There has been a lot of speculation as to a possible rift between the elder Bush and the present incumbent. Maureen Dowd and, today, William Safire, are two of those who've written op-eds on the matter in the New York Times.
Their argument is quite simple -- that although Bush Snr can't (or won't) speak in public then his sometime gofers, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker and Larry Eagleburger have done so instead by speaking out clearly against Bush Jnr's anti-Iraq policy. But Dowd and Safire and others are making a mistake, because they assume that Bush Jnr's policy is, like his father's, concerned with Iraq only. Their focus is too narrow. Saddam Hussein hasn't changed much, if at all, since Bush Snr was President, and not a great deal has changed within Iraq. But one thing is very different. This is that Saudi Arabia changed its constitution (in 1993 after Gulf War I) towards total identity of the state with Islamic law, of the accelerated growth of hatred (and terror attacks) within SA towards American troops, and of the subsequent Al Qaeda network and terror attacks against America outside SA. Bush Snr had none of that on his plate. If, indeed, there *is* a highly-secret group of strategists and planners within the US administration which is now almost completely concerned with Al Qaeda -- as I believe there is -- then it is probable that Scowcroft, Baker and Eagleburger are simply not au fait with the latest intelligence. They also are taking Bush Jnr's speeches at face value -- that they are directed at Iraq alone -- when, in fact, they are really directed towards raising tension in the Middle East generally and Saudi Arabia in particular in order for the Arab states themselves to clamp down on Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In this respect, Bush Jnr's speeches are already half-successful -- tension is certainly rising and, to some extent, countries like Iran and Pakistan are beginning to get serious about neutralising their own Al Qaeda groups. William Safire in today's NYT is saying that Bush Snr is either keeping quiet for the sake of family solidarity or will have to come out of the closet and challenge his son's policy publicly. Not at all. Bush Snr probably knows the real (Al Qaeda) reasons for Bush Jnr's anti-Iraq speeches and is keeping quiet not only for constitutional and family reasons, but also for the same reason that Bush Jnr/Cheney/Rumsfeld are disguising their real intent. If they were to publicly reveal their strategy against the fundamentalist elements in Saudi Arabia then all hell would break loose. Keith Hudson <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/02/opinion/02SAFI.html?todaysheadlines> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
