Tom, thanks for this link. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0910-01.htm "The more modest version sees an attack as sending a message to the rest of the region, making clear the US is prepared to unilaterally deploy its military power to achieve its goals, objectives, and values. Among its most extreme versions was a view elaborated in a briefing in July by a Rand Corp. researcher to the Defense Policy Board - an advisory group to the Pentagon led by Richard Perle, a leading hawk. That briefing urged the United States to deliver an ultimatum to the Saudi government to cut its ties to militant Islam or risk seizure of its oil fields and overseas assets. It called Iraq ''the tactical pivot'' and Saudi Arabia ''the strategic pivot.'' I followed your link back to a piece published in the Chicago Tribune today by Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who has forcefully opposed and testified against the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld arguments for attacking Iraq.
See Ritter: Cheney's warped perspective on the need to attack Iraq @ http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0910-04.htm Does anyone know who this man represents now? I see that he has a book. Who sponsors him? I read he has visited Iraq three times since he quit in 1998. Other than defending his own and UNSCOM's record of achievement in Iraq, what is he up to? All I can say at the end of today, is that we also wanted to "send a message" when we waded into Vietnam. Today, our allies are getting louder opposing our government's determined path, eliciting critical comments from Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan. I would think there is another opinion poll scheduled for this week, right after Bush's UN speech. So, does anybody have a scenario for a last minute save face scenario for Messrs. Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld? Or will there be another Gulf of Tonkin? Karen
