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: Crimson Ghost who wrote (13860)	3/3/2003 4:55:48 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Manipulation of the Public Builds Along With War Clouds by Matthew Rothschild Published on Monday, March 3, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times As George W. Bush prepares to plunge the nation into war against Iraq, he is using rhetoric in a highly manipulative way. Though that may not be unusual for a wartime president, we as citizens should recognize when he is leading us around by the nose. More than 30 times in the last seven months, Bush has used variations on a theme to describe the U.S. as vulnerable. For example, speaking to a conference of religious broadcasters in Nashville on Feb. 10, he said that before 9/11, "we thought oceans would protect us forever." The same day, at an informal press conference, Bush said: "The world changed on Sept. 11.... In our country, it used to be that oceans could protect us -- at least we thought so." Meeting with small-business owners in Georgia on Feb. 20, he invoked the oceans again. But since Pearl Harbor, the oceans have not served as a buffer. And the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union kept the U.S. in a bull's-eye for 40 years, notwithstanding our vaunted seas. Why does Bush insist on such rhetoric? "This notion of unprecedented vulnerability is absolutely crucial to the Bush team's anti-constitutional program," says Mark Crispin Miller, author of "The Bush Dyslexicon." "What that statement really means is, 'We were safe, now we're in danger, and the danger is so severe that you must give me all possible power. What the oceans once did, now only I can do.' " In another example, Bush called Iraq a "mounting threat" in his State of the Union speech. In Georgia, he called it a "growing danger." On Wednesday, he called it a "direct and growing threat." How can Iraq be a "mounting" or "growing" threat when British and American planes have intensified their bombing raids on Iraqi military facilities, when U.N. inspectors are now going anywhere they want anytime they want, and when U.S. spy satellites can survey every inch of Iraqi territory? One final example: Twice in his State of the Union speech and again Wednesday, Bush used the words, "if war is forced upon us." No one is forcing war on the U.S. or on the administration. Quite the contrary: Bush has been forcing the war issue for months now. For him to claim otherwise is to shirk responsibility for the grave consequences his war may have. Matthew Rothschild is editor of the Progressive magazine. Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times commondreams.org

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (13860)	3/3/2003 5:57:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Albright: Bush Should Hold Off on Iraq AP World News 03/03/2003 16:18:23 EST Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urged President Bush on Monday to wait longer before attacking Iraq, saying current pressure was forcing Baghdad to disarm. Albright, who addressed a conference on increasing the number of women in politics, said the buildup of military force in the Middle East has led to new inspections and Iraq's decision to dismantle its outlawed Al Samoud 2 missiles. "We are actually accomplishing something," said Albright, secretary of state under President Clinton. "The president should take credit for the fact they are disarming." As an alternative to war, she suggested more intrusive inspections and even the threat to destroy suspected weapons facilities that the government refuses to open to U.N. personnel, the way U.S. and British pilots attack missile sites in the Iraqi no-fly zones. "The momentum seems to be moving in the direction of war," Albright said. "We might get the war over, but we night not get the postwar over." She said there has been increased anti-American feelings overseas in response to Bush's Iraq policy. "There must be some way to do what we wanted without alienating everybody," she said. Albright said her concern about going to war does not mean any support for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "I think Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator," she said. "There's nothing to defend about him. I pity the Iraqi people."