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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (37659)	7/26/2004 8:55:46 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Presidents before him recognized that Saddam was essential to maintaining the geopolitical balance and it served US worldwide interest. I regret to inform you that that was not the case. After the first Gulf war, Bush (41) administration officials publicly expressed the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by a rebellion or a coup. That didn't happen, however. During the Clinton administration, the country's anti-Saddam policy was made official national policy by passage of the Iraq Liberation Act: www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm More info on the US policy of Iraqi regime change: INC Leadership Meets VP Al Gore (June 27, 2000) ..... The joint statement issued by Vice President Gore and the INC following the meeting confirmed the shared objective of regime change in Iraq as the only means of freeing Iraqis from their long-endured hardships, promoting democratic institutions and practices, and integrating Iraq into the world community. iraqfoundation.org Published on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 in the New York Times Gore, Championing Bush, Calls for a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq by Adam Nagourney Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein. commondreams.org 02/12/2002 - Updated 09:51 PM ET Gore sides with Bush on 'axis of evil' comment By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY By Shawn Baldwin, AP Former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore put himself solidly behind President Bush on Tuesday in his characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." "There is value in calling evil by its name," Gore said in his first policy address, which he delivered to the Council on Foreign Affairs in New York. Gore compared Bush's phrase to Ronald Reagan's calling the former Soviet Union an "evil empire" and Jimmy Carter's elevation of human rights in foreign policy. "One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States," Gore said. But Gore also said Bush needs to show more respect to America's allies. He said the administration shows "impatience and disdain" toward NATO members. "We cannot bind them to us ... if we take them lightly," he said. Bush's State of the Union address last month created controversy at home and abroad, including a backlash in Iran against Americans at a time relations between the two nations had been improving. Some Democrats, notably Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, have questioned the "axis of evil" phrase. Daschle said Tuesday that Bush's wording "conjures up the notion that we have a single-minded, unilateral policy affecting all three countries identically, and I don't think that's the case." Gore stood with Bush on the need for "a final reckoning" with the government of Iraq, which he called "a virulent threat in a class by itself." Most Democrats, with the exception of Gore's running mate, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, have been circumspect about expanding the war to Iraq ..... usatoday.com TESTIMONY OF PATRICK CLAWSON DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY BEFORE THE NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE "U.S. POLICY TOWARDS IRAQ" JUNE 23, 1999 ..... MR. CLAWSON: Thank you very much. After Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, the Clinton administration decided a regime change was a necessary goal rather than just a desirable aim. By publicly identifying regime change as a policy objective, the United States has put its prestige on the line. From now on, the world will use a simple test to judge the success or failure of U.S. policy towards Iraq. Namely, is Saddam still in power? Therefore, the policy of promoting regime change is not one that should be done halfway. Success in this policy will depend upon the vigor with which the policy is pursued. Regime change is a realistic change if and only if Washington puts itself behind this effort. It is not realistic if Washington sits back to await others making it happen. The U.S. government should therefore devote vigorous efforts to regime change rather than presenting regime change as a long-term aim, with the implication that in the short term, little will be done to promote it. ..... washingtoninstitute.org