I've predicted that once the mid-term elections were out of the way, the
protectionist measures the White House had been taking (presumably at
the instigation of congressmen who were representing purely local
interests) would die down, and more significantly that the pressure to
invade Iraq would also die down. Not everyone agrees with me. From this
morning's Globe and Mail:
"With the election outcome, there will be almost no change in the Bush
administration's policy — the scenario of a possible attack on Iraq will
remain intact," said Yotaro Kobayashi, chairman of the Japan Association
of Corporate Executives.
" In South Korea, Paik Seung-gi, a political science professor at
Kyongwon University, noted that with renewed concerns over North Korea's
nuclear weapons program, the elections were also of strong concern.
'The election outcome could have a significant effect on the Korean
Peninsula,' he said. 'If Republicans control both the House and Senate,
it certainly will give the Bush administration an extra weapon to get
tough on North Korea, let alone Iraq'."
The question, I guess, is to what extent the elections were also seen as
a referendum on White House foreign policy. The next few weeks should
show if I was right or not.
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade;
character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern
world, but we don’t want a world of engineers.” – Sir Winston Churchill
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the
author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the
author’s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author
may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///