back to 10/02 mail | 911 Analysis | JJ | JFK | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | tree
From: Kimberly Roberts <>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:52:53 -0400
Subject: PSR Security Information Service 10.14.02

Monday, October 14, 2002

NOTE: With the events leading up to the Congressional vote on Iraq, this
edition of the Security Information Service is particularly lengthy. We hope
this is a useful resource and beneficial rather than detrimental for your

Dear Friends,

Below, you will find a collection of editorials and op-eds from news sources
over the past week. The articles are organized into the following
categories: Weapons of Mass Destruction, War on Terrorism, and International
Relations. To read the full story, click on the title.

As always, we hope you find these weekly emails useful and informative and
would welcome any comments or suggestions you have regarding this service.
If you do not wish to continue receiving these news briefings please send an
email to and we will gladly remove your name.

Kimberly Roberts
Deputy Director of Nuclear/Security Programs
Physicians for Social Responsibility
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1012
Washington, D.C. 20009
202.667.4260 x212

This service is a project of PSR's Center for Global Security and Health.
For more information see our website at

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION The smallpox decision <> International Herald-Tribune, originally printed in the New York Times Tuesday, October 15 President George W. Bush faces a momentous public health decision: whether to make smallpox vaccine available to all who want it or limit its use to the health personnel who would have to cope with any bioterrorist attack. The issue is fraught with difficulties. If Bush makes the vaccine widely available, there will be severe side effects in a small percentage of recipients. If 100 million people chose to be vaccinated, perhaps 100 of them might die and many more could be severely injured. But these casualties would pale in comparison with the toll that would be exacted by a smallpox attack. Should a smallpox epidemic spread out of control, it could kill tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated people. Decades ago, when smallpox was still rampant, the decision to vaccinate was easy. Smallpox was such a great risk, killing some 30 percent of those it infected, that the vaccine complications seemed acceptable. In 1968, some 14 million Americans were vaccinated, and only nine died from the side effects. But as smallpox was being eradicated around the globe, routine vaccination was dropped in America in 1972. Once smallpox was eradicated, all supplies of the virus were supposed to be concentrated in two well-guarded laboratories, one in the United States and one in Russia. No one, however, can be sure that all the virus was turned in, and no one is certain whether impoverished Russian scientists may have sold some to rogue nations. Let the public choose on smallpox vaccination <> The Houston Chronicle Friday, October 11 Sen. Judd Gregg Gregg is a Republican senator from New Hampshire. With a mortality rate of more than 30 percent, smallpox was one of the world's most feared diseases until a collaborative global vaccination program eradicated it in the 1970s. Smallpox no longer occurs naturally, and today it can be found only in laboratories in the United States and Russia. Or so we believe. With the fall of the Soviet Union, some intelligence officials are concerned that samples of the virus may have found their way to other countries, including Iraq. This is of grave concern to our nation and the world. Highly contagious and easily dispersed in the air, smallpox virus could be a deadly weapon in terrorist hands. Congress and the administration have responded to this potential threat by authorizing the purchase of approximately 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine, enough for every man, woman and child in America. To date, nearly 100 million doses have been delivered, with the remainder expected by early next year. Smallpox: Preparing for the Worst <> New York Times Friday, October 11 Stanley O. Foster, M.DTo the Editor: Re "Researchers Test Old Smallpox Vaccine, Just in Case" (news article, Oct. 10): Instead of deterring the spread of agents of bio-terrorism, military intervention in Iraq could disseminate these agents. In the case of smallpox, an organism rumored to be in the Iraqi arsenal, dissemination to the Middle East, Asia and Africa is possible. Since these regions lack the expertise and vaccine stockpiles that would enable the United States to control the disease rapidly, the accidental reintroduction of smallpox could result in as many as 100 million cases and 30 million deaths within a three- to five-year period. As an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, I worked with colleagues in Nigeria, Bangladesh and Somalia to eradicate smallpox. I never expected to witness again the anguish, the open sores and the 30 percent mortality of smallpox. No individual, group or country has the right to risk exposing the world to the tragedy of smallpox or any other biological agent. STANLEY O. FOSTER, M.D. Atlanta, Oct. 10, 2002 A Virus-Fed Doomsday: 'Bio-Armageddon' is a possibility if U.S. hits Hussein. <,0,72794> L.A. Times Thursday, October 10 By SCOTT P. LAYNE and MICHAEL H. SOMMER Scott P. Layne is an associate professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health. Michael H. Sommer is a visiting scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley. The debate among the nation's politicians and the advice they're receiving from intelligence experts should not focus exclusively on diplomacy versus preemptive military action against Saddam Hussein. Instead, there is one nightmarish outcome--the so-called bio-Armageddon scenario--that is of immediate concern. To take the shot, or not <,0,6526912> The Chicago Tribune Wednesday, October 9 As the federal government struggles to decide who and how many to vaccinate against smallpox, it makes sense for Americans to start asking: Should I get the immunization? The answer is far more complicated than it may seem at first. Lost amid the extraordinarily ambitious plans for mass inoculations in event of a wide-scale attack is a simple fact: Millions of Americans dare not take the vaccine because it could be dangerous, if not lethal, to them. UNMOVIC inspections are almost certain to fail <> Minnesota Star-Tribune Wednesday, October 9 Katherine Kersten Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis. In recent months, we've heard alarming evidence that Saddam Hussein is developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Many -- including our European allies and some congressional leaders -- insist that U.N. inspections are the best way to counter this threat, and that military force must be a last resort. But unless the United Nations radically reforms the inspections process, inspections are doomed to fail. In a recent article in Commentary magazine, two arms control monitors tell us why. "Iraq: The Snare of Inspections" is by Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz -- both analysts with the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin. Their article explains why the current U.N. inspection process is wholly inadequate to the task of unmasking Saddam's menacing weapons programs. Shifting debate on smallpox vaccine <> The Washington Times Tuesday, October 8 As this page has repeatedly advocated, the debate about allowing Americans to be voluntarily vaccinated against smallpox appears to have shifted from the question of "if" to the question of "when." Last Friday, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, publicly acknowledged they support such a policy. Over the weekend, senior White House officials confirmed to the Associated Press that the administration plans to offer the vaccine to the public. It is a welcome development, even though the timing, and the potential staging of such a policy remain uncertain. Some officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, are pushing for public vaccinations as soon as possible, while other public-health officials want to use a tiered approach, first offering the vaccine to those first-responders thought to be most vulnerable to a smallpox attack, and then, when it is fully licensed, (probably around 2004=) to the general public.
