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 (70821)	2/1/2003 1:04:44 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

<<...No Exit Strategy? by William Niskanen...>> John: The NeoCons have hijacked our government and one of Reagan's top advisors sees the handwriting on the wall. It's embarassing that Bush has let the hardline War Hawks have SO MUCH influence...When the Chairman of the highly regarded (AND CONSERVATIVE) Cato Institute speaks up, then we should pay attention.

To: JohnM who wrote (70821)	2/1/2003 4:43:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush blew a chance to make a case By Helen Thomas Syndicated Columnist Hearst Newspapers First published: Friday, January 31, 2003 President Bush is so right. Saddam Hussein is a bad man, a tyrant. With a wink from us, he went to war with Iran in 1980 and invaded Kuwait in 1990. He has defied the United Nations. And he has been ruthless toward the Iraqi people. Bush made those points in the State of the Union address, but he still didn't explain why the United States should attack Iraq. I could name a host of national leaders in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe who also are bad men. But Bush isn't hell-bent on deposing them. The fact is, the President blew it Tuesday night. With the world watching, he passed up a chance to make a convincing case for why the United States should attack Iraq. Instead, he focused on Saddam's evil ways and the U.S. claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is concealing them from the "so-called" U.N. inspectors, as Bush's top aides derisively tag them. The President reached too far, however, when he said Iraq was "a serious and mounting threat to our country." Without proof, that's a stretch, to say the least. Bush can demonize Saddam all he wants, but that is not enough to justify killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis to get one man. Instead of making his case, Bush did a great job of using his State of the Union speech to tout yet another speech, Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation next week to the U.N. Security Council. For now, it's more of Bush's "get ready to get ready" approach. The President said Powell would present the facts to the U.N. on Wednesday. That will be a refreshing change after all the vituperative rhetoric that the administration has dished out for months. Powell's presentation will allow us to judge whether Bush's crusade to get Saddam is worth our lives and treasure. Meanwhile, Bush should memorize a sentence from the State of the Union speech and try to live by it. I refer to his blast that Saddam was a leader who "has shown his utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world." Gosh, that description could fit someone else I know. Right now, the opinion of the world ranges from skepticism about Bush's motives to outright opposition to any U.S.-led military adventure. On the question of "utter contempt for the United Nations," the President and other administration officials have indicated the United States would attack Iraq even without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Bush hinted at that go-it-alone philosophy when he said "we will consult" with the U.N. "but let there be no misunderstanding ... we will lead a coalition to disarm him." At another point, he said his course of action won't depend on the decisions of others and that he would do whatever he thinks is necessary. In other words, he hopes the U.N. approves of his military operation but, even if it doesn't, he's going to do what he wants to do anyway. Meantime, the President's real goals for the second Gulf war are mystifying. Does he covet the Iraqi oilfields? Is he trying to avenge Saddam's attempt to assassinate his father? Is his Iraq campaign an effort to bolster his political standing by trying to continue the post-Sept. 11 surge in American patriotism? The contradictions in his foreign policy are rife. Bush sees no reason to defend to a skeptical public and world the illogic of his approach. Iraq -- where U.N. inspectors said they have no evidence of nuclear weapons -- somehow poses "an even greater threat" to us than North Korean and Iran, which actually are developing nuclear weapons. Flimsy as it is, Bush explains: "Different threats require different strategies." Iraq has been on Bush's radar screen since he came into office. He seems to have a messianic mission to destroy the Iraqi regime. So now all eyes shift to Colin Powell, who persuaded Bush to go to the United Nations in the first place. Powell will be like the prosecutor making final arguments before the jury, making his arguments and pointing to his evidence, which we will be seeing for the first time. Bush appears ready to attack, whether or not the verdict is in his favor. timesunion.com