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: BigBull who wrote (49707)	10/6/2002 10:44:47 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe chimes in. He usually has the moderate Dem position staked out. A sensible consensus emerging on Iraq By Thomas Oliphant, 10/6/2002 WASHINGTON BEING A STANDUP guy as well as an experienced political leader, House minority leader Dick Gephardt had the good sense last Tuesday to tell Senate majority leader Tom Daschle he was on his way to the White House to deal with President Bush on Iraq. Having served in the House himself, Daschle could understand why it made sense for Gephardt to go and why a negotiated authorization for the use of military force was almost certainly in the offing. Gephardt could understand why his mission was likely to complicate life for his pal in the Senate, even though it's possible Daschle and Gephardt could end up on the same policy page before this pivotal week has ended. The two Democrats, moreover, could also take a small measure of satisfaction in having nudged President Bush several degrees from the truculent stance he had staked out just two months ago. And from the Oval Office's unique perspective, it really did make sense to accept the proposition that expanding support is wiser than limiting it. With anxieties and emotions running high, it is easier these days for some to scream ''sellout'' at Gephardt, ''appeaser'' at Daschle, ''warmonger'' at the president, and for some White House officials to play electoral politics with national security. But all the shouting, amplified by the bias in the press for heat over light, obscures a more important emerging consensus that the status quo in Iraq is no longer acceptable and must be ended soon. A decade after the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War, there have to be a few rules in a turbulent world. One has to be that Iraq cannot flout the terms of its de facto surrender. And more than a year after the terrorist attacks on the United States, it is even less tolerable for Iraq to flout those terms because some of the most dangerous weapons known to mankind are involved. The world, through the UN Security Council, needs to insist anew on disarmament and to be prepared to use force if Iraq refuses; and the United States should be prepared to lead its own, smaller coalition if the UN cannot respond. That proposition would unite Edward Kennedy and George Bush, as well as France and the United States. Most of the argument stems from disagreements about the sequencing of possible events, not the underlying assumption that Iraq's position is unacceptable. Most of the rest of the argument is between those who believe there is enough time to give diplomacy and pressure more of a chance to produce disarmament and those who do not believe Saddam Hussein will ever accept disarmament. Since the summer, those who had legitimate questions, concerns, and criticisms of the Bush administration's initial stance have effected several changes. Bush no longer argues that existing UN resolutions provide enough authority for force or that Congress's voice and votes are unnecessary; he no longer seeks authority to use force anywhere in the region or without reference to the UN; and he has moderated his tone after too many divisive statements at too many Republican fund-raisers. Gephardt did what he did in part because of the way his House operates. He knew that Bush could have tinkered less with his original proposal and still won a clear majority and that the debate rules would have permitted but one alternative that would have stood no chance. But Gephardt also knew Bush wanted an overwhelming majority in the House and was willing to negotiate changes to get one. The Senate is different, because more than one alternative is likely under looser rules. One of them, from chairman Carl Levin of the Armed Service Committee, will only authorize a UN approach, force included, but will keep Congress technically in session to quickly authorize unilateral action in a second resolution if that proves necessary. The other, more nuanced, is from chairman Joe Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee and senior Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana. It would, in one action, authorize both UN and unilateral action in sequence, but it would target the purpose directly at Iraq's illegal weaponry and delivery systems. Everybody says the deal that Gephardt cut will prevail in the Senate as well. Perhaps so, but that will not end the obligation on all sides to continue asking tough questions about evidence, allies, timing, war plans, and postwar reconstruction. And it will not end the administration's obligation to provide much better answers and to keep negotiating. This is messy, but people of good will are considerably closer to consensus than shouters on all sides are willing to acknowledge. boston.com