| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2002 7:58 am Post subject: What Bush Isn't Saying About Iraq |
| What Bush Isn't Saying About Iraq
President Bush won't discuss two big reasons he wants to invade Iraq.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 12:40 PM PT
So, why exactly is Iraq different from North Korea? Both are founding members of President Bush's "axis of evil," and both deserve that honor. North Korea has now admitted to a nuclear weapons development program on about the same timeline as what we only suspect about Iraq. So, why are we barely complaining in one case and off to war in the other?
Bush addressed this conundrum the other day. "Saddam Hussein is unique," he explained. "He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years … and for 11 years he has said, 'No, I refuse to disarm.' " The North Koreans, by contrast, said, "Yes, we will disarm"—they promised to stop building nukes in exchange for help in developing peaceful nuclear power—and then they didn't do it. I guess that's a difference, but it sounds as if we're punishing Saddam for his honesty.
Bush's public case for going to war against Iraq is full of logical inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright lies. It reeks of ex-post-facto: First came the desire, and then came the reasons. But this raises a troubling question, especially for opponents of Bush's policy: If his ostensible reasons are unpersuasive even to him, what are his real reasons? There must be some: Nobody starts a war as a lark. It would be easier to dismiss the whole exercise if there were an obvious ulterior motive. Without one, you are left wondering, "Am I missing something?"
Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe. They do not think the concern over potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is negligible or insincere, but they do think that "oil and Israel" is a pretty good summary of what, for President Bush, makes Iraq different from your run-of-the-mill evil dictatorship. Yet this presumption about Bush, and these issues themselves, barely appear in the flood of speculation and argument about Bush War II.
"President Bush" is, of course, a metaphor. Much Washington political commentary and analysis is basically a discussion of what or whom the term "President Bush" is a metaphor for. Is it Karl Rove? Is it still Karen Hughes, although she has decamped? Even more than most presidents, Bush is regarded as the sum total of his advisers. Regarding Iraq, the advisers themselves are also used as metaphors, often in plural to signify a stereotype. "The Cheneys and the Rumsfelds" evokes a retro world of confident white CEOs in suits, oil barons, and the military industrial complex. "The Wolfowitzes and the Richard Perles" evokes—well, you know what it evokes.
The idea that oil is a factor in official thinking about Iraq shouldn't even be controversial. Protecting oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was an explicit—though disingenuously underemphasized—reason for Bush War I. After all, we couldn't claim to be fighting to restore democracy to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, let alone Iraq. This time around, the fact that Bush and Cheney are both oil men is suggestive, but the implication is not clear. A war to topple Saddam will raise oil prices in the short run but probably lower them in the longer run by stabilizing the supply. An oil man could have sincerely mixed feelings about these prospects. Surely, though, even a sensible opponent of the war ought to register a steady oil supply as one of the better reasons for it.
The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. But the consequence of this massive "Shhhhhhhhh!" is to make a perfectly valid American concern for a democratic ally in a region of nutty theocracies, rotting monarchies, and worse seem furtive and suspicious.
Having brought this up, I hasten to add a few self-protective points. The president's advisors, Jewish and non-Jewish, are patriotic Americans who sincerely believe that the interests of America and Israel coincide. What's more, they are right about that, though they may be wrong about where that shared interest lies. Among Jewish Americans, including me, there are people who hold every conceivable opinion about war with Iraq with every variation of intensity, including passionate opposition and complete indifference. Jews are undoubtedly overrepresented in what little organized antiwar movement there may be (thus feeding another variant of the anti-Semitic stereotype).
Why and whether an American war against Iraq would be good for Israel is far from clear and is the subject of vigorous debate in Israel itself—but not in America. Theories range from the mundane to the exotic to the paranoid: Clearing out a neighborhood troublemaker before he gets the bomb is reason enough. Or, deposing Saddam will set off a complex regional chain reaction that will somehow turn the Arab nations into peaceful bourgeois societies. Or, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon actually wants a huge regional conflagration that he can use as an excuse and cover for expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank. In any event, the downside risk for Israel—of carnage, military and civilian—is like America's, only far greater.
But we'd better not talk about it.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073093 | |  | | Pat | | Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:12 pm Post subject: Saddam Hussein |
| I believe we should agree not to inspect any and all of the areas that Saddam Hussein doesn't want us to inspect. We should ask Saddam Hussein to submit a complete and final list of the areas he doesn't want us to inspect before the inspectors return.
