SI
SI
discoversearch

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: coug who wrote (14949)3/19/2003 1:29:28 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
coug: thnx for posting and stopping over on 'this porch'...

Anything goes here and as you can tell we have some bright folks out here...there are a diverse range of viewpoints....at times there's tension and of course there's some humor too.

I agree with you that the mainstream media channels could have asked tougher questions about going to war in Iraq AND they clearly should have featured more 'opposing voices'...IMO, Congress shirked its responsibility last fall when they wrote Bush a blank check to go to war WITHOUT having a robust and effective debate...Its obvious politics and the elections got in the way of doing what's right for the country...IMO, they should have given Bush 'conditional authorization' that would require him to come before Congress regularly and make the case for going to war vs. the UN containment alternatives...War is a serious matter and very few Repbulicans or Democrats asked enough tough questions...A few voices in the wilderness were out there -- like Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, Senator Lugar, Congressman Kucinich, etc...I may not always agree with them BUT I admire some of them for asking the questions and even voting against the war resolution last fall...that resolution should have required the president to COME BACK TO CONGRESS for regular updates and debates during the diplomatic process...He should have gone before Congress early in the new year IF he wanted full authorization for something as radical as 'a pre-emptive war' against a nation that has never attacked us...It's the right thing to do BUT I think the Administration prefers to be secretive and release information on their time table...Of course we're also getting involved with some serious 'nation building'...Is our Homeland Security effective enough as we go in to Iraq later this week and stir up a hornets nest over in The Middle East...? These questions and many others were never explored and debated in an acceptable way....JMHO.

regards,

-s2

btw, I see that Ralph Nader is speaking out today...fyi...

__________________________________________________________

It's Time for the Democatic Leadership to Speak Out

by Ralph Nader
Published on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
commondreams.org

Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20036

March 18, 2003

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle
SH-509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510-4103
Fax: 202-224-6603

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
2371 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-0508
Fax: 202-225-8259

Dear Minority Leader Daschle and Minority Leader Pelosi:

President Bush is on the verge of taking the United States into a costly preemptive war, against an enemy widely viewed as posing no imminent or direct threat to our nation or allies, despite the nonviolent alternative of relying on continued and expanded UN-backed inspections. He seems bent on a war, fraught with short- and long-term global risks, without support from long-time international allies, in violation of international law, and without a Congressional declaration of war required by our Constitution.

Moreover, he does so despite the grave dangers his actions provoke -- not just to the children and people of Iraq, who are sure to suffer thousands and perhaps many more deaths, injuries and toxic sickness -- but to the United States and its international standing in world affairs. These include:

* The heightened risk of terrorism on U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens in foreign countries;

* The risk of serious casualties for our soldiers, including toxic illness as in the first Gulf War and, in Mr. Bush's view, possible exposure to chemical and biological weapons for which official U.S. army audits say they are inadequately trained and ill-equipped;

* A draining of the federal budget to pay the enormous costs of war and occupation, at the expense of existing critical domestic and international programs and the daily health and safety of the American people.

* A diversion away from the struggle against stateless terrorism which has concerned many former national security specialists, including General Anthony Zinni and the first President Bush's National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

Confronted with a President who has made clear for months an intention to drive his manufactured crisis to war with a surrounded, weakened, watched and inspected Iraqi regime, Congressional Democrats have been divided, and the party leadership has declined to criticize the President directly and on the core issue of the dangerous rush to invasion. Mr. Bush, as a consequence, has had a virtually unrebutted propaganda barrage to the public through the mass media before and after the November 2002 elections.

This must be the first unilateral war in American history driven by a covey of chickenhawks in and around the Presidency and opposed by many ex-military, ex-diplomatic, ex-intelligence leaders who are speaking also for muffled dissenters in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

Now, in the remaining days before the outbreak of war, is the time for the Democratic Party's leaders to declare that while you of course support the troops and hope to minimize all dangers they face, that you oppose the President's dangerous, illegal and immoral war-invasion and occupation. The nation will surely rally around the troops once hostilities break out, but this war, its Presidential promoter, and especially its festering aftermath will feed public dismay and disillusionment. The citizenry will want to know not just who criticizes the inevitable problems after they emerge, but who had the foresight and courage to identify the risks in advance and counsel a more prudent path in our country's best interests.

