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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7697)10/2/2002 7:01:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
YOUR POLITICAL PARTIES IN PEACE AND WAR

By Richard Reeves
Syndicated Columnist
Sat Sep 28, 2002
richardreeves.com

WASHINGTON -- I have a friend who obviously does not like the idea of George W. Bush as president. "Every time he speaks," she said the other day, "I have the feeling that if he says just one more sentence, he will finally reveal what a dope he is."

I do not think my leader is a dope. An ignorant zealot perhaps, but not a fool. Then last Monday he did tack on that extra sentence. Speaking in Trenton, N.J., the president said that he needed a congressional resolution for the war on Iraq and he needed it now. "The House has responded," he said, praising the members of the Republican-controlled body of Congress.

He could have stopped there, but he didn't. "But the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people."

The Senate, of course, is controlled by what used to be called the loyal opposition -- now, said the president, they are disloyal, serving those special interests. One "interest," which he did not mention, is organized labor. The president does not want the federal employees shifted into his new Department of Homeland Security to have the right to join unions.

It was a mistake, Bush must now know, to have attacked Democrats in the Senate that way, particularly since many of them did what he avoided, that is, fight in a war for their country. The leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Tom Daschle, no veteran, demanded a White House apology in the name of Sen. Daniel Inoyue of Hawaii, a Democrat who lost and arm and won a Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II.

The president's mistake was an honest one -- and a revealing one. You don't have to be around this town long to know that Republicans see themselves as more patriotic than Democrats. The president was a cheerleader at Yale and he still is, a real flag-waver, like many other members of both parties. He does, however, have a problem remembering when he should be uniting the country and when he should be dividing it.

"Not interested in the security of the American people" is a line that will live in infamy. Apologies are a joke in American politics -- "If I offended anyone, I am truly yada, yada, yada" -- but this time Daschle was right. The president, probably inadvertently, crossed the line in putting Democrats in the same category as Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) or German voters in the you're-either-for-us-or-against-us recesses of his mind and heart.

That does not absolve the Democrats of blame in the twisted war debate going on here. Patriotism is not the Democrats' problem. Political cowardice is.

Bush and the Republicans are having their way with the Democrats, both in the House and Senate, because the conventional wisdom, backed up by conventional polling data, is that members will lose votes this November if they are seen as insensitive to the White House's pressing need to destroy Saddam Hussein before he ... well, we have not been told convincingly by either side why invading Iraq now should be the government's overriding priority.

But whatever is really going on out there, there is political danger for the ducking Democrats. It was amazing to see how heartened members were when their onetime leader, former Vice President Al Gore ( news - web sites), stood up in San Francisco and actually questioned whether the White House knew what it was doing and whether it had considered the possible consequences, intended and unintended, if we charge into the Middle East. Those Democrats, and some Republicans, too, were thrilled that somebody had actually questioned whether the emperor was wearing any clothes these days. But all that is being said in private.

We seem to be stumbling into war, rushing to the dark at the end of the tunnel -- and it is hard to see anybody with a lantern to stand up and make the president explain, in only a few sentences, why taking this bend in the tunnel is so urgent. Why, someone might ask, is this more important than the war on terrorism or domestic economic problems?

___________________________________________________________

RICHARD REEVES, author of President Nixon: Alone in the White House (October 2001), is a writer and syndicated columnist who has made a number of award-winning documentary films. His ninth book, President Kennedy: Profile of Power — now considered the authoritative work on the 35th president — won several national awards and was named the Best Non-Fiction Book of 1993 by Time. His other best selling books include Convention and American Journey: Travelling with Tocqueville in Search of American Democracy.

Recipient of the 1998 Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, Reeves writes a twice-weekly column that appears in more than 100 newspapers. He is a former chief political correspondent for The New York Times and has written extensively for numerous magazines, including The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Esquire and New York.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7697)10/6/2002 1:11:48 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
No Retreat, No Surrender

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Sunday, 6 October, 2002
truthout.org

To get to the Seaport Hotel, you must cross over the Moakley Bridge, named for the recently deceased senior Congressman from Massachusetts. The bridge lies in the shadow of a new Federal courthouse that likewise bears his name.

Friday morning found a small crowd standing on the crest of the bridge under a gray, windy sky, staring into the fetid waters of the Fort Point Channel below. Periodically they scanned the horizon, out by Logan airport, looking for a large airplane with 'Air Force One' painted on the side to come out of the clouds.