THEN.. we give that list to the B52 command and hope Saddam Hussein is in one of the areas on the list of FIRST STRIKE BOMBING TARGETS. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2002 6:23 pm Post subject: What Bush Isn't Sayin' Bout Israel (dat shitty lil' country) |
| What Michael Kinsley doesn't say is that Israeli has the largest military in the middle east. And it's the biggest problem since 1948.
What Bush doesn't say about Iraq is that it's signatory to the BWC 1972
Biolgical and Toxin Weapons Convention, NPT 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
, MBC 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines on Their Destruction (Mine-Ban Convention)
What Bush also doesn't say it that Israel is a NON-SIGNATORY to the NPT 1968, BWC 1972 and the MBC of 1997.
So I agree with the previous post and the French ambassador, that Israel is a SHITTY LITTLE COUNTRY.
The upcomming war with Iraq is about oil and Israel. Iraq doesn't pose a threat to the US at all. But it does pose a threat to Israel. And the US is going to fight a war that it doesn't want to fight because the "Israelis own America" as Ariel Sharon has already said.
We need to boycott Israel completely... and Jewish products and services as well.
Norway and Sweden already boycott Israel, as well as a few other countries but the US says that this is illegal? Bullshit! Again, that's cuz "Israel owns America" -Sharon That's right, that's why the US gives 10 billion to Israel each year. They should use that $10 Billon to help their economy currently. Drop racist Israel like a rock.
I'm boycotting any and all products that can possibly assist in supporting that racist state of Israel. Period. And I urge all others to do the same until there are no longer weapons of mass destruction in Israel and democracy for all there.
Shalom! | | | | Anael's Anvil | | Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:23 am Post subject: Get a Clue About Saddam |
| 
I read a post, on this Board; that Iraq is a Signatory of a Number of Treaties banning the use of Biological and Chemical Weopons. Just like his 'willingness' to Cooperate with the UN Inspectors he later had his people threaten to kill ~ His Ratification of any Disarmament Treaty is a Farce. Those who would Defend Him are blind to his Actions of the past where he says one thing only to slither through the Shadows to do just the opposite.
I suppose the "Gulf War Syndrome" being sufferred by the many of the American Veteran's of this War is only a figment of their imaginations.
A breif synopsis of Saddam Hussein's Authoritarian rule of Iraq:
Since Saddam usurped power in Iraq {1979}, He has been {rather had been} at constant war until the U.S. stepped in. 1979 -1993/4 <<< long time to be at war!
Synopsis
First Saddam tried to Annex the Oil rich territories just east of his borders in Iran. He struggled for 10 years to acheive this goal to no avail. 1980-1990 The Iran-Iraq War. Iran was assisted by the the Kurds and Serbs of Iraq during this conflict. Once the war ended in 1990, Saddam's Regime began hunting down and Punishing the Kurds and the Serbs {1990-1992} for assisting Iran.
In both the Iran-Iraq War and the Following 'Policing' of the Kurds and the Serbs, it is well documented Saddam Authorized the Deployment and use of both Biological and Chemical Weapons to try to acheive the goals he was ever determined to see the Fruits of. Even with them, he still was unable to acheive his goals; although, he did manage to poison and sicken 10's of thousands of People.
Beaten by the Iranians and Unable to commit Genocide upon the Kurds and the Serbs, Saddam turned his eyes toward Kuwait ~ Oil Rich and not very well Protected.
End Synopsis
At this point, All the World said, "No More" and decimated his Army and pushed him back into his own country and forced his Army all the back to his Capitol City in which not only American but Many other Allied Nations participated. To save Himself, He agreed to accords He never intended to Live by and has never Honored in Totality ~ Corcerned only for Himself and not the People of Iraq.
Saddam is the one who's hunger for Oil over the last 2 Decades is what has Brought Our Government to the Point they know He must be removed.
Anyone who is afraid to allow our Government to do It's duty to Our People because they are AFRAID of Retributive Acts such as 9/11 should go live in Iraq with their sympathies for its 'persecuted' Leader. A year or 2 of his oppression will send you to the steps of the American Congress and Senate Begging for something to be done. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 4:12 am Post subject: That Shitty Little Country Quote |
| I swear it was France which was considered "that shitty little country."
Why else would the French Ambassador state such? | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
