31 Dec 2002 | JF said...

I'll go out on a limb here and say this Administration has things very much in control. They've managed to get inspectors back into Iraq -- something plenty of people had been talking about for years but no one had the balls to force. We all kept hearing "don't do this without the UN!" and "we need to get the inspectors back in there!" Well, the UN passed a new resolution and the inspectors are back in. That wasn't easy, but they managed to do what no one else could do. There's a lot of politics being played right now -- and plenty of it is behind the scenes. Until new bombs drop and an invasion begins, I think so far so good.

Re: The North Korea situation. It's early in this latest chapter so I'll reserve judgment on that one. Clearly a messy situation. In some ways I feel like we'll let N. Korea play a little -- it makes them look crazier and will help rally the world around the cause of chilling them out. We'll see.

31 Dec 2002 | ek said...

I don't really think that the North Koreans need to be made to look any crazier than they already are. And the idea that we'll "rally the world" around stopping North Korea, but go it alone against Iraq is precisely the problem that I called out in my original post. It makes it seem quite clear to the world that our motives have nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and a lot to do with oil.

And since when does the U.S. deserve the credit for inspectors going back in to Iraq? Have you forgotten the Administration's wholesale dismissal of inspectors and the inspection process earlier in the year via Dick Cheney? We were dragged in to inspection process kicking and screaming.

I think the biggest problem is that the Administration seems to think that it does have things under control. Unfortunately, as al Qaida and now North Korea have shown, that is not the case.

31 Dec 2002 | JF said...

go it alone against Iraq

We aren't going it alone against Iraq. Just wait and see.

31 Dec 2002 | JF said...

And since when does the U.S. deserve the credit for inspectors going back in to Iraq? Have you forgotten the Administration's wholesale dismissal of inspectors and the inspection process earlier in the year via Dick Cheney? We were dragged in to inspection process kicking and screaming.

Really? Who started this whole process? Did the UN wake up one day and say "You know, we've kinda blown off Iraq for the past 4 or so years. Let's get tough!" No. The US pushed them. The US was pushed and the UN was pushed. Everyone was pushed, but the current Administration provided the spark that made this all happen.

It's yet to play out, but that's where we are right now. Could turn out bad, could turn out good, but the "let's let Hussein do his thing even though he said 'fuck you' to all these UN resolutions" status quo had been running smoothly since 1998.

31 Dec 2002 | ek said...

So you have a line into Bush or something? The "go it alone" line is Bush's own so whether it turns out that other countries provide support (aside from England, which has already said it would provide support) it still makes us look isolationist.

31 Dec 2002 | ek said...

It's yet to play out, but that's where we are right now. Could turn out bad, could turn out good, but the "let's let Hussein do his thing even though he said 'fuck you' to all these UN resolutions" status quo had been running smoothly since 1998.

So how does allowing the status quo to prevail with North Korea make any sense? The biggest problem here is the bald-faced hyposcrisy of saying that Iraq is deserving of invasion because it *may* have weapons of mass destruction, while taking a completely different position on North Korea which *does* have weapons of mass destruction.

And it certainly wasn't the U.S. that started the process in the U.N. If Bush could have his way the U.N. probably wouldn't even exist let alone be playing a part in this process. It's true that it's the U.S.' pressure that led to Iraq agreeing to allow the inspectors back in, but this constant harping on war, war, war by Bush doesn't seem to be helping matters.

31 Dec 2002 | bruno said...

50 billion dollars and 40% of americans do not have health care because they simply can not afford it. last time i checked i would have to pay upwards of $400 a month for kaiser permanente for my family. i could buy a car for that. my employeer certainly would not pay for that. why not? because fulltime work is hard to find so i work 3 partime jobs. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Back to empting the trash in this office building.

31 Dec 2002 | MARCOS said...

Question.
How is Iraq supposed to prove a negative?
what is it called, burdon of proof? Does that not fall on the US shoulders?
I wish i would have invested in the Perpetual War Porfolio for this endless war on terrorism. sic

31 Dec 2002 | ~bc said...

Does anyone else feel like this Administration is spinning out of control?

Are you trying to say they were in control, at some point? Get me off this cattle drive.

01 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Any attack of Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economyThis economy cannot afford to stand an attack.

According to Duisenberg of the European Central Bank both he and Greenspan are concerned that a war with Iraq would damage the world economy.

01 Jan 2003 | Cynthia said...

Well stated. I loathe Bush and the primitives with whom he's chosen to surround himself. I'm a shrink, so all I can see is a pissed-off little boy whose daddy liked Jeb better and who is still trying to garner the love and approval he felt he never received. Therefore, the way to recapitulate his lost childhood needs is to avenge Daddy's humiliation for the Gulf War and to go after Saddam. What a narcissistic twat! His arrogance may spell doom for the world; the evil is not so much in the Middle East as it is in the White House.