THE WAR ON TERRORISM CIA report weakens premise for Iraq war <> The Miami Herald Monday, October 14 Ivan Eland Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute ( ) and author of the book Putting 'Defense' Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World.' The CIA's newly declassified judgments on the likelihood of Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction severely undercut the Bush administration's case for attacking Iraq. The CIA noted that Iraq now appears to be deterred from initiating terrorist attacks against the United States with conventional, biological or chemical weapons. But if the United States invades Iraq and attempts to depose Saddam Hussein, the CIA concluded that he would be more likely to conduct such attacks. VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER): Don't dismiss a policy of deterrence so quickly <> Chicago Tribune Monday, October 14 Dan Reiter The writer is a Professor of Political science at Emory University Atlanta Should we abandon deterrence to the trash bin of history? As the Tribune has noted in a Sept. 24 editorial, the Bush administration downplayed 50 years of deterrence successes in shifting American foreign policy from deterrence toward a policy of pre-emptive attack. The administration's central claim is that deterrence won't succeed against rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction. The administration has it exactly backward. Deterrence will be easier against this kind of state, not harder. Countries like Iraq, North Korea and Iran are much weaker militarily than were the Soviet Union or China. Their leaders know that any aggression can be repulsed quickly and effectively by stronger, better-equipped American forces. Public should know: Case for war is weak: Iraq strike would threaten security, bring bloodshed <> Chicago Tribune Sunday, October 13 Doug Cassel Doug Cassel is the director of the Center for International Human Rights in Northwestern University's law school. Last Monday's address to the nation by President Bush not only fails to justify war, it reinforces the case that an invasion of Iraq would be unwarranted, unwise and unworthy of a peace-loving nation. An invasion is not needed to meet any imminent threat. On the contrary, it would trigger imminent threats to our national security. And it probably would end in a bloodbath in Baghdad. Not In The Same League <> The Washington Post Sunday, October 13 Michael Lind Michael Lind, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, is the co-author with Ted Halstead of "The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics" (Doubleday). Although he has been dead far longer than Elvis, Adolf Hitler is having an even busier posthumous career. The late German dictator has been sighted in various guises around the world in recent weeks: in Baghdad, Colorado, Washington, D.C., suburban Maryland. But those who glibly use the Hitler analogy misunderstand history and lack moral judgment. The potential war with Iraq has provided the biggest -- although by no means the only -- arena for the F=FChrer's latest appearances, as the Bush administration and conservative journalists muster public support for invasion by recycling the decade-old "Saddam is Hitler" theme. Like Hitler, they argue, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant who has sought to obtain weapons of mass destruction and invaded or attacked neighboring countries. In the lead-up to the Gulf War, the current president's father went even further, pronouncing Hussein "worse than Hitler." It's an obvious comparison to make, but it doesn't hold up. It is true that Hussein's Iraq is a dictatorship that has sought to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But so is Pakistan, America's ally in the war on al Qaeda. In fact, Pakistan is a military dictatorship that already possesses weapons of mass destruction and has sponsored Kashmiri terrorism against India, just as Hussein has encouraged Palestinian terrorism against Israel. True, Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwait. But the United States, which went to war with Iraq after the latter invaded Kuwait, secretly supported Hussein's regime during Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s. A more accurate 1930s parallel would have FDR helping Hitler to invade Poland, only to turn against him after he invaded the Soviet Union. Our fears are not a reason for war <> The Washington Post Sunday, October 13 Herold Meyerson Harold Meyerson is editor at large of the American Prospect, a biweekly journal of liberal opinion and analysis. Did ever a declaration of war (or its functional equivalent) spring from a more dampered debate? It's not that there weren't impassioned speeches of opposition in both the Senate and House chambers this past week as Congress gave President Bush the unilateral authority he wants to wage war against Iraq. Critics of the administration's policy raised doubts about the Iraqi threat, the distraction from our war against al Qaeda, and the wisdom and propriety of preemption itself. Old Robert Byrd of West Virginia did a pretty fair imitation of Frank Capra's young Mr. Smith. But there's an emotional undercurrent to the Iraq debate that was largely missing from this nation's earlier deliberations on war and peace, and that most certainly played no part in the wrangling over Vietnam. That emotion is fear -- in the Congress, but more important, in the nation as a whole. And the president has done a masterful job of exploiting it. Midlands Voices: America should seek peace options instead of hurrying to war <> Omaha World-Herald Saturday, October 12 Rheta Johnson The writer, of Omaha, is a retired government construction analyst and residential construction contractor. While we all want as much assurance as possible that there will not be further attacks on Americans, especially on American soil, do we really know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons? Has there been any confirmation concerning the implied tie to Saddam Hussein for the attack of Sept. 11? If we go to war, we can expect this dictator to again put his military men and equipment in civilian areas. This time it will necessarily be a ground war, and occupation forces will be required after a presumed victory, with possible biological attacks on our military fighting forces as well as military and civilian occupation forces. All that will be in addition to the initial air strikes, which will clearly be lengthier and more costly than those of the last Iraq war. Will not retaliatory terrorism strikes at home be inevitable, whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or was involved in 9/11? After all, if we can't protect our citizens now from further terrorism attacks, what will happen if we defy the people of the Middle East by pursuing military aggression in their territory? The Hazardous Path Ahead <> The New York Times Friday, October 