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: Mannie who wrote (14191)	3/9/2003 1:12:22 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush's Wake-Up Call Was a Snooze Alarm By Tom Shales Columnist The Washington Post Friday, March 7, 2003 George W. Bush kept seeming to lose interest in his own remarks last night as the president did that rarest of rare things -- for him -- and held a prime-time news conference. Televised live on all the major networks from the East Room of the White House, the occasion found Bush declaring this to be "an important moment" for America and the world, yet he spoke with little urgency and no perceptible passion. Have ever a people been led more listlessly into war? It's tempting to speculate how history would have changed if Winston Churchill or FDR had been as lethargic as Bush about rallying their nations in an hour of crisis. There were times when it appeared his train of thought had jumped the tracks. Occasionally he would stare blankly into space during lengthy pauses between statements -- pauses that once or twice threatened to be endless. There were times when it seemed every sentence Bush spoke was of the same duration and delivered in the same dour monotone, giving his comments a numbing, soporific aura. Watching him was like counting sheep. Network commentators by and large tippy-toed around the subject of Bush's curiously subdued performance. But at least Terry Moran of ABC News dared to say that the White House press corps had definitely seen Bush "sharper" than he was last night. Tactfully and gingerly, Moran said Bush seemed to be "trying to keep his mannerisms as cool as possible" as he fielded questions and spoke of ultimatums. The lethargy was contagious; correspondents were almost as logy as Bush was. Nobody even bothered to ask a question about Osama bin Laden, whose capture was rumored to be imminent yesterday and is still in the public mind a more reprehensible monster than Saddam Hussein. Bush popped the balloon that bin Laden had been found when he failed to make a dramatic opening statement, instead reiterating for the umpteenth time some of his many charges against Hussein, whose token efforts at disarmament amounted to "a willful charade," Bush said. In one of his more effective moments, Bush said that the tragedy of 9/11 showed what terrorists can do with only four airplanes and so we should imagine what Saddam Hussein could do with his notorious weapons of mass destruction. But there were few effective moments. At times during the hour, Bush almost appeared to be backing off the previously immutable notion that Hussein's intransigence makes war virtually inevitable. "We don't have to go to war," he said at one point. "I'm hopeful that he does disarm," Bush said of Hussein. "It may require force" to get him to do it, but "I hope it can be done peacefully," he said in separate remarks. While at another point he seemed to say, contrary to previous statements, that he was "optimistic" about "diplomacy" doing the job so that U.S. troops won't have to, he also said, with respect to disarming Hussein: "Diplomacy hasn't worked. We've tried diplomacy for 12 years." He also said the "use of force" remains "my last choice" as a means to disarm the Iraqi leader. "I recognize there are people who don't like war. I don't like war," Bush said. But as in the past, he referred to Hussein at various points as a cancer, a murderer, a master of deception and just generally an inhuman fiend who must be destroyed or exiled. The statements did not come across as particularly cogent or consistent. Then again, perhaps Bush was just offering a summary of everything that's been said on the issue over the past few months. The contrast between the foggy Bush of last night and the gung-ho Bush who delivered a persuasive State of the Union message to Congress not so long ago was considerable. Maybe Bush thought he was, indeed, coming across as cool and temperate instead of bored and enervated, and this was simply a rhetorical miscalculation. On the other hand, it hardly seems out of order to speculate that, given the particularly heavy burden of being president in this new age of terrorism -- a time in which America has, as Bush said, become a "battlefield" -- the president may have been ever so slightly medicated. He would hardly be the first president ever to take a pill. There were brief interludes during the news conference -- especially the long languid pauses -- when some viewers might have flashed back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. That is, the Nixon Years at their most tumultuous and Twilight Zoney, when the old Trickster would come on TV and you'd sit there not just fascinated but a trifle terrified of what he might say, who he'd accuse of persecuting him, and whether he might come completely unglued or just melt into a hideous puddle right before your horrified eyes. Obviously Bush was not likely to inspire anything approaching that kind of fear last night, even in the most paranoid of viewers. But by his tone and his demeanor, he certainly didn't inspire a great burst of hopeful confidence, either. It was as if he didn't quite realize he was on national television and being watched closely by millions of people who were hanging on his every word and on his every expression and gesture, too. And that we might be a nation at war in a matter of days. Or . . . might we? © 2003 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: Mannie who wrote (14191)	3/9/2003 5:17:58 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

France Wants Bush at 'Life or Death' Iraq Vote Sat Mar 8,12:39 PM ET By Sophie Louet PARIS (Reuters) - France on Saturday reinforced its call for President Bush (news - web sites) to attend next week's United Nations (news - web sites) vote on war against Iraq (news - web sites), insisting leaders take personal responsibility for a "life or death" decision. The move came as Paris said it was sending Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin on a whistle-stop tour of three African states from Sunday to urge them to reject a U.S.-backed draft resolution setting a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm. "When you decree life or death, it should be done at the highest level of responsibility," a source close to President Jacques Chirac said of a vote on a new resolution expected next Tuesday or soon after. "Given the importance of the decision, it seems legitimate that it is taken by heads of state and government," the Elysee Palace source said. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said he did not see a need for Bush to attend, after Villepin floated the idea on Friday. But French officials insisted the proposal was not aimed at isolating Bush and argued he stood to gain from attending the session, which with the presence of world leaders would effectively turn into a mini-summit on Iraq. "This is in a spirit of conciliation rather than aggression. It's probably in his interest to accept; he won't necessarily feel isolated," one said, adding that France was already discussing the idea with other Security Council members. Villepin declared France's opposition to any disarmament deadline on Friday, noting that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix had said in his latest report that Iraq was offering greater cooperation. NO MAJORITY BAD FOR BLAIR The French officials said Paris was confident a majority of the 15-member Security Council was currently opposed to a U.S.-British-Spanish text revised to include the March 17 deadline, but could not rule out shifts in position. While Bush has insisted he does not need U.N. approval, failure to get a majority in the Council behind the proposed deadline could strengthen anti-war movements around the world. It could also weaken British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), a key Washington ally whose government has sought international legitimacy for the use of force. A French foreign ministry spokeswoman said Villepin would plead the case against war during a quick tour of U.N. Security Council members Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, starting on Sunday. The three countries have yet to take sides on the planned resolution, which must secure at least nine votes and avoid a veto from any of the five permanent members, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. The spokeswoman said Villepin was due to leave Paris late on Sunday for Angola before going on to Cameroon and finally current Security Council president Guinea. He will return to France on Tuesday. story.news.yahoo.com