Posted on 03/14/2002 11:26:17 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Even as Vice President Dick Cheney travels abroad to shore up support for U.S. military action against Iraq, senators are urging a go-slow approach, fearful that Iraq would be a more formidable enemy than the Taliban and al Qaeda network.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said, “At this point, I think we can’t lose sight of the fact that we have significant tasks ahead of us in Afghanistan, around the world, and that I don’t sense that we are or should rush into a military confrontation with Iraq.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a decorated Vietnam veteran, put it differently: “Should we be doing something about Saddam Hussein? The answer is ‘yes’. How it unfolds is subject to a lot of different things.”
Just six months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a day after President Bush announced that the war on terrorism had entered a second stage that would take the war beyond Afghanistan, the senators agreed that they would like to see Saddam Hussein toppled.
But they conceded that ousting the Iraqi leader would be difficult, and required the support of reluctant European and Arab allies.
“I hope we would have a different regime in regards to Iraq, but an awful lot of work would have to be done, to say the least, with our allies in the Arab states and others before any military action would be feasible,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees.
Several senators suggested the United States should take some preliminary steps, should it decide to act against Iraq, one of three nations President Bush identified as the “axis of evil.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said President Bush should proceed the same way he did on the war in Afghanistan, including generating support among allies. Such a step is especially important in the absence of proof that Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction.
“If he approached it the same way he approached the Congress and the world on Afghanistan, he can build a consensus,” said Biden. “He can build it here and in Europe.”
On Monday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed strong support for U.S. action against Iraq.
Biden also suggested getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Several senators said that if the United States can show that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them, “we’d have no choice, we’d have to take action,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a member of the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations committees.
But Nelson added that the military must determine whether Iraq is the greatest threat in the war on terrorism. “If the greatest threat is country X, then that’s where we ought to be going,” he noted.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the Armed Services Committee and Vietnam War hero, also cautioned against taking immediate steps. “Sure I’m for a regime change, but that doesn’t mean necessarily that we begin attacking Iraq tomorrow.”
One senator who clearly favors taking action against Hussein is Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), a member of the Armed Services Committee. “As long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Iraq, the United States is in danger,” he said.
“I’m encouraged that the Bush administration has turned the corner on this and seems to agree,” he added. “The when and how is up to them.”
Still, Roberts expressed the view of many senators by noting the United States’ first priority is continuing its pursuit of the Al Qaeda network and Osama bin Laden.
Bush must also consider who will control Iraq should Hussein be ousted, according to Biden, who said that is a top concern among European foreign ministers and NATO allies.
And Kerry argued that before Bush makes any decision, he must consult Congress. “I’m in favor of beginning to deal with Iraq differently, but there’s still a lot of consultation that needs to take place,” he said.
Others cautioned that fighting a war against Iraq would involve more forces and planning than the effort in Afghanistan.
“If people think that the same techniques or same level of forces will work there, they’re wrong,” said Reed. “This is a much more formidable opposition with much more capability.”
“The initial military success was phenomenal,” said Nelson. “But the hard reality of a very long and difficult war against terrorism is starting to set in.”
#4: How much money do these Rats get from various Iraqui sources and the Opecker Nations? Absolutely amazing that they defend Sadaam and want to protect him.
It is obvious that they want to protect their buddy, Saddam from GW's question of "Who's Next?!"
SOOOOO LET ROLL !!!!!
SOOOOO LETS ROLL !!!!!
Tell the leakers, Kerry, ChiFi, Leahy, Da$$hole and other rats and maybe McAinal, that he really doesn't intend to invade Iraq. That he is just trying to have Saddam expend a lot of resources getting ready for the invasion that isn't coming to wear out his men and equipment from being in a constant state of awareness. Also, tell the rats, that we don't have enough weapons, man power and technology to really invade Iraq on a successful basis for the next year or two.
Then, after the rats run and leak this info to Saddam and other Islamic buddies who finance their campaigns, wait until Saddam stands down and take him out in an incredible high tech display of destruction. Destroy him and his chronies in 24-48 hours.
Then seize all of the oil wells in Iraq and turn them up to full production and have Russia do the same. That would bankrupt the Saudi Princes and Kuwaiti Princes in a few months. That would be the eventual end of terrorism. No finances from the Opeckers would mark the end of Islamic terrorism!
The hypocracy from the dems and the media is mind boggling.
1. GWB is keenly aware that bottlenecks in the logistics pipeline will delay and slow down the Iraq Attack for some months to come.
2. He also needs to keep our Muslim "allies" in line at least through the conclusion of the Iraq campaign.
3. Until that point, the name of the game is mollifying them regarding the Palestinian question - i.e., be seen as working to restrain Israel from wiping out Arafat and company.
4. Once Iraq is conquered and Saddam is gone, GWB will unveil his real agenda - turning liberated Iraq into a democratic US ally and the new Saudi as our principal oil source; converting Iraq into the marshalling ground and launch point (along with Afghanistan) for the attack on Iran; and unleashing Israel to destroy the terrorists in the PA, Lebanon and Syria.
At least, I hope this is the plan and the reason for Bush's latest and continuing round of Israel-restraining talk.
Dream on
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.