11 With war resolutions from the House and Senate now in hand, President Bush has won the Congressional assent he requested for a military showdown with Iraq. That makes it all the more important that Mr. Bush and the nation consider the dangers that lie ahead. As lawmakers were debating this week, new information came to light that made plain just how difficult it will be to manage an escalating crisis with Iraq in ways that assure a constructive outcome. One area of concern is the period immediately ahead as Washington increases the pressure on Iraq to comply voluntarily with the United Nations' disarmament orders. As long as the United States continues to work with the Security Council to insist that Iraq comply, Saddam Hussein seems unlikely to strike out wildly with his chemical and biological weapons. That could change quickly, however, if the Iraqi leader believes that an American attack is imminent. To war or not to war? NO <> The Mercury News Friday, October 11 Rep. Pete Stark Pete Stark is a Democratic congressman from Fremont. I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy. The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisers. Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus. To war or not to war? YES <> The Mercury News Friday, October 11 Rep. Tom Lantos Tom Lantos is a Democratic congressman from San Mateo. Over the course of the last two days, my colleagues have expressed many different views on this important subject. But all have affirmed their commitment to safeguard our national security, to pursue peace, to wage war only as a last resort. The depth and dignity of the debate unfolding on this floor is most worthy of this grave subject and of our great democracy. Mr. Speaker, as our debate has shown, none deny the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. We differ only in the means of addressing this mounting threat. And in doing so, we grapple with two paradoxes. U.S. could pay big price for inaction against Iraq <> Omaha World-Herald Friday, October 11 Rowland Nethaway WACO, Texas - For my money, the best argument President Bush gave Monday night for holding Saddam Hussein's feet to the fire was the living-with-fear alternative. "I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," Bush said. No reasonable person should. The fact is, Saddam lost the Persian Gulf War and has refused for 11 years to abide by the conditions laid down to end that war. <"> The days of denial are over; We know enough International Herald-Tribune, originally printed in The Washington Post Friday, October 11 Jim Hoagland WASHINGTON On Iraq, the world has too long rushed past the obvious. As George W. Bush and Tony Blair spotlight and lengthen the list of the dark deeds already committed and now planned by the Ba'ath regime in Baghdad, there is no intellectually honest way to continue saying "We didn't know." Or to ask "What's that got to do with us?" Bush's immediate predecessors overlooked the genocide against the Kurds, the defiance of the United Nations on weapons of mass destruction, the harboring of terrorists, the breaking of the overly generous cease-fire terms that the United States dictated at the end of the Gulf War and other parts of what Bush on Monday accurately called Iraq's "unique" record of evil. Until the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush and his cabinet seemed able to also argue information about Iraq round or flat. A sea change has occurred in official Washington since the president decided last summer that he would soon have to be ready to go to war against Iraq. Public attempts by officials to bury or explain away menacing information about Iraq have largely dried up or gone underground, although the CIA fights a rearguard action. Now information and intelligence are marshaled to make the case rather than deflect it. Congress Must Resist the Rush to War <> The New York Times Thursday, October 10 Robert C. Byrd Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic senator for West Virginia. WASHINGTON - A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order to give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will - a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term "self-defense"? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation. The case for war looks weak: Saddam is contained <> International Herald-Tribune Thursday, October 10 Andrew Mack The writer directs the Human Security Centre at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. VANCOUVER It is true that inspections, however intrusive, can never guarantee that all of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs will be uncovered. Mobile and underground facilities for weapons of mass destruction are almost impossible to detect. And yes, the Iraqi regime is utterly untrustworthy. Any promises to come clean on its weapons programs are never worth the paper they are printed on. Regime change is indeed a necessary condition for getting rid of Iraqi weapons programs. But does it follow from all this that war is necessary? Much of the Bush administration's case for war is driven by politics rather than logic and evidence. It is often plain wrong, and it reeks of hypocrisy. The first casualty <> The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch Thursday, October 10 PRESIDENTS shouldn't wage wars by exaggerating threats. But President George W. Bush is overstating the case on Iraq. In his speech on Monday, Mr. Bush pulled together all of the reasons that war may be needed to disarm or depose Saddam Hussein. By addressing the questions of critics, Mr. Bush seemed to make his case more persuasively than in the past. But when that case is held up to the light, it is full of holes. The war resolution <> The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Thursday, October 10 CONGRESS THE HOUSE is expected to vote overwhelmingly today in favor of a resolution granting President George W. Bush broad authority to use military action to enforce a long list of United Nations' resolutions that Saddam Hussein has violated. The congressional resolution is too broad, in that the U.N. resolutions cover everything from weapons of mass destruction -- which are worth fighting about -- to reparations for Kuwait -- which are not. Nevertheless, passage is assured. The only impediment to a quick Senate vote is the idiosyncratic opposition of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who pulls out his pocket Constitution to argue that it is Congress, not the president, who declares war. It's a principled view, but one that has been obsolete since about 1800. Presidents, exercising their constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, have broad authority to commit U.S. forces to military action. The most recent wars fought by the United States were authorized by congressional resolutions, not declarations of war. Ready for War <> The Washington Post Thursday, October 10 Richard Cohen In listing his reasons for (probably) going to war against Iraq soon -- the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime and its flouting of international law -- President Bush the other night failed to mention the most important one: Now's the time. Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor enabled President Roosevelt to go to war against Germany as well as Japan, so did the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 give Bush the opportunity to do what three administrations -- his, his father's and Bill Clinton's -- had wanted to do for some time. The attacks galvanized the nation and altered the political climate. Hussein hadn't changed any. America had. Absorbing Iraq's 'Unique' Evil <> The Washington Post Thursday, October 10 Jim Hoagland It is accurate to say that there was little "new" in the three major speeches on Iraq given recently by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Accurate, but irrelevant. Information does not have a use-by date stamped on it. Changed circumstances make the truth important even after it has ceased to be novel. Confusing the urgent with the important is a constant risk in daily journalism and in election-year politics. On Iraq, the world has too long rushed past the obvious. As Bush and Blair spotlight and lengthen the list of the dark deeds already committed and now planned by the Baathist regime in Baghdad, there is no intellectually honest way to continue saying, "We didn't know." Or to ask, "What's that got to do with us?" Give the president the power to act <,1299,DRMN_38_14696> Rocky Mountain News Thursday, October 10 Slightly more than a year ago, Congress gave President Bush the authority to wage the first phase of America's war against terrorism. Today the House of Representatives is expected to vote on whether to give Bush authority to begin phase two, if Iraq refuses to disarm. The House should grant him that power. We're aware of the many serious arguments against toppling Saddam Hussein and the questions critics are asking. Why is the United States so worried about Iraq? Why not other countries that possess equally destructive weapons? Setting a Course on Iraq <> The Washington Post Thursday, October 10 CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS now say they expect both chambers to vote overwhelmingly to grant broad authority to President Bush to move against Iraq, with the House acting as early as today. We believe they are right to do so, as we have written before. President Bush is correct in his assessment of the dangers in a world where Saddam Hussein is permitted, in long-standing defiance of United Nations demands, to assemble arsenals of chemical, biological and, in time, nuclear weapons. As even Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a critic of administration policy, has acknowledged: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." But we also believe that the congressional vote will be a step in a continuing diplomatic process, not a concluding declaration of war. As Mr. Bush said in his speech Monday evening, the course of U.S. policy is not yet set. Both chambers of Congress this week have been conducting a serious and useful debate. Critics have emphasized risks that the administration had skated over and have urged an effort to build alliances, to which the administration had not always seemed committed. What the critics have not done is offer a cogent alternative policy. One could make a case that the risks of disarming Saddam Hussein outweigh the risks of living with his regime -- that he can be contained and deterred, that he will eventually die in his sleep or at an assassin's hand, that the unpredictability of war poses greater dangers than the threat of his regime. We would not be persuaded, but the argument is respectable; the dispute is a matter of judgment, with evidence carrying you only so far. Democrats Need Ideas <> International Herald-Tribune, originally published in the New York Times Wednesday, October 9 Gary Hart Former Senator Gary Hart, commenting in The New York Times It is not too late for Democrats to dominate the defense debate. National defense must fit within the broader context of foreign policy. To this end, Democrats can and must spell out the conditions under which American forces would be deployed to promote peace and protect global security. We can also propose such initiatives as an international peacemaking force. And we can show that there are alternatives to the administration's calls for preemptive "regime change" - a euphemism for overthrowing governments - and to its aggressive pronouncements that no nation will be permitted to rival America militarily. There are alternatives to Republican-dominated defense thinking generally. But we will not hear them so long as the Democratic Party continues to confine itself to reacting to Republican initiatives and thus continues to shy away from leadership on the security of our nation. Bush's Zero-Risk Policy <> The Christian Science Monitor Wednesday, October 9 The key point in President Bush's Monday night speech was that the United States should not accept any level of risk in letting Iraq create or deliver weapons of mass destruction. "I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," the president told a "heartland" audience in Cincinnati. Ensuring that the US is totally free of any terrorist risks sets a high goal, requiring all sorts of sacrifices that many Americans aren't yet ready to accept. Wary of war, some critics first insist on an imminent threat from Iraq or from an Iraqi weapon handed over to a terrorist. They cite the United Nations Charter, which allows a war of self-defense only in the case of armed attack. Bush showed new readiness to let diplomacy work, though war remains a very real option <> Omaha World-Herald Wednesday, October 9 President Bush, coming across as serious, methodical and forthright rather than emotional in Monday night's address to the nation, was at his most effective so far in making a case that Iraq is a threat that can't be set aside forever. Hearteningly, Bush for the first time asserted the need for Iraqi disarmament without also asserting that the United States and Britain will pre-emptively take on Saddam Hussein by themselves. Monday's stance - that the United States will lead a coalition force if necessary - undoubtedly makes it easier for many members of the U.S. House and Senate to vote for the war resolutions the president has sought. This is to the good. The administration's prior strong suggestion that America would try to knock out regimes unilaterally if they seem dangerous was troubling, bordering on arrogant. The American people have long had an aversion to starting wars, but few qualms about ending one to restore peace. An Iraq strategy full of holes <> San Francisco Chronicle Wednesday, October 9 LIKE A tough-minded prosecutor, President Bush made