The crowd wasn't small for long. A number of groups had been sounding the alarm for weeks - George W. Bush is coming to Boston on October 4th to hobnob with Gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney, and to stand for pictures with devotees of the GOP who were willing to cough up $5,000 for the privilege of a photo-op with The Great Man. The love-in would be happening at the Seaport Hotel, behind South Station, out by the World Trade Center, out on the piers along the harbor. Bring signs, bring flyers, bring your best shouting shoes, and meet on the bridge. We march on the hotel before noon. The purpose of the protest: To try and stop this coming war in Iraq.

The word was well-spread. Before 10:00 a.m., hundreds of people had come pouring out of the city and over the bridge, bearing banners and signs and very worried faces. This was no lark. The police in Portland several weeks before had unleashed a terrible attack upon peaceful protesters outside another Bush fundraising/campaign event. Several people were shot with rubber bullets, and much of the crowd - including an infant brought by a parent who never suspected there could be violence - took a face-full of mace.

The crowd flowed into the provided First Amendment Zone - a rectangle of road perched along a smaller bridge. Citizens at the front were pressed against steel barriers manned by police, hemmed in on both sides by water, with more police flowing in behind. The Zone was several hundred yards from the hotel door, and seemed designed to be a very effective killing bottle. If things got out of hand, the protesters had nowhere to go but into the Atlantic ocean or straight up to Heaven. Above, a helicopter made slow, deliberate circles above the crowd, lingering with menace at times while its rotors churned the air. On the roof of the hotel, snipers watched impassively through binoculars.

The fear on the faces of the hundreds of protesters did not come simply from a concern that they might meet the business end of a police baton. The last several days of news had made it all too clear that war with Iraq was inevitable. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt had inexplicably rolled over for the Bush administration, promising them everything under the sun and guaranteeing that the dangerously vague language of Bush's war resolution would pass easily through that body. Subsequent media reports suggested that the Senate, with a few dissenters, would likewise approve the Bush resolution.

The Bush resolution references not simply war on Iraq, but uses the opaque phrase "the region" when defining the parameters of the engagement. If Congress passes the resolution with that language intact, they will have granted Bush the legal ability to make war on any Middle Eastern nation he wishes, without the need to further consult Congress. The Bush resolution does not contain any language including the United Nations in the deliberations. In that resolution is the legalization of a permanent state of hot war, managed and driven only from the White House, and with no clearly defined end in sight. For the neo-conservatives within the administration who have been wishing for such a thing for years - Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney - Congressional approval of this resolution would be a dream come true.

The crowd of protesters in Boston was not merely comprised of full-bore peace activists. A great many carried signs demanding a return of basic diplomacy to the business of the Oval Office. Other signs demanded United Nations involvement in whatever happens, and denounced the concept of unilateral and pre-emptive aggression. On every face was that stamp of fear, and the full knowledge that the nation trembled on the edge of a terrible, terrifying decision that would haunt us for generations to come.

Pictures from the crowd: A little girl standing with her father at the barricade, he in army fatigues, she holding a sign reading, "Don't Kill My Daddy." A circle of drummers pounding a martial beat, giving rhythm to the chants of the assembled. A woman in evening wear, wending through the crowd, who chose the wrong route to get to the hotel door for her picture with Bush, turning and slapping a protester who asked her how she could be associated with the GOP. A man in an expensive suit, also walking through the crowd to the hotel, barking at someone to "Get a job!" only to hear the response, "In this economy?" The urgency of the hoarse chants - "One, two, three, four, we don't want your oil war!" Always, the helicopter above. Always, the fear.

The protesters in Boston on October 4th were but one physical representation - repeated in New Hampshire and Portland and Denver and Phoenix and New York and California and London - of a tremor of terror that thrums through this land. The Bush administration means to make war in Iraq, despite the absence of a threat to our nation, despite the absence of any credible hint of evidence to suggest a threat, despite the repudiation this will bring from the international community, despite the damage that such action will do to our already-bleeding economy, despite the incredible chaos that will be unleashed in the Middle East, despite the specter of thousands of American military casualties and tens of thousands of civilian dead, and despite the brass-bound surety that such action will bring down more terrorism on our shores.

The Bush administration means to make war, and the Congress appears ready to give him legal protection for a widening of that war in directions not to be contemplated in comfort or calm. The war is being pushed during the buildup towards an incredibly important midterm Congressional election season, a calculated maneuver designed to hem in Congress members who might otherwise stand against Bush. This cynical tactic appears to be working - Senator Robert Byrd has said he will filibuster the resolution if enough Americans call his office and voice their concerns, but too many others seem unable to summon the courage to fight this wretched future.

