clarify these issues; he also argued that funding for Iraqi nation-building should be appropriated now. Many Democrats share his views. Yet, like Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, Mr. Edwards wants to get Iraq off the table: "In a short period of time, Congress will have dealt with Iraq and we'll be on to other issues," he said the other day. The Democrats can't have it both ways: They can either face up to their momentous responsibility in deciding on war or abdicate their authority and join Mr. Bush in playing the short-term political angles. The former course would be harder and take more time; but by choosing the latter they would weaken themselves, and the country. © 2002 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com