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: Rascal who wrote (108302)	7/27/2003 9:11:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

War's cool projections turn to summer of discontent _______________________ Letters to the editor The Seattle Times Sunday, July 27, 2003 War's cool projections turn to summer of discontent Editor, The Times: It seems that the same government officials currently warning that our military personnel in Iraq will not be coming home anytime soon are the same individuals who were pressing for an invasion in early spring so we could beat the hot weather and be back home before summer ("Wolfowitz: U.S. has done 'stupid things,' " Times, News, July 24). This seems to indicate that at least some in this administration actually believed that this would be a quick, tidy mission, which does not jibe with the long-term scenario being discussed at present. This leads to the persistent question for the Bush White House team: Which version is the truth? The one that sounds good, or the one offered after the "real" truth finds its way into the light? Hot enough for you yet, Mr. Bush? Ron Dickson, Seattle __________________ Another such victory, and he is defeated The Times opines "President Bush must assure Americans that intelligence was not skewed to sell the war on Iraq" ("Tailoring intelligence to fit the Iraq war," editorial, July 17). Spare me! Is there a reasonably intelligent American following this story from the beginning who can be expected to believe the intelligence was not skewed? We don't know whether President Bush was knowingly lying when he made those comments and speeches leading up to the invasion. We do know his advisers and staff massaged, manipulated and concocted intelligence to make his case. The president can't escape blame for that! The conundrum for us, the people, to sort out is whether he's lying now when he says, "the war was based on trustworthy intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind" ("U.S. got uranium papers months before Bush talk," page one, July 18). Does he still believe this? If he is a rational person, I doubt it — and there lies the tragedy for our nation. Thorough congressional investigation is needed now. Defeat in the next election should follow. Dave Olson, North Bend _________________________ Carried out on his shield It is now becoming increasingly clear that President Bush has lied to the American people in order to justify the war with Iraq. Why do the Republicans in this state still support him? As a Republican myself, his behavior sickens me. I believed him when he presented his case for war in his State of the Union address. But everything he said was a lie. He has betrayed our trust and must be impeached and removed from office immediately. Jeremy Jones, Seattle ________________________ Dispatch to the rear Both President Bush and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice have a cute defense (as of July 18) for their major Iraqi weapons of mass destruction perception blunder. Their clever dodge of responsibility is to claim that they never actually read the entire 90-page weapons of mass destruction intelligence assessment on Iraq. See, this document pointed out in the appendix that the evidence to support certain conclusions about Iraq having WMDs were dubious at best (" 'Most' agencies saw Iraq nuke risk," page one, July 19). For Bush and Rice to have launched a pre-emptive war, one where our own soldiers and innocents would die, you would expect that these two would have mustered up enough attention span to have read the entire document on the key central issue for going to war. But they didn't. This is just amazing. J. Scott Taylor, Everett __________________________ Aide-de-camouflage It's time for another game of Pin the Blame on the Lackey! The Bush administration, dizzy with an emerging scandal, now tells us that it was actually a national security aide who was responsible for "those 16 words." But if it's the aide's fault, you have to wonder whether anyone in the Bush administration actually bothered to study the issues for themselves. Dominic Canterbury, Seattle __________________________ Silent falls the sword There is one thing of which I am absolutely certain. If George Bush had been a Democratic president, the Republicans would have instigated and be holding congressional hearings even as I write this, and impeachment would be right around the corner. Susan Wallace, Bellevue Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: Rascal who wrote (108302)	7/27/2003 10:23:53 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

A Time for Questions ____________________________ by David Krieger Published on Friday, July 25, 2003 by CommonDreams.org These are times in which there are many more questions than answers, and many Americans are beginning to form and articulate these questions. Some of the questions on my mind are the following: 1. If the president gives false information to the American people about the reasons for going to war, should he be held to account? 2. If the United Nations Security Council does not authorize a preemptive war, can any country proceed to war or is this the sole prerogative of the US government? 3. If a country proceeds to war without UN authorization, is this “aggressive warfare,” the type of warfare for which German and Japanese leaders were punished after World War II? 4. When the North Korean government repeatedly states that the nuclear crisis can be defused if the US will negotiate a mutual security pact with them, why is the current US administration dragging its feet in proceeding to enter into negotiations? 5. Does the United States have a responsibility to participate with UN forces in restoring security to civilians in civil wars, such as that in Liberia? 6. Should American troops stationed in Iraq have the right to complain about the policies of civilian leaders responsible for our policy there? 7. With half its combat forces in Iraq, is the US military stretched so thin that it cannot adequately protect Americans at home or participate in needed UN peacekeeping operations abroad? 8. With the war in Iraq costing American taxpayers nearly $4 billion per month and the US deficit expected to exceed $400 billion this year, was it wise to pass large tax cuts for the richest Americans? 9. Is the desire to control Iraq’s oil the reason that the US hasn’t asked the United Nations for help in providing peacekeeping in Iraq? 10. What is the relationship of companies such as Halliburton, Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, which are profiting from the war in Iraq, to members of the current US administration? 11. Are Americans safer to travel throughout the world after the Iraq War? 12. Has the credibility of the United States throughout the world increased or decreased in the aftermath of the Iraq War? 13. What is the current status of respect for the United States throughout the world? 14. Why has the current US administration been hostile to the creation of an International Criminal Court to hold individual leaders accountable for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity? 15. Is war an effective way to make peace? It is time to start demanding answers from our government to these questions and many more, and their answers should not be given only in secrecy behind closed doors. Questions about war and peace are far too important to be left only to politicians and generals without the voice of the people. It is time for an ongoing public dialogue that includes answers to questions from the public. If democracy is to have meaning, the people have a right to know and they deserve to have their questions answered. _______________________________________________ David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-author of 'Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age'. ### commondreams.org

To: Rascal who wrote (108302)	7/27/2003 2:04:31 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

The local war cheerleaders seem to have fallen all over themselves in their usual self-congratulatory fashion over Wolfowitz's little "mistakes were made" speech. They don't seem much interested in understanding how those mistakes came to be made, though. Not that it's particular hard to understand. I'd say the admitted mistakes were pretty much in line with what war skeptics of the Brent Scrowcroft "realist" school expected, both here and more globally. Somehow, I doubt that will make much difference in W's foreign policy balance-of-power wrt the DoD civilian hotheads & associated PNAC people versus everyone else. Unless the political cost gets too high, in which case Karl Rove may have to step in. There's some hope there, anyway, ironic though it may be.