The people of this nation do not want this war, the international community does not want this war, and every argument for this war flies in the face of caution and fact. Yet it comes inexorably. The protesters in Boston knew perhaps some of this, or all of this, but stood anyway in defiance and shouted down the man who would lead them to dissolution. The defiance is mandated, if only to represent the feelings of the country, if only to throw down a marker before the world, if only to remind Congress that we are watching, we see what they do, and we will not forget this moment in time.

Bruce Springsteen played to a packed house at the Fleet Center in Boston that Friday night. His fans, accustomed to power-chord anthems and melancholy ballads about love, cars and blue-collar survival, were treated to a rather solemn evening of songs from his new album, 'The Rising,' which deals on many levels with the events of September 11th, 2001. Had he been with the protesters on the Moakley Bridge, in the First Amendment Zone outside the Seaport Hotel, had he known all the seemingly insurmountable dangers arrayed before this nation and the world, dangers brought forth in no small part by the deadly miscalculations and deliberate obfuscations of the Bush administration, he might have added a final song to his playlist.

No retreat, baby. No surrender.

-------

William Rivers Pitt is a teacher from Boston, MA. He is the author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in April 2003 from Pluto Press.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7697)10/7/2002 9:12:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
No Choice but War?

By Paul Starr
The American Prospect
Issue Date: 10.7.02
prospect.org

I should be among the supporters of an invasion of Iraq. A decade ago, after Iraq seized Kuwait, I agreed with the decision to go to war and wrote in The New Republic, at the start of the conflict, that allied forces should go all the way to Baghdad. My view was that Saddam Hussein had forfeited the legitimacy of his regime, and, having resolved not to let his aggression stand, we ought to deny him any chance for revenge. When the first President Bush called off our attack, I was bitterly disappointed.

Eleven years later, I have no doubt that Saddam is a menace, but the circumstances are different today. Then, Iraq violated the sovereignty of another state, and our response affirmed the framework of international law and security. Now, we would be violating Iraq's sovereignty without clear provocation, undertaking a preemptive war that is itself a destabilizing threat to international security.

Then, we had overwhelming international support; now, we face overwhelming opposition. Then, the Iraqi army was exposed and vulnerable in the desert and, after the air phase of the war, could offer no effective resistance. Now, the Iraqi military has had plenty of advance warning, will likely hole up in cities and may employ civilians as shields while using chemical and biological weapons against our troops (as well as Israel).

Now, engaged in a struggle against terrorist networks, we have an urgent need for cooperation in the Middle East and Europe and risk losing more in our new battle than we gain from finishing our old one.

Still, if some things were different, I could imagine supporting a war on Iraq -- and so, I suspect, could a good many other liberals.

If the Bush administration had proceeded differently -- if it had established a legal basis for military action, perhaps by working through the United Nations; if it had built allied support; if it had genuinely pursued alternatives to forcible "regime change" -- war might have emerged, by general agreement here and abroad, as a necessary final resort.

The administration is belatedly trying to do some of these things, but its unseemly haste to reach a foreordained result raises doubts about its bona fides. By prematurely declaring an intent to remove Saddam by force, George W. Bush has undercut the credibility of his claim that there is no other option.

But there are at least two others. One is to renew UN inspections and sanctions, under threat of force, to thwart Iraq's potential for weapons and war. An Iraqi refusal to comply would change the picture.

The second alternative is to revert to the strategy that worked under similar circumstances before. After World War II, some in the United States argued in favor of a preemptive war against the Soviet Union before it could acquire nuclear weapons. We can only imagine the casualties such a war would have produced if wiser heads had not successfully argued for deterrence.

Deterrence was never an easy theory to accept because it entailed enormous risk in the event of miscalculation. Sooner or later, however, we are going to face another adversary with nuclear weapons -- if not Saddam's Iraq tomorrow, then another regime the day after tomorrow. Preemptive war in all such cases would exhaust even so great a power as the United States.

A war in Iraq will have fateful consequences. Americans will have to do the fighting and then occupy and govern Iraq, perhaps for years to come. We may hope it is an isolated case. But once we opt for preemptive war, we could find ourselves entangled in a new phase of colonialism aimed at liquidating potential threats to us even in the most remote corners of the world. We ought to do everything possible to avoid getting into that position.
______________________________________________________

Paul Starr co-founded The American Prospect in 1990, and has been co-editor (with Robert Kuttner) of the magazine ever since. Starr ran the Prospect's office for the first two years of its existence, when the magazine was published out of Princeton, New Jersey, where Paul has been a professor of sociology at the university since 1985.

