Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
A Decent Republican?
Senator Chuck Hagel has asked if Richard Perle (war mongerer and chickenhawk) would perhaps like to be a part of the first military wave into Baghdad.
Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naïve.
"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naïve to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."
Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.
He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.
"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."
He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."
* * * * *
Note Richard Perle's inane reasoning above, neatly summarized in a single sentence: "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
First, what exactly has the president "said" or used as a compelling rationale for entering Iraq? Just because Bush said he means to do it is no reason to go ahead if it's a bad idea. In other words, Perle is suggesting this war must go through solely as a means of saving face.
Second, exactly *whose* confidence in the president would collapse? Not the Europeans or their leaders, who have publicly stated they do not want this war. Not the Mideast, which has publicly and vehemently opposed the war. Not the American public, which does not want to go into this war alone.
In fact, the rest of the world's confidence in Bush has *already collapsed* because of his and his advisors' irresponsible and belligerent statements regarding Iraq. If Bush would stop this insane rhetoric, international confidence in the president would be restored.
The only known group of government employees outside of Israel who publicly are pushing for this war are hardcore civilians within Bush's administration: Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney. Perhaps these are the people who would experience a "collapse of confidence in the president."
Third, Perle is suggesting that if we do not go into Iraq, we will be setting back the war on terrorism. But Brent Scrowcroft himself stated yesterday that striking Iraq could unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East," and that that the attack, "At a minimum ... would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists."
This view is shared by most of the rest of the thinking Western world, and Perle is shown to be nothing more than a shrill huckster for the state of Israel.
"I think Brent just got it wrong," he said by telephone from France. "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
Mr. Perle added, "I think it is naïve to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action."
Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.
He said he shared Mr. Kissinger's concern that Mr. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes at governments armed with weapons of mass destruction could induce India to attack Pakistan and could create the political cover for Israel to expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.
"You can take the country into a war pretty fast," Mr. Hagel said, "but you can't get out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are."
He added, "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."
* * * * *
Note Richard Perle's inane reasoning above, neatly summarized in a single sentence: "The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
First, what exactly has the president "said" or used as a compelling rationale for entering Iraq? Just because Bush said he means to do it is no reason to go ahead if it's a bad idea. In other words, Perle is suggesting this war must go through solely as a means of saving face.
Second, exactly *whose* confidence in the president would collapse? Not the Europeans or their leaders, who have publicly stated they do not want this war. Not the Mideast, which has publicly and vehemently opposed the war. Not the American public, which does not want to go into this war alone.
In fact, the rest of the world's confidence in Bush has *already collapsed* because of his and his advisors' irresponsible and belligerent statements regarding Iraq. If Bush would stop this insane rhetoric, international confidence in the president would be restored.
The only known group of government employees outside of Israel who publicly are pushing for this war are hardcore civilians within Bush's administration: Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney. Perhaps these are the people who would experience a "collapse of confidence in the president."
Third, Perle is suggesting that if we do not go into Iraq, we will be setting back the war on terrorism. But Brent Scrowcroft himself stated yesterday that striking Iraq could unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East," and that that the attack, "At a minimum ... would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists."
This view is shared by most of the rest of the thinking Western world, and Perle is shown to be nothing more than a shrill huckster for the state of Israel.
For more information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/internat...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Ha'aretz reported in its print edition Friday that Israel is pressing the U.S. not to defer action aimed at toppling the regime in Iraq.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ra'anan Gissin.
"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin told The Associated Press. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
Among the evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.
"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said. Gissin said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat, Saddam was fast developing weapons.
According to the Ha'aretz report, Prime Minister Sharon has sent messages to the U.S. administration in recent days saying that postponing the Iraq operation "will not create a more convenient environment for action in the future." But Sharon added that Israel would support any American action, and would respect U.S. decisions regarding the method and the timing.
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres sent a similar message Thurday during an interview with CNN television. "The problem today is not if, but when," he said, adding that while attacking now would be "quite dangerous... postponing it would be more dangerous," as "he [Saddam] will have more weapons."
But like Sharon, Peres also added a disclaimer, saying he did not want to be seen as urging the United States to act and that America should act according to its own judgment. Israel, he said, "will be a good soldier" in the camp led by President George W. Bush.
Sharon has also repeatedly informed Bush that if Iraq were to attack Israel, Israel would respond. During the 1991 Gulf War, the United States effectively prevented Israel from retaliating against Iraqi missile strikes by refusing to give it the "friend-foe" codes required to keep U.S. and Israeli planes from shooting at each other. But in closed discussions recently, Sharon told associates that he had a clear understanding with the United States that this time, if Saddam were to attack, Israel would be allowed to exercise its right to self-defense.
However, he added, the Israeli response would be closely coordinated with the Americans - and, as he told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee earlier this week, it would not be automatic.
A senior government source explained: "If we are talking about a single missile that falls in the middle of the Arava [Desert], far from the major population centers, or into the sea, it is hard to believe that we will respond."
But if missiles strike Israeli cities, as they did during the Gulf War, Sharon told the committee, "we cannot sit with folded hands."
During the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S.-led strikes pushed back an Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles - none of them with chemical or biological warheads - causing few casualties but extensive damage.
In the 1991 conflict, the United States worried it would lose Arab support if Israel retaliated for the strikes, and under heavy pressure Israel reluctantly agreed to hold back.
Anyway, remember now, you gotta remember this. I was elected for you, and not by you. If that don't tell ya anything, than shit, i don't know what will!
Now, about this Iraqi situation. All I can say is, it's a matter of if, not when. no, ahhh, no, i mean when, and not if. And I don't want any of my fellow countrymens and womens to get all upset about voices in my own party that disagree with me, ok? Because what they say doesn't really mean a damn thing, compared to what I got planned fer this world. And besides, I'm the President. Which means I'm kinda like the King, right, so my word is final. So, so, ahh, just don't get too upset about them pasky disagreeing voices in my own party. Hell, if they wanna keep it up, I'll just put the entire House and Senate under the hire and fire rules of my Department of Homeland Security. In that department, I, as yer President, can hire and fire at will in the name of National Security. That'll show 'em to keep in line, won't it now!
So, ahh, if, if we have a great big new war with Iraq, sorta like one of them video game releases, ya know, Iraqi War Fightin', Version 2, if, if we do go fight another war, it'll be because we're actin' on the latest "intelligence".
And remember, in this time of great peril, and dangerous times of greater perils, and greatest times of dangererous peril times, you've got me as yer leader. You can count on me! You can trust me. And you can trust my advisors too, if you want to. That's alright. Because, y'all know, I'm a president who's all hat and no cattle, or, or, ahhhh, or, I mean, all cattle and no hat, or sumthin'! You know what I'm sayin'. So just trust me now, in your time of peril and great need of strength, and, and, leadershipping. Ok?
This is yer El Presidente, George Bush, signing off from my ranch in, ahh, in Crawford Texas. By now."