-Caveat Lector-
Bush: Patient Is As Patient Does
By David Corn, AlterNet
August 30, 2002
"I'm a patient man," George W. Bush says regarding Saddam Hussein, who has
surpassed (at least in presidential rhetoric) Osama Bin Laden as America's
most most-wanted. Yet days later, from a disclosed location, Vice President,
Dick Cheney, the soul of the Bush White House, blasts Saddam as a clear-and-
present danger, noting "there is no doubt" he is "amassing" weapons of mass
destruction to use against the United States, and "what he wants is time and
more time" to amass further. In other words, patience ain't a virtue here.
So which is it? Is the administration, as Bush suggested, biding its time as
it carefully figures out how best to confront Saddam? Or, as Cheney hinted,
does an attack have to happen by yesterday? This is just one of the rough
spots of the Bush gang's run-up to Iraq: The Sequel. Anyone paying attention
in these waning days of summer can be forgiven for wondering about the
competency of this crowd -- at least in terms of getting its story straight.
Cheney's remarks clearly indicated the Bush administration did not care to
resume the weapons inspection program in Iraq. ("A return of inspectors would
provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions
[demanding Iraq end its weapons programs]. There is great danger that it
would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow back in his box.") But
then John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the
administration remained interested if U.N. weapon inspectors had "unfettered
and unconditional access." Is Negroponte a fan of "false comfort"?
There appears to be some confusion in Bush circles. Leading national security
advisers to Daddy Bush -- notably, Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger --
publicly decried the war-mongering. James Baker, secretary of state to Bush
I and the lawyer who plotted the successful post-election Florida maneuvers
of Bush II, challenged the notion of U.S. unilateral action against Iraq.
Richard Boucher, Secretary of State Colin Powell's spokesman, said, "There
are no war drums to beat." Doesn't he read the newspapers?
At the same time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed Washington's
allies would heartily support Bush should he send in the drones (and/or the
troops). Yet German chancellor Gerhard Schroder, who is running for
reelection, attacked Cheney's speech, and British Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw criticized the administration's threaten-to-shoot-first approach to
Iraq. (Schroder's defeat would not help Bush, for his opponent has warned the
United States not to attack Iraq without a United Nations mandate.) Taku
Yamasaki, leader of Japan's ruling liberal Democratic Party has said Tokyo
has a duty, as an ally, to say no to Washington on this matter. Turkish Prime
Minister Bulent Ecevit told reporters, "We have used every opportunity to
tell our friends in the U.S. administration we are opposed to military action
against Iraq." (The Turks fret about the Kurds of Iraq gaining more autonomy
or independence after a war and setting a bad example for the Kurds of
Turkey.) The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab states
practically every day cry out, "Stop."
So the question must be asked, is Rumsfeld delusional? What is his basis for
claiming if Washington launches it (the war), they (the allies) will come? In
recent months, war-cravers in Washington have said that privately the leaders
of other nations were telling the administration, if you're serious about
this, we'll jump on board at the last moment. But as the pre-war season
lumbers on, the allies keep issuing clearer statements of opposition and
warning. The French government recently muted its criticism of Bush's stance
toward Iraq. Not out of principle, but in order not to piss off the
administration and upset relations between Paris and Washington. But then
President Jacques Chirac criticized the Bush administration's "attempts to
legitimize the unilateral and pre-emptive use of force."
When Bush scooted to his Crawford, Texas, ranch for nearly a month-long
"working vacation," I scoffed at him for taking such a long time off while
the war on terrorism was under way, the Middle East continued to boil, and
Martha Stewart -- and other sectors of the economy -- remained in trouble.
Talk about being patient. But Bush detractors should acknowledge he has been
working his khakis off, for in-between taxpayer-financed photo-ops in states
crucial for the coming congressional elections, this 9-to-5 president and his
crew have been putting in overtime to gin up support for their next war. Even
though Republican and Democrat Senators have said Bush promised them there
would be no military strike before the November election, it sure looks like
Bush and Company (excluding the weenies of the State Department) long for
action ASAP.
A few weeks back, there appeared the possibility that a creeping unease in
Congress (more among Republicans than Democrats) and elsewhere (say, Poppy's
den) might derail the White House's effort to turn Bush into Churchill. But
the White House is relentlessly raising expectations of war. In an interview,
national security adviser Condoleeza Rice (the moralist) said regime change
in Iraq -- that is, a military invasion -- is a moral imperative. Cheney (the
tough guy) declared the inspection game kaput. And Bush (a bit of both) has
maintained there is a need to kick Saddam-butt in order to bring democracy to
the region, while depicting Saddam as a direct threat and menace to the
entire world -- views no other nation has seconded. With all this war-talk,
Bush is placing himself in a corner, where the only option can be war. If
Saddam is as bad as he and Cheney assert, there can be no choice. It doesn't
matter what the U.N. or Congress thinks, what Tony Blair thinks, what those
corrupt Saudi princes think, what Colin Powell thinks. Bush has to respond
with force. Having so loudly defined a threat to U.S. security, Bush has
obligated himself to save the nation from that threat. Imagine if Bush is
still wagging a finger at Saddam when the 2004 campaign rolls around. Almost
a year ago, commentators commonly observed that Sept. 11 had defined the Bush
presidency. Yet Bush has chosen to define his presidency by Saddam Hussein.
It didn't have to be this way. No one forced Bush to extend his war on
terrorism to a crusade against a global axis of evil and a campaign targeting
a dictator so far unconnected to the 9/11 attacks. Bush's line could have
been: Saddam Hussein poses a potential danger to the world community, and
we're going to work vigorously with other nations, including those most
threatened, to neutralize this brutal thug, and we're examining all possible
courses of actions. Bush then could have pursued diplomatic and military
actions (including pre-emptive unilateral variants Cheney and others in his
administration seem to prefer) with leeway. But now he is leeway-less. He has
unwisely put his credibility at stake.
This is reminiscent of the situation in which the United States found itself
during Vietnam. After Richard Nixon inherited that mess, Henry Kissinger
argued that Washington had to hang tough in 'Nam to preserve Washington's
credibility. It wasn't that this fight was such a geostrategically important
war to win. (Screw the dominoes.) But who would take the United States
seriously, if it cut and ran? So the rationale became that Washington had to
use its military might to preserve the possibility of using its military
might (or the threat of that might) down the road. If you take a chessboard
view of the world, this reasoning makes some sense. But it was a slim
abstraction for which to sacrifice tens of thousands of Americans and kill
hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.
This is not to suggest that a war on Iraq is going to be another Vietnam. It
could go reasonably well, with a quick collapse of Saddam's regime and
military and the emergence of a grateful post-Saddam leadership yearning to
do business with the West. It could be a disaster, with thousands of U.S.
casualties, more civilian deaths, the use of weapons of mass destruction,
post-Saddam chaos, the spread of leftover WMDs, and an upsurge in regional
strife and terrorism. There's no telling. But with the risks being so high,
Bush has proceeded recklessly by foreclosing all options but war. Even if a
misguided Congress or a spineless U.N. says no to Bush, how can Bush and
Cheney justify respecting the decision? Don't the sheriff and his deputy know
best? Bush and Cheney are practicing no-way-out geopolitics. He's not
patient. He's eager. His words and those of his underlings -- even if
confusing at moments -- have set the course for war.
David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
-GW Bush during a photo-op with Congressional leaders on
12/18/2000.
As broadcast on CNN and available in transcript on their website
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html
Steve Wingate, Webmaster
ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES
http://www.anomalous-images.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
