DON'T ATTACK SADDAM

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 08/15/02 | Brent Scowcroft

[GOP_Lady]

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

[Libloather]

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq.

No, it isn't...

[GOP_Lady]

:-)

[GOP_Lady]

What do you think POTUS 41 would say to Scowcroft???

[jwalsh07]

Scowcrofts a day late and a dollar short again.

[Libloather]

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully.

Also known as an 'attack plan'.

[tet68]

We will all be better off when he is gone.

Bbbbbut, after Hitler what? Sure, we know he's building up the German Army, and has lots of secret laboratories but if not Hitler, then Who? We should just wait, what harm could come of it. He says the Sudatenland is really part of Germany, well big deal, and the jews? Well, he needs them too, bankers and business men don't ya know. Oh, the super Condor, yeah it can reach New York so what, didn't Lindberg inspect their airforce and say it's no big deal. I mean really! (/sarcasm)

[jigsaw]

Saddam Hussein is a menace

Kumbayah, dear Brent. Kumbayah.....

Dennis was a menace. Saddam is a cold-blooded killer.

(I'll bet on Brent's birth certificate there's no 'r' in his first name.)

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Additional comments at: Don't attack Saddam

[Nonstatist]

Snowcroft sounds like he's saying we gotta stop Hussein, only not right now.?. (Is he on the Saudi payroll?)

[EternalHope]

NOTE: The Wall Street Journal regularly opens its editorial page to opposing views. This article did not reflect the view of the Wall Street Journal.

Scowcroft's arguments are disingenuous at best. He says, "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them."

This statement is directly contrary to numerous statements by the Bush and Blair administrations. Furthermore, the Bush and Blair administration have made it plain that direct and/or indirect state sponsorship of today's terrorist organizations is a key ingredient in the way they operate, and that this will no longer be tolerated.

Scowcroft stated, "Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power." In other words, maybe someday, just not now.

Scowcroft went on to explain how difficult removing Saddam would be, and then trotted out the hoary old idea of no-notice inspections. This has already been tried and failed, of course. No serious person considers that a solution to the current problem. It is no more than an excuse to dither.

Scowcroft's most incredible claim was, "His rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have."

Oh please. Even if you reject any link (direct or indirect) between September 11 and Saddam, refusing inspections is nothing compared to the threat we already face from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Since even Mr. Scowcroft agrees the threat from Saddam will just get worse as time goes by, Mr. Scowcroft's advice to dither seems both logically inconsistent and foolish.

I do not know Mr. Scowcroft's motives, but he is a political animal in Washington DC. One can assume he is positioning himself in a way he feels will be politically advantageous to him personally. If so, it's kinda disgusting.

TO SUM SCOWCROFT UP:
1. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (in spite of all our inspections in the past). The problem is gonna get worse, too, 'specially when he gets nukes (prob'ly a few years away, so not to worry... ).
2. That means we might have to take him out in the future, just not yet.
3. In the meantime, lets get Saddam to submit to inspections. This time we would mean it.

Yeah, right. Gimme a break.

[McGavin999]

GMTA tet68, that's exactly what was going through my mind too. If the US would have wanted to make a pre-emptive stike against Germany, the europeans would have been whinning the same thing they're whinning today. Scowcraft really has surprised me.......unless.....he's part of the disinformation campaign.

[palmer]

We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities

Those priorities should have been analyzed before 9/11, the focus on Iraq was clearly misplaced then and is more so now.

[Nonstatist]

I do not know Mr. Scowcroft's motives

It just might have something to do with the fact that he was Bush41's NS adviser who cautioned restraint after the Gulf War. Might he not be in a "rationalizing' mood? Perhaps..

[Mr. Mojo]

Scowcroft's a day late and a dollar short again.

Figuratively, but not literally. I'm sure he's being paid off handsomely for spouting his nonsense.

[Leisler]

". The shared view in the region(by the other thug rulers) is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region( read, the other thugs ), however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly( well which is it cheese weasel? right or wrong O Wise One, peasant want to know), perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us( OOho, fourth world Arabs, I am scared). We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.(So what, frig'm)

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes ( Yes, yes, yes!)in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives(Only he won't be alive, so the whole calculus changes, doesn't it O Wise One?)

What, did he make a great gin and tonic or something? This is pathetic.

[Russell Scott]

From his web site He currently serves on numerous corporate and non-profit boards.

A lazy leftist, whos brain has atrophy from neglecting rational thought. He won't let go of his CFR new world order illusions.

[PoorMuttly]

Don't you think that "thinking this over very carefully" would take a lot of time and effort?

I think we should stick with what we always do...and thoughtlessly blunder around, doing whatever the president pleases...as the mood strikes him...or what would look really cool...like somebody's stuff blowing up. When you journalists are president, then you can blow up and kill anybody you feel like...

It's just not your turn yet. Let him play. He's president, you know. Let him play.

[voa-davidk]

B. Scrowcroft has some very solid points , especially about pushing ahead first for inspections , possibly uncovering solid proof of nuclear weapons production , then as a basis and for invasion.

Remenber : This is a guy who was a major plaayer in the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Texasforever]

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities -- notably the war on terrorism -- as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

What in blue blazes does he think this is about anyway? This is the second battle in the War on Terrorism. That has never been a secret. That is what all of us have recognized since day one. I honestly believe that "former republican leaders" have a genetic need to become flaming liberals as they age.