Posted on 11/07/2001 9:10:38 AM PST by FilmCutter
On the evening of Oct. 11, in his first prime-time news conference before the nation, President Bush was asked what he intended to do about Saddam Hussein. There were many in Washington (and, no doubt, around the world) who listened very closely to his answer.
"There is no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man," Bush said. "After all, he gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction, and I think it's in his advantage to allow inspectors back in his country to make sure that he's conforming to the agreement he made after he was soundly trounced in the Gulf War. And so we're watching him very carefully. We're watching him carefully."
"I think [Bush] knows in his heart of hearts," says Newsweek's Evan Thomas in an interview with FRONTLINE, "that in this long, long war, eventually the needle's going to point back to Saddam. He may have to finish the business that his father began."
This Thursday night at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE looks at the debate within the White House over whether Saddam Hussein -- who many believe to be the greatest terrorist threat facing the United States -- should be the next target in America's war on terrorism.
The decision will not be a simple one. The Bush administration is split over Iraq, with hawkish voices, led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, pressing for decisive action against Saddam, while more moderate voices, represented by Secretary of State Colin Powell, counsel a more cautious approach. Meanwhile, concerns about Saddam's willingness and ability to support biological terrorism grow more profound, and alarming indications of ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden are reported to be accumulating.
What is not stated in the above press release is the late breaking interview of an Iraqi defected general who claims that he was at Salmon Pak -- training with Islamic fundamentalist non-Iraqi Arabs.
"The way to get people to do what you want is to hurt them"
-- Saddam Hussein
There is a split on what to do. Ok, I can understand that. But notice that the side that wants to attack is "hawkish", while the other side is "moderate." Why, oh why, using those terms? Why not "moderate" for those that want to attack and "dovish" for those that don't want to attack?
Or, gee, I know. How about act like a news source and say that there are those that want to attack and those that don't, without adding your own personal editorial into it.
Hmmmmmm?
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.