I urge you to meet this challenge. Forcefully and clearly declare your opposition to the President's present war path. Not only is it the right course of action, but history, and this nation's citizens, will judge you kindly for offering a more sensible and peaceful alternative: containment, deterrence, UN inspections and doing what the early 2001 Bush administration once favored -- tightening military sanctions while easing the economic sanctions that have caused untold suffering for the Iraqi people.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader



To: coug who wrote (14949)3/19/2003 1:42:59 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Windbags of War

by Gene Callahan

March 19, 2003

Initiating war is a particularly stupid form of human activity, and the onset of the war that will start tonight at 8 pm is bringing out the dunce in many. I'm not sure if these will alleviate or increase your depression at the thought of war, but here are a few choice ideas circulating right now:

One well-known libertarian sent out an e-mail saying, "As our men go off to war, the time for criticism ends." Well, there you have it. It's one thing to criticize a mugger before he takes your wallet, but, once he's in the act, it would be impolite to continue. And if you had known about the terrorist plot of September 11th, it would have been fine to try and talk the terrorists out of it while they were in the planning stages. But once they had actually hijacked the planes, it would be quite gauche to keep badgering them.

I've read several people asserting that the ease with which the US and its minions will win the war will "shut up" those who worked for peace. The moral principle involved seems to be that no action can be wrong if it is successful. By this criterion, Germany was fully justified in invading Poland in 1939, since it won so quickly. Barroom bullies are vindicated as long as they beat the fellow they picked on with little fuss.

I saw a TV report that one UK official claimed that if not for France's intransigence, war could have been prevented. So, it's not the countries that are advocating war and massing troops around Iraq that are responsible, it's a country resisting the push to war. I suppose that makes sense: Imagine three men who have met a woman alone in a dark alley. Two of them threaten to rape her, but one refuses to cooperate. The two aggressors tell the third man, "It's your fault that we have to rape her. If only we had presented a united front, she would have given up hope and submitted voluntarily."

Also on TV was Bush saying that the US did nothing to provoke Iraq's aggression. Um, what aggression? Does he mean the way Iraq's land has kept blowing up US bombs over the last decade? Or maybe the way Iraqi children have continually tried to embarrass the US by up and starving to death?

_____________________________________________
Gene Callahan, the author of Economics for Real People, is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a contributing columnist to LewRockwell.com.

Copyright © 2003 Gene Callahan

lewrockwell.com



To: coug who wrote (14949)3/20/2003 2:02:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
<<...the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there's more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community...>>

Top White House anti-terror boss resigns
By P. Mitchell Prothero
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 3/19/2003 5:37 PM
View printer-friendly version

WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) -- The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.

Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror.

Beers has served as the NSC's senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.

"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."

A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but confirmed that frustration is widespread in the anti-terror establishment and played a part in Beers' decision.

"Randy said that he was 'just tired' and did not have an interest in adding the stress that would come with a war with Iraq," the source said.

The source said that the concern by the administration about low morale in the intelligence community led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not, the tone of the interview concerned Rice enough that she felt she had to ask the question twice.

"This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers)," said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."

Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries.

"It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired," Bamford said. "That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services."

But some involved in the fight on terror said that it was dangerous to look too far into one resignation -- particularly from an official who has not blamed the war on Iraq.

"I found his resignation shocking," said one official closely involved in the domestic fight on terror. "And it might reflect a certain frustration over the allocation of resources. But I'm not positive that there's a consensus (among intelligence services) that deposing Saddam's regime is a bad idea for fighting terror. I think that there are serious concerns about resources and alienating allies, but some of us see an upside."

But others point out that the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there's more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community.

"If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not (happy)."

Beers joined the NSC in August after heading the State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement branch, where he ran the Plan Colombia program to fight narco-traffickers in that country. Beers served both Bush administrations as well as serving in similar capacities with both the Clinton and Reagan administrations.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

upi.com