his case against Saddam Hussein in measured, forceful terms. But doubters were left with important questions unanswered as he takes the country to the precipice of war. In a summation of his position, Bush laid out Hussein's murderous record as "a student of Stalin" and his disregard for United Nations agreements to disarm after the Gulf War. No argument there, Mr. President. But the speech fell short on other scores. His evidence of Hussein's near- term nuclear capability was questionable. A smoking-gun link between Baghdad and al Qaeda leaders was not established. The "imminent threat" to the United States to justify a pre-emptive strike was implied, not shown. A new seriousness on Iraq <,1413,36%257E417%257E911487%257E,00.htm> Denver Post Wednesday, October 9 President Bush came closer than ever Monday to explaining why Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the United States and global stability. However, Bush still must earn crucial support from our allies and the United Nations. The United States must not go to war unilaterally. The looming conflict would be more easily won with allies at our side, but more importantly, our long-term interests are served by preserving the U.N. Security Council's role in protecting world peace and security. Closing on Saddam <> Boston Globe Wednesday, October 9 IN A TEMPERATE speech Monday, President Bush sought to explain and justify his determination to confront the challenge from Saddam Hussein's regime and its unchecked chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Bush offered substantive answers to what he called ''legitimate questions'' about his Iraq policy. He refrained from overstating his case and acknowledged some of the perils and uncertainties inherent in the course of action he proposes. But he also suggested that war need not be the inevitable result of a renewed United Nations Security Council demand that Saddam keep the promises he made in 1991 to declare and dismantle all his weapons of mass destruction. U.S. aims must be sharp if we're shooting for peace <> Atlanta Journal-Constitution Wednesday, October 9 In his sober and well-delivered remarks to the nation Monday evening, President Bush repeatedly stressed his hope that war on Iraq would not be necessary. That marked a welcome and necessary step backward from previous rhetoric coming from the administration. That language had created the impression that war was the preferred choice of the Bush administration, rather than the last resort. And that impression, in turn, has made it much more difficult for the president to win support in the United Nations and indeed among many Americans. Other countries clearly do share U.S. concerns about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. On those grounds, they are also willing to press hard for a return of inspectors to Iraq and if necessary to approve a U.S.-led invasion to ensure that all Iraqi-held chemical and biological weapons are destroyed. They will accept --- and the American public will accept --- a war that is truly a last resort. President makes his case <> Omaha World-Herald Wednesday, October 9 Cal Thomas WASHINGTON - President Bush has soberly and systematically laid out his case for why Iraq's Saddam Hussein must go. In a speech Monday night, delivered to an audience in Cincinnati and carried only on the all-news cable channels (more about that in a moment), the president lifted the curtain on some of the intelligence information that has led him to oppose further delay in forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm. He said he believes delay is the riskiest of several options. Calling Iraq's leader "a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction," the president said Saddam is developing an "arsenal of terror" with crude but effective delivery systems that include "a growing arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles." He said such vehicles could carry anthrax or other biological and chemical agents over the United States and be easily flown or brought in by a terrorist or Iraqi intelligence officer. Gloss over war's details <> Philadelphia Inquirer Wednesday, October 9 Trudy Rubin Are we ready? The President's speech on Monday began the countdown to an Iraq war. The speech was heavy on spin but provided no new facts about why war is so urgent. And it gave little hint that the Bush team is prepared for the chaos likely to follow in Saddam's wake. Truth on Iraq Seeps Through <,0,32633> The L.A. Times Tuesday, October 8 Robert Scheer In a speech intended to frighten the American people into supporting a war, the president Monday again trotted out his grim depiction of Saddam Hussein as a terrifying boogeyman haunting the world. However, a CIA report released late last week and designed to bolster Bush's case for preemptive invasion instead provided clear evidence that Iraq poses less of a threat to the world than at any other time in the past decade. In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States. The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, although it lamely attempts to put the worst spin on that embarrassing fact: "Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them." Closer to the Middle <,0,7778403> The L.A. Times Tuesday, October 8 President Bush's sober address last night showed an encouraging hint of restraint cloaked in tough declarations about the United States' new role in the post-9/11 world. As he took his case for confronting Saddam Hussein directly to the American people, Bush also acknowledged that questions about going to war were legitimate, rather than anti-American. Perhaps most important, Bush emphasized again that he would go through the United Nations first and that any war would be waged "with allies," presumably meaning more than Britain alone. Bush emphasized that war was not the first resort of a powerful democracy, even as he warned that waiting too long was "the riskiest of all options." If Hussein fully complies with whatever demands emerge from a new U.N. Security Council resolution, Bush promised, Iraq can avoid war. Or, he all but said out loud, Iraqis can just deal with Hussein and expect plenty of American help afterward. The president did not offer any shocking revelations--or even new revelations--about Iraq's attempts to acquire biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. He did state that Iraq was attempting to rebuild its nuclear weapons program and that weapons could be funneled to terrorists or aimed directly at the United States. Why now? Americans still don't have an answer <> Minnesota Star-Tribune Tuesday, October 8 "We refuse to live in fear," President Bush said in his speech Monday night in Cincinnati, referring to the American people. And of course he is right, but there are fears, and then there are fears, and the top one on most Americans' list today is not Iraq, the focus of the president's remarks, but the safety