Tuesday, September 24, 2002

The following is from an email discussion I am having.

Saudi Arabia does not have nuclear weapons. I think that they
consider us their shield and do not think they need them.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/saudi.htm

The Pax Americana doctrine of unilateral action, preemptive strikes,
and a strong military stationed around the world was developed by
conservative Republicans before Bush took office. I have a number of
links to this on my weblog. The official Bush policy is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html

I feel Byrd and Gore are right. I thought the Gore speech was so good
I taped it off CSPAN. We are not objecting to taking out Saddam.
Far from it, everyone wants him gone. We object to the method because
it is dangerous to the rule of law, is not bipartisan, is
unilateralist, and until one statement by Rice recently, gave no
thought to what happens afterward. Democrats are stuck because, with
the war rhetoric heating up, they can't object to the methods without
being viewed as soft on terrorists.

On Byrd: Yes, Bush's timing of Iraq war rhetoric and suddenly forcing
the UN and the Senate to take action was political. The highly
organized Republican Party advises candidates to make an issue of the
war. Democrats have never been organized. "I belong to no organized
political party, I'm a Democrat" - Will Rogers.
http://www.wvgazette.com/display_story.php3?sid=200209213

On Buchanan: I agree - except for the attack on Clinton supposedly
trying to distract people with strikes on Iraq. Saddam was a threat
then but Republicans objected to even cruise missile attacks.
Democrats get blamed for not eliminating this threat earlier when
there was no support for even weak action.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/buchanan091802.htm

There was some speculation about Iraq involvement in the 1994 World Trade Center
bombing but no evidence was ever presented and it was never
investigated. Iraq even jailed one person believed to be responsible.

I do not object to sending 100,000+ troops into Iraq after a rapid
bombing campaign that is a magnitude beyond anything ever done. I
object that we are doing it in a partisan, sudden and reckless manner.

I further object to an official doctrine that says 1) the President
can launch preemptive strikes against possible future threats and 2)
we will prevent any other country or bloc from having anything
approaching our power. Actually, I wonder if 2 is so objectionable
even if this will be deeply resented.

The reason our allies are not behind the US action against Iraq
is because of the manner in which it is being done - not because they
support Iraq.

Yes, the question should be, "What's the best way to take him out?"
This way is partisan, reckless and sets a bad precedent.

Prediction: when the President gets done fund raising he will give a
better speech written for him making a case to the American people,
the Democrats will support a restricted to Iraq resolution and we will
invade sometime between December and March. It is possible Saddam
will try to cut a deal that gives him his life in exchange for
surrender. Biological and chemical weapons may or may not be used if
Iraq is attacked.

No comments: