Re: Gore, Bush and another Gulf War? (fwd)

[xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <wwagar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK" <psn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "WORLD
>> SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: Gore, Bush and another Gulf War?
>
> > >
> > > The following is from the Wall Street Journal. No doubt there are some
> who would say that "at least Gore might get us a few more day care centers."
> etc. etc. etc.  But both candidates are committed to the continuing and
> intensified slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Should we regard supporting Gore
> as "at least getting a few reforms but having to reluctantly go along with
> his mass murder" or should we regard those few reforms as the bribe to some
> of the American people to go along with this mass murder and imperialism in
> general?  Now that's a different way of looking at the old expression "Half
> a loaf is better than none."
> > >
> > > Alan Spector
> > >
> > > --------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2000
> > > Gore, Bush Seem Committed
> > > To Ousting Saddam Hussein
> > > UNDERSTANDABLY ENOUGH, most Americans are only starting to take
> > > a close look at the coming presidential election. Six thousand miles
> from
> > > here, though, stands a man who ought to be watching very closely -- and
> getting a
> > > little worried. He's Saddam Hussein, the maddeningly resilient dictator
> of Iraq. Slowly but
> > > surely, he's becoming an issue in the presidential race, and inspiring a
> > > bitter war of words between the presidential camps of Al Gore and George
> W. Bush.
> > > Through the rhetoric, though, one reality is becoming clear: Saddam next
> year
> > > will face a new American president who is publicly committed to get rid
> of
> > > him, not merely contain him.
> > >
> > > On the Gore side of the equation, the vice president himself met just
> this
> > > week with the leaders of the Iraqi National Congress, the umbrella
> > > organization of Saddam foes. The meeting was loaded with symbolism. The
> intended message
> > > was that Mr. Gore isn't interested in simply humoring the Iraqi
> opposition,
> > > which critics charge the Clinton administration has done, but rather in
> working
> > > with the opposition to drive him out.
> > > Lest anyone miss the point, Mr. Gore's office issued a statement
> declaring:
> > > "The vice president reaffirmed the administration's strong commitment to
> the
> > > objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and
> his
> > > inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against
> humanity."
> > > There also was one tangible move to buttress those words, Gore aides
> say. The Iraqi
> > > opposition leaders delivered to Mr. Gore a list of 140 candidates for
> American
> > > training in ways to build the opposition into a meaningful force.
> PRIVATELY, GORE ADVISERS talk of a kind of three-step process  for going
> after Saddam. Step one would be to turn the Iraqi National
> > > Congress, still a young and frequently querulous organization, into a
> unified voice
> > > that can win international respect. Step two would be to use that
> international
> > > respect to persuade Iraq's neighbors to let the opposition operate from
> their
> > > territory. Step three would be to figure out how to move -- and whether
> to
> > > try to precipitate a crisis that creates an opening.
> > > Such talk leaves some Bush backers sputtering in anger and charging that
> the
> > > words are hollow after the Clinton-Gore administration has let the
> opposition
> > > wilt over the last seven years. "I have never seen, in 30 years in
> Washington, a
> > > more sustained hypocrisy, never," says Richard Perle, a former senior
> Pentagon
> > > administration aide who now advises the Bush campaign. In his own
> remarks, Texas Gov. Bush hasn't been particularly specific, saying  merely
> that he would hit Iraq hard if he saw any clear sign that it is
> > > building weapons of mass destruction or massing its military forces. But
> look for Mr.
> > > Bush to hold his own meeting with the Iraqi opposition soon. And Mr.
> Bush's
> > > lead foreign-policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is explicit: "Regime
> change is
> > > necessary," she declares.
> > > She is careful not to overpromise, asserting: "This is something that
> could
> > > take some time." Like team Gore, she talks of the need to rebuild the
> > > anti-Iraq coalition, including Persian Gulf states and Turkey, as a
> precondition for
> > > eliminating Saddam. Others in the Bush orbit, offering their personal
> ideas, sound more
> > > aggressive. Both Mr. Perle and Robert Zoellick, a former top aide to
> Gov.
> > > Bush's father, advocate specific steps to oust Saddam. Mr. Perle calls
> for giving
> > > the Iraqi National Congress tools such as radio transmitters to beam an
> > > anti-Saddam message into Iraq and for more extensive training for
> Saddam's foes in ways
> > > to mobilize opposition, particularly in the Iraqi military.
> > > THEN, MR. PERLE suggests, the U.S. should help the opposition
> > > "re-establish control over some piece of territory" inside Iraq and
> remove
> > > international economic sanctions from that toehold of Iraq. Saddam then
> would
> > > have to either accept losing a chunk of his country, a humiliation, or
> mass
> > > his army to take it back, leaving his forces vulnerable to American air
> attack.
> > > Either way, he says, Iraqi military defectors will "come in droves."
> > > In a similar vein, Mr. Zoellick talks of turning the existing "no-fly
> zones"
> > > in northern and southern Iraq, where American planes now patrol to keep
> out
> > > Iraqi aircraft, into "no-move zones," in which ground movements by Iraqi
> > > forces would be blocked as well. That, he argues, would open the way for
> the
> > > opposition to occupy a piece of the country, where they could be
> protected by U.S.
> > > forces. This kind of talk leaves Gore partisans sputtering in their own
> anger, for
> > > they contend that the best chance to take such steps was squandered in
> 1991,
> > > when the Bush team was in power right after the Persian Gulf War. Mr.
> Gore,
> > > one of the few Democrats to back the war, called then for ousting
> Saddam.
> > > In the end, both sides are right: The chances of ousting Saddam were
> best
> > > back in 1991, and the Clinton administration hasn't made the Iraqi
> opposition
> > > into a serious force. But that shouldn't obscure the basic fact: Both
> > > presidential contenders are talking a different game now.
> > > <
> > >
> > > ======================================================================
> > >
> >
>
>