01 Jan 2003 | Neo said...

If this had anything to do with forcing Iraq to submit to the previous UN resolutions, why is the United States not holding Israel to the same standards?

There are numerous UN resolutions to which Israel has turned its other cheek to. Why the double-standard here, Mr. Bush?

This administration is quite frankly more dangerous to the US and to the world economy than I think Iraq could ever be. Its new draconian policies will be detrimental to us in the near- and to our children in the long-term.

01 Jan 2003 | dmr said...

How many nuclear weapons does the US posess? We have so much fucking housekeeping to do, I can't stand any more of this talk about other nations. Let's talk about our own citizens and our own government before we go critique others. Is anyone in the mainstream media talking about our own problems?

01 Jan 2003 | pb said...

$400/month for health care is a lot??? This *is* your (and your family's!) health we're talking about!!

01 Jan 2003 | bruno said...

yes, for me $400/month is alot of money.
and i agree it is mi families health i am talking bout.
I will not even go into how much car insurance cost in inner city niehborhoods. Because we drive less than people in the suburbs who drive more. Because public transportation does not go where the jobs are because of sprawl.

Back to emptying these trash cans in this office building.

01 Jan 2003 | Bruno said...

Bush needs a foriegn policy for America's cities.

01 Jan 2003 | James said...

$400 is alot when thats a quarter of what familes make monthly in the inner city.

02 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

I see here that many people feel the way I do about this administration. Ive tried to stay neutral and wait to see what happens, but in reality Im really suprised and sad at the steps theyve taken on a huge range of issues. Ive never seen an administration like this before in the US; so extreme, conservative and right-wing. The rest of the world is about as shocked as I am.

02 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

When I read the "... any attack of ..." line, I figured that he must have meant "any attack by".

*shrug*

02 Jan 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...

Until new bombs drop and an invasion begins, I think so far so good.

As if that isn't totally inevitable at this point.

02 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Shouldn't have bush said: Due to our media's and the public's complete overreaction to terrorism being the end of the world, any terrorist attack by anyone against us would cause our economy to slump a bit because the population, as a whole, are very much like sheep and love to share in chicken little's philosphy?

02 Jan 2003 | JF said...

As if that isn't totally inevitable at this point.

Could be. Let's be patient and wait it out and see what happens.

02 Jan 2003 | JF said...

There are numerous UN resolutions to which Israel has turned its other cheek to. Why the double-standard here, Mr. Bush?

Why don't you ask the rest of the world? The UN is much larger than the US. If the rest of the world is so upset at Israel for breaking the UN resolutions, why don't they do something. That's the problem with the UN -- they don't do anything. Lots of empty words. These are complex situations. Calling out a double-standard is easy to do. There are plenty of them. They are everywhere. Welcome to world politics.

It's like the N. Korean situation. I just wish the US would sit this one out and let someone else take care of it for a change. Hey France, Russia, China, Germany -- step up and do something. We all know what would happen -- nothing would happen. And then, a few years down the road, the world would call on the US to step in and clean it all up.

02 Jan 2003 | ek said...

The reason that the U.N. hasn't done anything about Israel is because the U.S. won't allow it to do anything.

Re: North Korea, wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit out of world crisis. Unfortunately this one is at our doorstep. Don't forget that we still have tens of thousands of troops along the border between North and South Korea and those troops would be on the front lines of any conflict started by the North. There's also the fact that South Korea and Japan, both within range of North Korea's missles, are our closest allies in the region, at least for now.

Isn't looking the other way what led to the whole crisis with Islamic extremists? How's looking the other way with North Korea going to help us?

02 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

JF, the UN - or, more accurately, member nations - have tried to do things regarding Israel, and the US has always started waving around its veto power. Sure, some of the resolutions and actions that have been attempted have been frivolous, but some have been genuine.

Regarding letting someone else take care of North Korea: If Bush is going to hold that the US is the world's enforcer (which he has, in the foreign policy document released last autumn) then it's his job to stand up to this. Not to mention that North Korea is actually more in US interests than Iraq. The US does not need Middle Eastern oil to survive (it's down to about 20 to 25 percent of imports, numbers that could easily be recouped from Mexico, Canada, Russia and Venezuela). However, Europe and Japan are very dependent still on Mideastern oil, and the US has taken an approach (which is not in its own long-term interst, IMO) that the world can only have one great power, and therefore it needs to serve as the protector of the EU and Japan so they don't feel compelled to raise their power sufficient to defend their interests around the world.