of their jobs, of their pensions, of their health care. On those subjects, their president has been missing in action for many months now, and the people do not know quite why. The White House promised that Bush's focus on Iraq would be explained in Monday night's speech, but the promise went unfulfilled. "Why now" was the question the president's staff promised he would answer, but it seems that Bush and the American people have a different frame of reference in asking the question. War and Peace <,0,2131406> The Chicago Tribune Tuesday, October 8 Speaking from Cincinnati on Monday night was President George W. Bush's symbolic way of taking his case against Iraq beyond corridors of power and directly to the American people. What matters now, though, is what effect his strong words will have inside the corridors of power--at the U.S. Capitol, the United Nations and the presidential palaces of Baghdad. Bush's speech could not, and will not, convince those who wholeheartedly oppose a war to change their minds. This remains a nation deeply divided. But by synthesizing his arguments against Saddam Hussein, Bush probably has raised the margins by which both houses of Congress will give him the authority to take military action. His arguments were sharper than in the past, including his assertion that "the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place." WAR DRUMS: Bush speech the way our process is supposed to work <> The Houston Chronicle Monday, October 7 This is the way it is supposed to work in our democracy. This is what separates us from so many other nations: The president is expected to make a clear and compelling case for his actions, especially for making war. The American people, by their direct voices and through their elected representatives, have a right to respond and should respond. Through this process, one hopes, a consensus will emerge that will help to guide the nation and its leaders and make us stronger. Both sides should be able to speak their mind without incurring charges of being unpatriotic or worse. Opponents of a unilateral attack on Iraq are not by definition un-American. By the same token, President Bush, the commander in chief, should not be liable to a baseless allegation that he wants to send U.S. troops into battle to distract Americans from the ailing economy. A Nation Wary of War <> The New York Times Tuesday, October 8 Not quite four decades ago, Lyndon Johnson learned to his and the nation's sorrow that taking a reluctant country to war can severely damage the body politic. President Bush must be mindful of that danger as he draws the United States ever closer to military conflict with Iraq. Americans are worried about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, but are also concerned about the anemic state of the nation's economy, and seem uncertain how best to deal with Iraq. A New York Times/CBS News poll published yesterday, and other surveys, support the sense of many around the country that Mr. Bush still has work to do if he hopes to persuade Americans of the need to use military force to disarm Iraq. With Congress heading toward a vote on a war resolution, Mr. Bush marshaled his arguments once again last night. Speaking in Cincinnati, he was forceful in outlining the threat presented by Iraq. He laid out the ways in which the Iraqi dictator has brazenly defied United Nations orders to destroy his unconventional weapons, making Iraq, in the president's view, unique in its ability to threaten the world. He was less convincing in addressing the potentially costly consequences of a war against that country. Punching holes in 'madman' myth <,0,1804216.> Baltimore Sun Tuesday, October 8 Steve Chapman Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. CHICAGO -- He's a megalomaniac who has weapons of mass destruction and dreams of conquest. If left alone, he is bound to shatter the stability of the Middle East and the world. Anyone who expects him to behave rationally is deluded. He's so reckless and warlike that there's no telling what he might do. No, I'm not talking about George W. Bush. I'm talking about Saddam Hussein, as portrayed these days by those advocating war with Iraq. They claim we must act now to keep him from getting nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. Skeptics, including myself, reply that he would never use those weapons against us because he knows we would obliterate his regime and his country. The administration's supporters insist that though our nuclear arsenal was enough to contain Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, it can't deter the Iraqi dictator.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS American hegemony will be expensive: 'The Big Enchilada' <> The International Herald Tribune, originally printed in the Washington Post Tuesday, October 15 Max Boot The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power." He contributed this comment to The Washington Post. WASHINGTON The National Security Strategy released last month by the White House may be the most significant U.S. foreign policy statement since NSC 68, the 1950 paper that codified the containment doctrine. Yet oddly most of the debate has focused on only one of its aspects - the promise that America will strike preemptively against potential threats. Almost no one is criticizing President George W. Bush's pledge to maintain American military hegemony. North Korea is the problem: Iraq isn't top rogue <> International Herald-Tribune Monday, October 14 Robyn Lim The writer is a professor of international politics at Nanzan University. She contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. NAGOYA, Japan George W. Bush has warned that Iraq and North Korea, members along with Iran of his "axis of evil," will be held to account for developing weapons of mass destruction. So why did President Bush, as he prepares to attack Iraq, recently send a senior American official to Pyongyang? North Korea and Iraq are both rogue states located in regions that have caused problems for the United States for more than 50 years. But it is North Korea, not Iraq, that is developing missiles which soon will be able to reach the continental United States. North Korea is also the world's worst missile proliferator, contributing to the missile programs of Iran, Syria and others. Their missiles can now target American forces and allies in the Middle East. And North Korea is believed to possess one or two nuclear weapons, as well as a chemical and biological arsenal. A Precedent That Proves Neither Side's Point <> The Washington Post Sunday, October 13 Jefferson Morley Jefferson Morley is World editor at President Bush and Teddy Kennedy don't agree about much, but they do agree that the Cuban missile crisis is a relevant story today. As Americans debate whether to wage preemptive war against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, both the president and