Before joining the Princeton faculty, Starr held a position in the sociology department at Harvard and spent a year at the Institute for Advanced Study. Though he has published extensively in academic journals (particularly on health care), he has written even more widely for a general audience. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, and The New England Journal of Medicine, among other publications; he has written or co-written six books, including The Social Transformation of American Medicine, which won the C. Wright Mills award, the Bancroft Prize in American History, and the Pulitzer Prize in 1984. In great demand as an expert on health care (The Chicago Tribune called him "health care's Tom Paine"), Starr took a brief leave from the Prospect in 1993 in order to serve as an adviser to the White House on health policy.

Starr, whom The Washington Post has described as "a prolific writer and meticulous editor" known for his "blend of idealism and pragmatism," writes a regular column for The American Prospect, and is currently working on a new book about the politics of information in the digital age. He lives in Princeton with his four children.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7697)10/8/2002 4:57:15 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
People should demand a full and open debate

By Jim Mullins
Editorial
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted October 7, 2002

During the past few weeks, the American public has been inundated with demands from President Bush to support his rush to war against Iraq, yet the majority of editorials and letters to the editor in major newspapers question the urgency. Many wonder "why now?" -- just before a crucial election when the smoke of war obscures the many problems ordinary Americans face: their savings lost in corporate corruption, a stock market free fall, a ballooning trade deficit, rising unemployment, information on the intelligence failure leading to 9/11, the attempt to establish White House control of the Homeland Security Agency free of civil service restraint and, particularly worrisome, a Pentagon policy of world domination.

Serious doubts remain as to the facts requiring us to wage pre-emptive war on Iraq, where we stand on the war on terrorism and the progress of peaceful reconstruction in Afghanistan.

On Sept. 10, the administration conceded that it had no hard evidence of Iraqi involvement with al-Qaida. But then Bush stated at the end of the month that Iraq has "long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations and there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." Actually, when several al-Qaida suspects were deported from Iran into the Kurdish area of Iraq, the Kurds asked the U.S. to come and get them (Saddam Hussein has no control over that area), but the U.S. failed to do so. The reason is obvious: To do so would give both Iran and particularly Iraq credit for assisting in the war on terrorism.

Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Council director, has consistently stated that no one in the U.S. government could have suspected that someone would fly a plane into the World Trade Center. On Sept. 24, an FBI supervisor in Minneapolis testified in Congress that he pleaded for permission to search Zacarias Moussaoui's belongings to make sure that the suspect "did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center."

As evidence that Iraq was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon, President Bush has cited a 1998 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspects Iraq yearly for evidence of nuclear weapon development. The IAEA categorically denies making any such report then or any other time.

Jose Bustani, director-general of the U.N. Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, proposed in 2000 to strengthen enforcement of its inspections and, in doing so, force Iraq to submit to chemical weapon inspection. Despite the fact that Bustani had overseen the destruction of more than 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapon facilities, had increased the number of signatories from 87 to 145, had been re-elected to a five-year term in 2000, and Colin Powell had described his work as "very impressive," the United States asked for his recall.

Bustani's plan had been to persuade Iraq to submit to OPCW inspection, both routine and unannounced, as do all member states except the U.S. OPCW was an uncompromised and neutral body; had it been refused, the U.N. would have the moral authority and worldwide support to force compliance. When Brazil, Bustani's sponsor, refused to recall him, the United States withheld funding and, when that didn't work, threatened to withdraw from the convention. U.S. bullying won and Jose Bustani was fired -- but at what cost to both our reputation and the future of international prohibition of chemical weapons?

Little is known by the American people of the close relationship between the U.S. and Iraq before the Gulf War.

We hear so much about Hussein gassing his own people, but nothing about the fact that the U.S. was supplying Iraq with biological material, including anthrax, gas gangrene and botulism, and the satellite intelligence and helicopters that turned the tide of the Iran-Iraq war in favor of Iraq. We continued to do so after Iraq gassed Iranian troops and subsequently Kurdish civilians, whose leaders had joined with the Iranians by rebelling against the Iraqi government. Liaison between Saddam Hussein and the U.S. was by none other than now Secretary of Defense Donald S. Rumsfeld. His then and now close colleagues were Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney, who were fully aware of Iraq's actions and said and did nothing. Cooperation continued until the Gulf War.

The United States is being led into war with many unexamined and unpredictable consequences. Bush is on an adventure that will be far more costly in blood and treasure, with nation building as a prospect not only in Afghanistan where it has scarcely begun, but in Iraq, riven by even more ethnic and religious rivalries. The American people should demand a full and open debate on all these issues before we rush headlong into untold years of strife with enormous economic cost that will impede solutions to the domestic problems facing us.
____________________________________________________

Jim Mullins is a visiting fellow with the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., and a resident of Delray Beach.

Copyright © 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

sun-sentinel.com