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: unclewest who wrote (147037)	10/5/2004 12:56:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Kerry Can Win the Allies Bush Lost ________________________________________ By Scott Galindez t r u t h o u t \| Perspective Tuesday 05 October 2004 truthout.org From day one in office, the Bush Administration has alienated many allies. Not ratifying the Kyoto treaty, walking away from the ABM Treaty, and not joining the International Criminal Court are just a few examples. To get support from Congress for the Iraq war resolution, the Administration promised to go to the UN and seek a diplomatic solution. The problem is they never took the process seriously - instead choosing to go through the motions without respecting the process, or the opinions of most of the Security Council. Iraq was given 30 days to report to the Security Council, disclosing their WMD programs. They turned over thousands of documents and declared that they had no WMD. The Bush Administration immediately declared that Iraq was lying and in violation of UN Resolutions. They now admit that Iraq probably didn't have any WMD, so Iraq probably was in compliance. UN weapons inspectors requested more time, and many countries on the council agreed that another resolution and more time was warranted. Instead, the U.S. and Great Britain decided to ignore their traditional allies and launch an illegal war on Iraq. The biggest mistake was yet to come. After Saddam fell, it was announced that the spoils of the war would go to those countries who had participated in the war. France, Germany, Russia and others need not apply for reconstruction contracts. Then, as the situation worsened, the Administration went begging for help from NATO and other allies that they had ignored a few months earlier. It is no surprise that these countries are not assisting in Iraq. Why should they assist an Administration that showed no respect for them? John Kerry can go to the UN and NATO with a clean slate and win the support that George Bush has lost. After 9/11 the World was united behind the "War on Terror." The Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq squandered that unity. Only a fresh start with a new President can improve our relations with world community. John Kerry's campaign is sending signals to the diplomatic community that he is prepared to unite the world again, and not choose to divide countries into divisive coalitions like Bush's "coalition of the willing." If Kerry makes the following gestures, he can win more support in Iraq from countries Bush has alienated: Ratify the Kyoto Protocol Join the International Criminal Court Honor the ABM Treaty Honor the Geneva Convention Open up a fair bidding process for reconstruction contracts to all countries Allow the United Nations to manage the reconstruction. The above gestures, coupled with an International Conference, can provide the framework for a solution to the mess that George Bush has created but cannot clean up. George Bush cannot get our troops out of Iraq. John Kerry can. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Galindez is the Managing Editor of truthout.org.

To: unclewest who wrote (147037)	10/5/2004 1:24:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Buck Stops in the Voting Booth _____________________ by Robert Scheer Published on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times It is difficult for members of the U.S. Senate, where even the best are uncommonly proud, to admit that they are not always in the know. Perhaps that explains why Sen. John Kerry did not object in the first presidential debate when George W. Bush twice claimed that the two men had "looked at the same intelligence" on Iraq before the war when, in fact, they hadn't. The reality is that the Bush White House deceived Kerry and the rest of Congress by exaggerating and distorting intelligence and by systematically repressing analysis that contradicted its claim that Iraq posed a clear and imminent danger to the American people — especially regarding its most alarming conclusion, that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program. The Iraqi nukes snow job, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and the president himself, was alarmingly effective because it conflated highly technical jargon and teasing hints at classified information with the most fearsome image in the modern psyche: the mushroom cloud. "We do know that there have been shipments … into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited … for nuclear weapons programs," Rice said on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. Three days later, Bush said basically the same thing to the U.N. General Assembly. Now a detailed investigative article in Sunday's New York Times clarifies and reinforces earlier reports that the administration knew this evidence was being aggressively debunked by the country's leading experts but the White House kept that criticism from Congress and the public by invoking national security. The administration knew the facts, even as it was energetically leaking a raft of intelligence flotsam that buttressed its propaganda that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the world. It is crucial to remember that the tale of the tubes was once the foundation of the "irrefutable evidence" Cheney cited when asserting that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding a nuclear weapons program dismantled by a decade of war, inspections and sanctions. He knew that the possibility of Hussein having nukes was the key to elevating Iraq from being a mere irritant to the United States to an actual threat, and this explains why the administration was willing to put so much public faith in such astonishingly weak intelligence. For her part, Rice admitted Sunday on ABC-TV's "This Week" that, before making her now-infamous remark in 2002 that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," she knew there was a debate about the tubes between the CIA and experts at the Energy Department. However, she admitted, "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute." And when then-CIA chief George Tenet was successfully pressured in the fall of 2002 by a nervous White House to buck up congressional support for an Iraq invasion by creating an unclassified summary of intelligence on the Iraq threat, the agency flat-out lied: "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program." In hindsight, as the New York Times makes clear, the opposite was true. The Energy Department experts who formed what the Times refers to as "unambiguously the A-Team of the intelligence community" on matters of nuclear centrifuges took a close look at the frightening claims first made by an aggressive junior CIA agent and declared them "unlikely," noting that "a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes." That is exactly what the international inspectors found when they returned to Iraq before a war-hungry Bush pulled the plug on their nearly completed mission. "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," stated the International Atomic Energy Agency on March 7, 2003, just weeks before the U.S. and Britain bypassed the U.N. and invaded Iraq. Yet, rather than admit that he bent the facts to fit the narrative of fear he was pressing on the American people, the president now blames the CIA, his predecessor, his opponents — anybody but himself and his national security team. He carps constantly that, because others were duped, he shouldn't be blamed. If the buck does not stop with the commander in chief, where does it stop? With the American voters on Nov. 2. © Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times commondreams.org