the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy are citing the events of October 1962 to justify different courses of action. In his speech to the nation last Monday, Bush dressed his policy in JFK's mantle. "As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: Neither the United States nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world, he said, where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." But Sen. Kennedy, in a Sept. 27 speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, maintained that his brother's actions 40 years ago were anything but Bush-like. Nuclear threat doesn't come from Iraq <> San Francisco Chronicle Friday, October 11 Eduardo Cohen Eduardo Cohen is a a Vietnam veteran who hosted and produced "The Other Americas" radio journal for 15 years, examining U.S. foreign policy. He is coordinator of communications and information at Project Underground, a nonprofit that supports communities. As the Bush Administration pushes the nation toward war with Iraq, completely ignored is one of the most serious moral issues to face Congress in many years: The likelihood that a resolution for war in Iraq could lead to the first use of nuclear weapons since World War II. It was decided long ago that as a matter of policy, the United States would be prepared to "go nuclear" in the case of a Soviet Bloc assault on Western Europe. That policy derived from the military reality that Soviet Bloc military forces far outnumbered those of our Western European allies. Without the use of nuclear weapons, Western European armies would have almost certainly been overwhelmed in a conventional conflict. And that's the way it was for many years. But that changed significantly when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld early this year signed a revised nuclear weapons policy known as the Nuclear Profile Review. This new policy creates new parameters in which the use of nuclear weapons may be authorized. The folly of pre-emptive war <> The San Francisco Chronicle Friday, October 11 Kevin Denaher, Ted Lewis, and Jason Mark Jason Mark and Kevin Danaher promote international economic rights for the human rights organization Global Exchange. Ted Lewis directs the organization's human rights program. In attempting to make the case for invading Iraq, President Bush's speech Monday night revealed the folly of the new doctrine of pre-emptive attack. More clearly than any other statement by the White House, the president laid bare the weakness of his administration's foreign policy. According to the president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" that Saddam Hussein's government is planning an imminent attack against the United States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq does not currently threaten the United States, he said we must "assume the worst." Essentially, the White House is proposing that the United States invade a distant country without any evidence of impending aggression. Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm Hussein. Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What he failed to> do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because there is no coalition. Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, disregard for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war without end is causing traditional friends of the United States to join the majority of the world's nations in distancing themselves from Washington in a fashion not seen since the Vietnam War. U.S. Needs Alliances, Not Short-Term Allies: Bush's approach places global stability at risk. <,0,4333> The L.A. Times Friday, October 11 James E. Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode James E. Goodby is a retired diplomat with more than four decades of service to the U.S. government; Kenneth Weisbrode is a member of the Atlantic Council of the United States in Washington. Concerns over American unilateralism have receded over the last few weeks as the Bush administration and the president himself have gradually begun to say positive things about the need for allies to accomplish U.S. aims in the Middle East. Few proponents of war against Iraq or any other evil regime now assert in principle that the United States should act by itself or with just one or two coalition partners. Polls show that a wide majority of Americans also reject "going it alone." The shift toward a greater concern for allies is a positive one; it has warmed the heart of the multilateralist backers of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in the administration and in the media. However, the shift has overlooked a critical distinction. Allies are not the same things as alliances. The latter subject has barely been mentioned in the administration's public pronouncements. Does U.S. want to be branded as a rogue state? <> Minneapolis Star-Tribune Friday, October 11 Mike Klein Mike Klein is an instructor in the Justice and Peace Studies Department at the University of St. Thomas. Much has been made lately of the threat posed to the world by rogue states. Our administration recommends that they be controlled, contained or undone. President Bush provided a clear definition of a rogue state in September's National Security Strategy of the United States of America. While reading his criteria, I couldn't help but reflect on recent U.S. foreign and domestic policy. The following are criteria for a rogue state and evidence that we qualify. The Wrong Resolution <,0,731518> The L.A. Times Friday, October 11 The resolution Congress passed early today authorizing the use of military force against Iraq gives too much power to this and, potentially, future presidents to attack nations unilaterally based on mere suspicions. This could fundamentally change the nation's approach to foreign policy. It could also, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) observed this week, "have ramifications for the future of the world, because other countries will adopt this same philosophy." A preemptive strike against Iraq could spring open a Pandora's box of aggression. Russia could cite it to crush insurgents in Georgia. India could use it to justify a nuclear strike to prevent Pakistan from such an attack. A mischievous blame game <> India and Pakistan International Herald-Tribune Thursday, October 10 Husain Haqqani The writer, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, served as adviser to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. ISLAMABAD As Pakistan prepares to hold its first general election in five years this Thursday, it has once again conducted tit-for-tat missile tests. Tests last week were carried out by Pakistan and India soon after they blamed each other for recent terrorist attacks. And Pakistan carried out a successful test of a medium-range Shaheen ballistic missile on Tuesday. Mutual accusations and saber rattling have characterized India-Pakistan relations for most of the last 50 years. But this latest round is fraught with danger because it could provide terrorists in the region with cover to stoke tensions at a time when India and Pakistan are in a military face-off in Kashmir and have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. The twist in U.S.