Bush I Must Talk To Bush II On Iraq (Helen Thomas Geritol Alert)

WASHINGTON -- It's time for former President George H.W. Bush to speak up before his son plunges the United States into another war with Iraq.

The elder Bush's silence is understandable because of their delicate father-son relationship and the protocol for past presidents -- to be seen and not heard.

Besides, Bush I is a prudent man (his favorite term). And he is diplomatic.

He proved that during his eight years as vice president, especially when an attempt was made on Ronald Reagan's life in 1981 and former Secretary of State Alexander Haig presumptuously claimed that he was in charge.

Bush stayed publicly quiet at that point. But Haig, roundly criticized for his presumptiveness, learned the hard way what the presidential line of succession really is. Bush, not Haig, was in charge at that time.

White House reporters have probed but have never really found out how much Bush I weighs in on the telephone from his home in Houston when foreign policy becomes dicey. Press secretary Ari Fleischer has always fended off questions about the family relationship on grounds that it is private.

But the elder Bush needs to clear up questions about where he stands on the Iraq war issue. And maybe he can help his son explore peaceful, diplomatic alternatives before it's too late.

A widespread perception -- and I hope it is untrue -- is that the sitting president is seeking to avenge his father by toppling Iraq's Saddam Hussein from power. After all, Saddam once tried to kill Bush I. So he should speak out and set the record straight.

After his lightning victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Bush made it clear he felt the U.S.-led coalition had accomplished its mission, and that was to liberate Kuwait.

In other words, victory over Iraqi forces, not conquest of their country, was the goal.

Bush and his top advisers did consider toppling Saddam, but they doubted that the allied coalition would hold together if they pushed on to Baghdad, widening the war with the prospect of huge numbers of civilian casualties.

I covered the White House during that period and never felt that the elder Bush had the same obsession with revenge that his son is perceived to have.

Bush I should also take a stand in the current debate because many analysts believe that two former key aides of his, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, were his stalking horses when they went public recently with their views on a war with Iraq.

In a Wall Street Journal article, Scowcroft, national security adviser in the first Bush administration, urged caution, saying "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken."

Furthermore, he warned that an attack might provoke Iraq into using weapons of mass destruction to trigger war between Israel and the Arab states.

Baker, the elder Bush's secretary of state, wrote in the New York Times that there is little evidence that Iraq has ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network or to the Sept. 11 attacks.

But he said there is no question that "its present government, under Saddam Hussein, is an outlaw regime, is in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, is embarked upon a program of developing weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to peace and stability ..."

Yet Baker argued that instead of taking unilateral action, the United States should urge the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution that would require Iraq "to submit to intrusive inspection (of its weapons plants and stockpiles) anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it."

On the other hand, Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under Richard Nixon, recently agreed with George W. Bush. "I think the president has made a good intellectual case" for ousting Saddam militarily, he said. Yet he added that "military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed."

Thus Kissinger, whose policy in Vietnam was abysmal, joined the pack of hardliners egging W on. That was no surprise.

Fortunately for the country, Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired general who knows war first-hand, is not as militant as many of W's other advisers. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was a cautious architect of the Persian Gulf War. Both he and Bush I wanted to exhaust their diplomatic options first.

The hardliners are apparently worried that their uncompromising goal of deposing Saddam even if he permits U.N. inspectors back in Iraq is losing public support. So the super hawks have now rolled out the big public relations guns to keep the pressure on.

Cheney, the point man, fired salvos this week with bellicose speeches declaring there is "no doubt" that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. He gave no proof. Nor has anyone else in the administration. The vice president also said that "the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."

So it is time for the elder Bush to take a stand. I hope that if he does, it will not be in support of a preemptive attack.

(Helen Thomas can be reached at helent@hearstdc.com)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.