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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (51999)	10/14/2002 1:14:44 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sorry, sir, but we're still not persuaded By HELEN THOMAS Syndicated Columnist Oct. 11, 2002, 5:48PM Try as he might at every forum, President Bush still has not made a case for his claim that there is an urgent need for war against Iraq. His frenzied effort to whip up public support and retain the likely backing of Congress verges on the hysterical. Every time he speaks of the tyrannical Saddam Hussein, he depicts the Iraqi leader as more diabolical, more monstrous. That makes it all the harder to take Bush seriously when we recall that Republican leaders themselves once willingly did business with the so-called Butcher of Baghdad. Is Bush afraid that Americans may question the reason for an attack now after 11 years in which Iraq has been contained, locked down with total surveillance from the air and hobbled by economic sanctions and bombings in its no-fly zones? Many wonder what is driving Bush so headlong into war that he is pushing other issues -- the dismal economy, the stock market meltdown, corporate greed and skyrocketing health care costs -- off the table. Does he really believe that Saddam Hussein, whom he now calls "a student of Stalin," is going to launch a war with the United States, a military colossus? Get real, Mr. President. We already have thousands of American troops along with fighter jets, missiles, tanks and gun ships stationed in the Persian Gulf, and four carriers are en route. So what is this straining-at-the-leash all about? Speculation is that Bush is driven by many motives. One is his desire for Republicans to win next month's elections. Another is his determination to get revenge against "the guy who tried to kill my father." A third is said to be his secret goal of American control over the vast Iraqi oil reserves and, indeed, the whole Persian Gulf region. He also may be trying to test and make permanent his questionable doctrine of pre-emptive war, which allows the United States to attack any nation and depose any leader without immediate threat or provocation. I ask you, is this policy really consistent with our tradition of morality? For the past year we in the White House press room had been told the administration could not establish a positive direct link between al-Qaida and Iraq or between the anthrax attacks and Iraq. But in his speech Monday night in Cincinnati Bush said Iraq had trained members of the terrorist group in "bomb-making, poisons and deadly gases." Bush failed to mention that in the mid-to-late-1980s when his father was vice president in the Ronald Reagan administration, the United States allowed the Iraqis to buy from American suppliers equipment and other materials, including disease-producing bacteria that could be used to make such biological weapons as anthrax. Even though Bush is now playing up the alleged tie between Iraq and al-Qaida and Americans are gung-ho to pursue the terror network, the public is ambivalent about going to war without strong allied support and without giving U.N. weapons inspectors a chance to examine Iraq's arsenal. This Congress obviously has no institutional memory of the Vietnam War. Have we really recovered from that historic debacle? The free hand Congress would give the president is painfully reminiscent of the arbitrary power Congress bestowed on President Lyndon Johnson in August 1964 to step up the catastrophic war in Southeast Asia. The lawmakers lived to regret it, and the anguish over the war tore our country apart. To most Americans, the war was a monumental mistake. I remember all too well Johnson's news conferences, held as he and we reporters walked briskly around the South Lawn of the White House. He would pull a tattered paper out of his pocket and show us how all but two senators voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution five days after dubious reports of attacks on two American battleships by two North Vietnamese boats. That resolution allowed Johnson as commander-in-chief "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." In the current debate on the Iraq resolution Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he would vote against giving Bush a "blank check," which he denounced as taking away from Congress its constitutional prerogative to declare war. Except for Byrd, there are few other dissenters in Congress and around the country. One, however, has been that of the Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, D.C. He grants that Iraq must be condemned for its previous "immoral and inhuman" military campaigns. But Chane urges Congress and the president "to resolve the crisis with Iraq using all non-violent means." He quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th century French historian known for his classic study of the United States, who eloquently said, "America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great." That is a prophecy worth pondering. ____________________________________________________ Thomas is a Washington, D.C.-based columnist for the Hearst Newspapers. helent@hearstdc.com chron.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (51999)	10/14/2002 2:36:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Cheney Blocks 9/11 Probe... Cheney: 'Investigators, Keep Out' by Michael Isikoff and Tamara Lipper NEWSWEEK Issue; 21 October, 2002 The vice president blocks an independent commission to investigate 9-11 NEWSWEEK -- Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Last month the White House endorsed the formation of the panel. But on Thursday, hours after congressional negotiators hailed a final deal over the scope and powers of a 9-11 panel, Cheney called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Porter Goss, sources told NEWSWEEK. Later that day Goss told a closed-door conference committee he couldn't accept the deal, citing instructions from "above my pay grade,'' sources say. Goss later said he was referring to other House leaders, not Cheney. Goss wouldn't discuss his call from the VP but said it wasn't the "determining factor'' in his stand. Cheney's office said the VP's only instruction to Goss was to "keep negotiating,'' and Bushies insist they still hope to hammer out a new deal before Congress goes home this week. One obstacle: subpoena power. Last week's proposed deal would allow any five members of the 10-member panel to subpoena documents, including internal White House intelligence briefs. But White House officials say this would allow congressional Democrats--who will control half the appointees--to "politicize'' the commission. Cheney strongly opposes the idea of any independent body's poking into the White House's conduct. He has repeatedly objected to efforts by a separate joint-intelligence-committee inquiry to obtain documents and interview key witnesses, including an FBI informant who lived with two of the 9-11 hijackers. Bush officials insist the VP's stand is based on "principle,'' not fear of embarrassments. Even some congressional critics tend to agree. "There's just this general philosophical orientation that the less the world knows, the better,'' says one GOP staffer. truthout.org