One of the key concerns for GOP lawmakers is the cost. If we were to go in with no allies supporting us, we would have to foot the entire bill. The Gulf War cost in the neighborhood of $60 BILLION but the US only had to pay around 15 percent of the total cost. Most experts believe a war in Iraq could run around $100 BILLION with the US footing the vast majority of that bill. Could we honestly afford $80, $90 or $100 BILLION??? Without broad-based support for a war from our allies, countries in the Middle East and other super powers like China and Russia, nevermind the reasoning for doing it, we could be facing a serious problem when it comes to affording the war in the first place.
I'm not trying to bash Bush or anything, but it seems like he's done a really poor job with statesmanship, and diplomacy with foreign leaders. He has also done some really good things. The good. 1.Strengthened our relationship with Russia 2.Initially did a good job with bringing countries aboard for the war on terrorism. Lately though that's kind of started to fall apart. 3.Made some tough statements to Israel.(if only he would follow those with action) I won't get into what I consider the bad too much, because I don't to just make this a bashing thread, but I'm really puzzled. When he was setting up his administration and opponents pointed to his lack of experience and general knowledge in relation to foreign policy, the come back republicans always had, was that he would have Collin Powell on his team. Powell is one of the most knowledgeable and well respected statesmen there are. Yet almost immediately Bush ignored Powells advice regarding N. Korea, funding for various U.N. planning centers, and has continued to ignore Powells advice regarding the middle east, IRaq, etc. I mean Powell was a big part of the original Gulf Storm, and a military man. I would think his opinion would be pretty valued in the matter, but from appearences it's not. At one point there were even rumors of Powell threatening to resign. There were those who claimed that Powell was put in the administration to make Bush seem more tolerant, and even I wasn't cynnical enough to believe that. I really dont' still believe that, but I'm not quite as firm in that belief now, as I was before.
So he put Powell in to "seem more tolerant" while he ignores him in favor of his female black Natl. Sec. Adviser...LOL.
Powell wasn't meant to make Bush look more tolerant toward blacks, he was meant to make him look more tolerant toward moderates. FB is right that his position has been at odds with the administration more times than not, and has basically been ignored. Much has been written on this subject. In fact Powell even joked recently to White House staffers that "no, he would not be resigning." And he's unlikely to resign or to cause a fuss about difference in opinion with the administration. He's a good soldier. It's in his bones. He will continue to support the administration, no matter what. Fact remains, his moderate positions are at odds with what has turned out to be a very conservative administration. Refman: Bush officials SAY that intelligence indicates Saddam will have nukes in 18 months or so. Chuck Hagel disagrees as do many others. If they actually have this intelligence, they could present it to their allies in Congress at least and put an end to this extraordinarily bad PR. The fact that they haven't even gotten their own guys on board should raise serious concerns about the strength of that intelligence.
When the time comes for the Senate to vote I am sure they will have all of the information in front of them because many won't vote for it without the information. I am all for that. I am not in favor of giving this information for public dissemination.
I didn't say the info should be presented to the public, only to members of Congress. They ought not to wait for it to come to a vote to share this info either. This is a PR nightmare. Time to stop the bleeding. Would also be a really good idea to let their folks know the argument of going to war so the prez won't lose face is not exactly a winning argument.
What about sharing it with our allies in the ME? I think if the information was as concrete as they are saying it is, we would have already used it to drum up support. I would think that a good way to get the Saudi's off the fence is to show them some proof that Iraq is close to getting a nuke.
I think most of the Arab countries have no problem with Iraq having nukes. In fact, they'd like nothing better than for Iraq to light up Israel. Iraq with nukes can't end well for the world.
Like I said, I don't totally believe that. Also Batman was correct that this was more a policy based 'compassionate conservative' type of tolerance than racial. Rices policies are right in line with those of Ashcroft, Cheney, and the more conservative group in the Whitehouse. Powell's advice is often ignored, and opposite tactics than those recommended by Powell have been taken. Looking at our relations with nations around the world at this point and time, I wonder if Powell's advice might have been better than the advice of people like Rice.
Most maybe, but the ones we like to call allies certainly wouldn't. You think Saudi Arabia wants Iraq to have nukes? You think Kuwait wants them to have nukes?
Most Mid-East leaders don't want to die. It's that simple. If Saddam has nukes and Israel has nukes, kiss that region goodbye. I may be missing something, but if there truly was good intelligence that Saddam was about to get nukes, the Bush admin would be presenting that evidence to the world every day until everyone was on board. The fact that they're not says to me (and to many of Bush's friends and allies) that the evidence just doesn't exist.