-Iraq game of chicken <> The Houston Chronicle Tuesday, October 7 Thomas L. Friedman Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner. To be successful in dealing with Iraq, President Bush has to tread the most unusual line one could imagine for a statesman: He has to be wild, but not crazy. How so? Well, it all goes back to a well-known concept in strategic theory: how to win a game of chicken between two drivers barreling head-on at one another. If you are one of the drivers, the best way to win is, before the race even starts, to take out a screwdriver and very visibly unscrew your steering wheel and throw it out the window. The message to the other driver is: "Hey, I'd love to chicken out and get out of your way, but I just threw out my steering wheel -- so unless you want to crash head-on, you better get out of the way." We are witnessing a similar situation between Bush and Saddam Hussein. To push the United Nations, the Arabs and the Europeans to finally get serious about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. inspection resolutions, Bush had to appear wild -- as if he had thrown out America's steering wheel and was ready to invade Iraq tomorrow, alone. It was a very smart tactic, and if it produces a serious, united international front, it may yet pressure Saddam into chickening out and allowing unconditional inspections. It may even turn up the pressure inside Iraq so much that someone there is emboldened to take Saddam down. You never know. Where are the questions about war and ethics? <> Mercury News Wednesday, October 9 Rob Elder Rob Elder is senior fellow of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Whoa! Run this past me again, real slow. I listened to President Bush's speech. I read the text. I still don't see how we got to a choice whether to invade Iraq with or without allies, now or later. When did we decide to do it at all? Granted, the president was reassuring, not bellicose. He reviewed questions that bother Americans. Why Iraq? Because ``it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.'' Wouldn't war in Iraq distract us from the war against terrorism? No, he said. It's a necessary part of the war against terrorism. Texas Hold 'Em With a Stacked Deck <> San Francisco Chronicle Wednesday, October 9 Harley Sorensen Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist and iconoclast. I'd like to play poker with George W. Bush. I'd get rich. Any poker player worth his salt knows you always call when the other guy is bluffing. If he's bluffing, and you're holding any cards at all, you've got him beat. You can't lose. So how does George W. Bush respond to a bluff? He throws in his cards! He gives up. That's what he did recently in the never-ending saga of the Bush family versus Saddam Hussein. First, Bush insisted that Saddam allow arms inspectors into Iraq. Second, Saddam said, "Okay, bring 'em on. We have nothing to hide." Third, Bush said, "He's bluffing. We're not sending any inspectors." Bargaining With Russia <> The New York Times Tuesday, October 8 Mark Brzezinksi Mark Brzezinski, a Washington attorney, served as director for Russian and Eurasian affairs on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. WASHINGTON - At last week's meeting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the Russian delegation insisted that the terms of reference for arms inspection in Iraq already provide adequate legal basis for access to relevant sites. The Russians believe that negotiation of a new resolution would only delay further the return of the inspectors. They have in private questioned the validity of the Bush administration's assertion that Iraq is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. What is driving Russia's actions at the United Nations? Self interest, of course. Iraq owes Russia about $8 billion on loans dating back to the Soviet era; Russia fears the debts will be renounced if there is regime change. Private contracts benefiting Russian oil companies are in place. Under the United Nations' oil-for-food program, Russian contractors have been by far the biggest beneficiaries. Forty percent of Iraqi oil traded under the program is sold via Russian intermediaries. Considering the dismal state of Russia's economy, the $1 billion a year Russia gains from the program is alone an important motivating factor. 'The Bush Doctrine' Leaps Into History: Wage first-strike war to achieve peace <,0,6252697> The L.A. Times Tuesday, October 8 James B. Pinkerton James P. Pinkerton writes a column for Newsday in New York. Most television networks chose not to cover President Bush's speech Monday. There would be no real news, they were told. Indeed, the White House wanted to low-key the talk--perhaps to avoid accusations that it was wagging the dog in regard to the midterm elections. And so the networks were eager to carry on with their commercial programming. But long after "King of Queens" and "Fear Factor" are forgotten, people will remember 2002 as the year that Bush propounded a new doctrine for the world, one likely to define the next century. To be sure, much of Bush's speech was devoted to the question of "why now?" for Saddam Hussein. As the president said, "By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique." But he also said, "For the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him ... we cannot wait for the final proof." First-strike war to achieve peace--that's a new doctrine for America. Beware perilous chain reaction <> The Miami Herald Tuesday, October 8 Michael T. Klare Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. In its rush to war against Iraq, the Bush administration is suffering from tunnel vision. Its inability to see what is important outside of a narrow range of considerations could lead to dangerous outcomes. The U.S. effort to locate and destroy the surviving forces of al Qaeda would have to be scaled back. Many senior officers and Special Forces personnel have been withdrawn from Afghanistan and surrounding areas to join the forces being assembled for the assault on Iraq. Particularly troubling in this regard is the fact that Gen. Tommy R. Franks (commander of all U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf area) and his senior staff have been devoting almost all of their time to planning for the war on Iraq instead of overseeing the war on terrorism. Washington would be compelled to grant tacit support to Russia, China and India to mimic the U.S. invasion of Iraq by engaging in attacks on their own terror-linked enemies.

back to 10/02 mail | 911 Analysis | JJ | JFK | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | tree