03 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

I just read an interesting article in Foriegn Affairs that really made sense. It explains that to antagonize Saddam Hussein is like poking a stick at a snake; Hes going to strike if he feels cornered/threatened and the Bush Administration has not addressed this threat whatsoever. He has a history of "rash mistakes" and recklessness, so if provoked, what will stop him from taking action against the U.S.? There has been no preparation done to protect Americans from an Iraqi attack (even if the chances are low, they still exist). So why is there no alternative to war? The Cold War lasted 40 years and ended peacefully.

"Overconfident in US capacity to eliminate Saddam without disastrous side effects, leaders in Washington have also become curiously pessimistic about deterrence and containment, which sustained US strategy through 40 years of Cold War against a far more formidable adversary. Why has Washington lost its faith?"

He goes on to suggest a "squeezing of the box in which Hussein is currently being contained. This means selective tighening of sanctions- not those which harm civilians, but the prohibitions on imports of materials for military use and the illicit export of oil...reluctant allies would embrace such a course if it were offered as an alternative to war."

a 500 word link:
Suicide From Fear of Death?

03 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

The poking-at-a-snake analogy is a good one, and illustrates one of the fundamental flaws with Bush's Iraq strategy. The reason du jour for going to war is to prevent Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction (which is different than the other half-dozen "reasons" that have been offered and keep changing as soon as one's shown to be bunk, like the never-happened meeting between Atta and the Iraqi intelligence official in Prague). But, the singlemost thing to make Saddam likely to use those weapons is to back him into a corner where he has no option.

In the 1991 war, Saddam had ample opportunity to use chemical or biological weapons, but didn't because he knew two things: The coalition did not have a goal of personally removing him, so he knew his job was safe, and that the one thing that would jeopardize that would be using chemical or biological weapons.

With Bush's stated purpose of removing Hussein, he knows he's got nothing to lose. They're coming after him anyway, so what's to stop him from letting fly with all sorts of nasty weaponry? The strategy the US government is pursuing seems to be me to be the most assured way of making sure something happens that it says it doesn't want to happen. Not that policy coherence has been a strong suit of this administration to begin with, but the fact that they can be this blind is both amazing and frightening.

04 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

"In the 1991 war, Saddam had ample opportunity to use chemical or biological weapons, but didn't because he knew two things..."
---
thats exactly what Richard Betts said in his article. He also critisized that theyve been stating openly for months that the Americans are coming to get him, giving him ample time to make plans. But now America cant back down - they feel they have to save face since theyve been slinging threats for months. But Hussein is 65 and could be dead in 5 years, solving the problem by itself.
---
"The reason du jour for going to war is to prevent Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction but, the singlemost thing to make Saddam likely to use those weapons is to back him into a corner where he has no option."
---
Thats exactly the point. I heard David Foster Wallace last night in an interview for german tv saying that he has never been this scared for the US. Hes very frightened about the steps this admin. is taking and I feel the same.

05 Jan 2003 | bg said...

Regarding your comments about Saddam never using WMD, I feel the need to step in. My aunt is a military surgeon stationed in Texas and has been for nearly 20 years. She went overseas and served during the 1991 war and treated soldiers suffering from chemical/biological warfare.

These weapons were used, it just wasn't "broadcast" to the general public (censored.) Additionally, Saddam used these weapons on "his" people (Kurds too)... so your logic is a faulty one.

Here are some accounts taken from a Gulf War Veteran page:
http://www.gulfweb.org/tracings/

An example of one soldier's comment:
"Shawn Abbott (29-Mar-01)
[email protected]

Served in the Gulf from January 1991 - May 1991 aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. I have experienced memory loss, difficulty concentrating, and severe TMJ since that time. I do not know if these conditions result from my service or not. Although my ship was in the Gulf and I was not near land, planes returning from missions did fly through contaminated areas. Who knows, it is a remote possibility. However, it is a possibility.

I am proud to have had the chance to serve my country, and cherish the few memories that I have of the experience. I had the oppurtunity to work with many outstanding individuals, but have lost touch with all of them. I hope to locate some of them someday. "

That's just one person... there are many other similiar stories.

As for my aunt. She is set to be deployed overseas, once again.

--

"In the 1991 war, Saddam had ample opportunity to use chemical or biological weapons, but didn't because he knew two things: The coalition did not have a goal of personally removing him, so he knew his job was safe, and that the one thing that would jeopardize that would be using chemical or biological weapons."

06 Jan 2003 | Bucky said...

Paul Krugman wrote an interesting piece in the NYT over the weekend questioning/examining the difference between W's position on Korea and his position on Iraq. FYI.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

07 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2003/01/06/tomo/index.html

07 Jan 2003 | balinx said...

Did anyone else notice the question that extracted this quote from Bush?

The question was phrased, and I understood it as, a question on the cost of funding a war against iraq.