In addition to the cautions advanced by Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp earlier this month, the past week heard more voices for caution concerning a potential war with Iraq:
•Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and the first President Bush, wrote in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, "It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace." However, "there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
Attacking Iraq "would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive - with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy - and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.
"Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East."
•Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the allied forces in the 1991 Gulf War, urged preparation on MSNBC's "Hardball" on Friday. "I think we have to have a coalition firmly in place," he said. "We have to have that kind of support. We have to have better intelligence than we have right now ... I don't know if they [the U.S. military] have the port facilities ... to really conduct a ground campaign. ...The worst case scenario is that, if they [the Iraqis] put up a fight, we have to go in the cities and fight."
•Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of state under the first President Bush, joined the chorus. "Unless he [Saddam] has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction and our intelligence is clear, I don't know why we have to do it now when all of our allies are opposed to it," he said, as reported by ABC News on Friday. "There are any number of other terrorist targets that deserve our attention. We ought to be taking some time to think through whether they are at least as urgent a target as Iraq."
•Henry Kissinger, secretary of state to Presidents Nixon and Ford, was more hawkish, but still cautious. He said on "Meet the Press" Sunday that President Bush had made an "intellectual case" for attacking Iraq, but, "He has not yet created the political framework, but that will have to be the next step."
•The New York Times reported on Thursday that "a crisis may be looming with Turkey, [Bush] administration officials said. Turkish officials have warned that they are preparing to go to war to prevent the Iraqi Kurds from declaring a kind of mini-Kurdish state within Iraq.... "The Turkish government fears that such a state with control over key oil resources around Kirkuk might incite Turkey's repressed Kurdish population to rebel."
So a U.S. war against Iraq might quickly spawn a war by Turkey against Iraq's long-suffering Kurdish minority.
Because this war wouldn't be a "cakewalk," we keep insisting that the U.S. Congress must exercise its constitutional prerogative of deciding whether or not to "declare war." Hearings on a possible Iraq war in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31 and Aug. 1 only scratched the surface. No new hearings are scheduled there or in the House Committee on International Relations.
The American people need to know the justification, the allies that can be counted on to assist, the potential cost, the potential numbers of troops involved, the definition of success and the exit strategy.
President Bush should not act alone. Congress represents the American people, whose sons and daughters in the military - and perhaps cities in America - could become war casualties in what Gen. Scowcroft warns could be "an Armageddon."
Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2568 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1137 times:
Other than your title of the thread ("Little Bush"), I agree with the sentiments of the statesmen expressed/excerpted therein. We have got to have the goods on the Iraqi dictator before we move. As usual, the Pentagon and CIA probably have more information than they are letting on. When I hear the likes of Daschle and Gephardt beating the war drum, I will be more worried that action is coming.
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
There is one VERY IMPORTANT positive to invading Iraq that no one has brought up yet.
There will be one kick-ass Bruckheimer blockbuster movie about it ten years from now where our boys shoot and kill lots of Arabs.
Dubya will hopefully be played by a grizzled, pensive, selfless Brad Pitt. Dick Cheney will be played by a fat Russell Crowe, a la "Insider." The Iraqis will be played by every dark skinned extra in the San Fernando Valley. And regardless of the real outcome, the movie ending will have lots of heros.
Sheesh. Can't believe no one's considered this yet...
Jessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1108 times:
Actually, I'm with Superfly on this one. I don't think our intentions for Iraq are noble. And I always respected George W for surrounding himself with people who know what they're talking about. It wouldn't be good form for him to ignore his advisors.
In fact this reminds me of a Bible Story in 1st Kings Chapter 12. Solomon had built the Temple and his palace with fine cedar, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Stone in huge quantities. He imported animals, supported 700 wives and 300 girlfriends with benefeits (I think Superfly can agree that this alone wouldn't be cheap). Solomon kept all of Israel in relative peace and great prosperity, but like everyone else he died, and in true monarchial order his son, Rehoboam, ascended to the throne.
Representitives from all over Israel came to the coronation. They made known to Rehoboam that his father, Solomon, made them work very hard and charged them high taxes, so they asked Rehoboam to lighten the load.
Rehoboam told them to come back in three days for the answer. In that time Rehoboam spoke with his father's advisors, who told him if he did what the people asked they would serve him for the rest of their lives. Then Rehoboam decided the old farts didn't know what they were talking about so he asked the guys who grew up with him what they thought. They told him to work the people harder and increase taxes so he would be richer. Rehoboam listened to his peers instead of his father's advisors. When he told the Israelites what he had decided they told him where he could shove it, and Israel was split into two kingdoms.
Now I don't think the US would fall because of taking out Saddam, but I don't think any good will come of GWB not listening to his father's advisors.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 978 times:
"Will over-throwing Saddam Hussein be the final end all?"
Superfly, this is proof alone that it does not matter, the end does not exist.
Either 1) getting rid of all evil renders no evil and therefore it will be difficult to find another enemy unless one is provoked; uh, Junior's short term goal of getting re-elected is 'in the bag' and at least there is guaranteed peace until the next president shows up.
2) Let the evil exist, so a war can be maintained until every Republican senator has gotten the chance to be President of the United States of America.
I made an implied jump in #2; if the war goes on, then Bush WILL get a second term (leaking bits every now and then about OBL or Al Queda) and Cheney (maybe) will get to the 2008 election, and whoever is his VP will get it later.
Political Republicans in general love patriotism; it allows them to be dictators in a democratic society. It is all in their favor whether they get Hussein or not.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.