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: techguerrilla who wrote (19921)6/4/2003 1:43:35 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
Because We Could

________________________________________

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
June 4, 2003

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states — young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others — and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

nytimes.com



To: techguerrilla who wrote (19921)6/4/2003 1:51:07 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Graham takes on Bush on national security
____________________________

By Muriel Dobbin
Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent
Published June 1, 2003

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Florida Sen. Bob Graham, the last man to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, was the first candidate to challenge President Bush over his honesty as a leader of the war on terrorism.

The ranking Democrat of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Graham has launched a drumbeat of criticism of the president for allegedly stonewalling Americans on the facts of past and present intelligence failures.

Graham is a quiet man who is considered a long shot among Democratic contenders. But he is the only one to stake out an aggressive position on the basis of classified information he obtained as co-chair of a congressional panel investigating the intelligence community's failure to anticipate the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Not only has he complained that the administration has dragged its feet for five months on declassifying the panel's 800-page report, but he has warned that he will take his case later this month to Vice President Dick Cheney, who oversaw the inquiry.

"I was raising my voice about my concern on this long before I became a candidate," said Graham, the only senator running for president who voted against congressional authorization of the war in Iraq, arguing that the terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden should be the top priority for the administration.

"The American people deserve to know what their intelligence agencies have done or not done, and Congress needs to know so that reforms can be made," Graham said in an interview.

Arguing that the president had let homeland security slip because of his obsession with toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Graham charged, "The fact is that there was information known to the administration before 9/11 that was not acted on then and isn't being acted on now. The administration is engaging in a cover-up to protect itself from embarrassing disclosures."

Further criticizing Bush's foreign policy, Graham predicted that the United States would face a "quagmire" in postwar Iraq.

Graham said he had no plans to halt his criticisms of the president.

Denouncing Bush's tax cut legislation as a threat to the nation's economic health, Graham said it was evidence of Bush's failure to preserve the strong economy he inherited. Graham has proposed an economic stimulus plan that would provide paycheck relief in the form of a refundable wage-tax credit, and also would temporarily increase the federal share of Medicaid costs.

At 66, Graham is the oldest Democratic candidate and a grandfather. He is a low-key lawmaker, respected for being willing to work across party lines in the Senate, although his stump speeches are considered less than riveting. When he was Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he reportedly was nicknamed "the tortoise" for asking meandering, six-part questions.

Graham announced his presidential candidacy as he recuperated from heart surgery. He now quips that when campaigning on dairy farms he feels as though he is "visiting my grandmother," because his new heart valve came from a Holstein cow.

"I am not a dark horse. I am a centrist with new ideas, and I have executive experience," said Graham, who has never lost an election since he plunged into politics almost three decades ago.

Yet his current role must be that of a political hard-charger, because he is likely to have an uphill battle to become the Democratic choice for 2004. He was governor of Florida for eight years and is now in his third term as a U.S. senator, yet a recent poll in the Sunshine State showed him running 9 points behind Bush; a survey in New Hampshire, home of the nation's first primary, gave him 2 percent name recognition among voters.

Graham's campaign will feature his trademark "work days" to which he attributed his success in 1978, when he rose from 3 percent in the polls to victory in the Florida gubernatorial race. He spent 100 days as a cop, a mechanic, a trucker, a bellboy, a steelworker, a cook, a waiter, a construction worker and a nursing home attendant. The work days were meant to transform his image from "wonky, wealthy and shy" to outgoing and ebullient.

Gearing up for the presidential primaries, Graham has already spent days working as a teacher in New Hampshire and a busboy in Iowa.

"It gives me a different perspective," he explained.

Graham is considered a political eccentric because of a habit of keeping meticulous notes of his daily activities in small, color-coded spiral notebooks. He records what he eats, the name of everyone he meets and even the numbers of his hotel rooms.

According to Graham, the thousands of notebooks he has filled aren't diaries, but a "logistical record" to keep track of things. He got the idea, he recalled, from his cattleman father, who kept similar notebooks about sick cows and broken fences.

startribune.com