I don't think Iran, would like them to have nukes either. I think the reason why people like Lawrence Eagelberger, Kissinger, Dick Armey, and other big wig Republicans don't want to attack Iraq is because they don't believe that the Bush administration has presented a suficient case stating why it's needed. I agree with those that say if the threat was so real they wouldn't have a problem presenting the evidence to our allies and getting them on board. That has not been the case at all. Instead the Bush administration changes, adds, and subtracts reasons for the attack on Iraq. First it was because Iraq had ties to 9/11. That was shown to have no crediblity, and all of a sudden it was weapons of mass destruction... Then Saddam was talking about letting weapons inspectors back in, and the Bush white house actually tried to go back and say they believed the 9/11 Iraqi intelligence officer story again, even though no intelligence agency could substantiate the report. Now Rice is saying that it's a 'moral duty' to do this? Since when does Rice or Bush or anyone here get to claim moral duty as reason to kill a bunch of people. Ben Laden claims it's moral duty to do what he does, and most people disagree with that. It looks like the Bush administration is just making whatever excuse they can to invade Iraq. That may not actually be the case, but whatever evidence they have hasn't done a job of convincing barely any of our allies that the invasion is worthwhile. It hasn't even convinced half of Bush's own administration. IMO it smells like Bush is over stating the whole weapons of mass destruction angle, and it doesn't appear to be fooling all that many people.
A few articles in case anyone's interested: Poll: Americans Cautiously Favor War in Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10140-2002Aug12.html Senate intelligence expert warns of Iraq weapons building, new terror attacks http://209.50.252.70/p_en/news/archives/00000754.htm Nerve Gas Plants Dormant But Deadly http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020813-iraq2.htm Doves in Wonderland (tears apart anti-war arguments) http://www.defensecentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-081302B Iraq seeks steel for nukes http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020726-23093280.htm New Iraq Documents Show Effort to Produce Weapons (somewhat old) http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N30/iraq.30w.html Baghdad Is Not Mogadishu http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/541yuamu.asp The WMD Threat Posed by Iraq http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testimonies/2001/10-4-01.htm A site that monitors Iraq’s WMD activities: http://www.iraqwatch.org/ Saddam’s Bombmaker, a book by Dr. Khidhir Hamza, who used to head Iraq’s nuclear weapons program: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684873869/avsearch-bkasin-20/002-9400962-1829623 BTW, FranchiseBlade - "the whole weapons of mass destruction angle", as you put it, cannot be overstated. When - it is not an "if" question - Saddam achieves a nuclear device, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to stop him from using it to either attack us or take over the Middle East (taking over the ME has always been his goal), short of engaging in a nuclear exchange. Do you want to wait until you're 100% sure that he has obtained a nuclear weapon before you're ready to stop him? Understate that whole weapons of mass destruction angle at your own peril.
Same as in '91. One of the few things that Bush the younger has in common with his dad on Iraq is that he knows we HAVE to do this, he just can't decide exactly why. Azadre: If Powell wanted to be president, he would be. And if he ran, I'd probably cross party lines and vote for him. It seems very much like he won't run though. His wife doesn't want him to and he's uncomfortable with the idea as well.
I've checked out some of the links you posted, and I'm still reading others, thank you for providing them. Still Bush can't convince half of his own administration, and many people from past republican administrations and other party big wigs that there is a real threat from Iraq, let alone our allies around the world. Either Bush and his fellow Hawks are just really incredibly bad at presenting the case, or they don't have a strong case to prevent in the first place. These aren't typical left wing doves we are talking about that are against the current idea of an invasion. Hell if Kissinger is against it the case has been very poorly presented or wasn't that strong to begin with. It's also supposition on your part to say that he will acquire them once he does that nothing can stop him short of a nuclear exchange. There are plenty who've I heard argue that even if he had them he wouldn't use them, because he's a survivalist, and if used them, Saddam would know that would be his end. However if he saw that he was going to die no matter what, he would use them. Again, we've talked about it before, The Soviet Union which did have plenty of nukes, as well as China and their messed up strategy regarding nukes have been contained. I find it hard to believe that while we contain these nations which are more powerful by far than Iraq, we wouldn't be able to contain Saddam.
I would say that they have been somewhat lax in presenting the case, personally, because it has been presented very well by other outlets than the administration. Why they have not detailed the case by now I do not know, but I'm confident that as the day for action draws near, such an explanation will be forthcoming. I can't imagine why it wouldn't. Kissinger is not, BTW, against attacking Iraq. He's simply urging caution about how to go through with it and what to do afterwards. That is quite reasonable - of course we must do it right if we're going to do it - and very, very different than being opposed to an attack.
Then the administration isn't very smart, and doesn't understand war, and I wouldn't trust them to lead us into one. Part of the duty of leaders is to whip up support, boost morale, and inspire the people. If this administration is just leaving that part of the process to other outlets, I would hate to see what kind of mess they would make of the actual invasion.
Perhaps the administration isn't ready to do the military action yet. Maybe they want to wait for authorization from the Senate (we all know the Senate acts slowly). To present the case now and whip up support and then wait 6 months would be the stupid course of action.
Thing is, if you don't have support from your allies, nevermind the tenuous relationship you have with countries in the ME, you have to consider what would happen if you go ahead anyway. If no one comes to your aid, is it worth rocking a very shaky economy with $100 billion in military expenditures (on top of the many billions we've already sunk into homeland security), potentially setting of a firestorm in the ME by our actions AND ignoring the wishes of the majority of the rest of the world? Those are compelling reasons to stop and REALLY consider what you do before doing it. That doesn't even take into account how to approach the war, what to do if it escalates beyond Iraq and what to do after it is all over. That is a tremenous number of "ifs" to consider before doing anything.
