Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy

The New York Times ^ | 08/16/2002 | TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"Senior Republicans"....

Translation:

The old farts who are scared because they didn't buy any puts or have great positions in oil futures yet. Once they get their positions corrected, they'll jump on board. God, how pathetic.

[Austin Willard Wright]

In words of Robert Strange McNamara and other nation builders, American casualities be damned!

[general_re]

Bump for the NY Times, which is always good for hitting a fresh bottom.

And if you feel like diving even deeper, there's always the Guardian's take on this...

[Austin Willard Wright]

Interesting screen name. Do you also want babies to "glow?"

[Austin Willard Wright]

The hubris of empire.

[RJCogburn]

who have NO access to the latest intelligence

I always have a problem with that sort of reasoning, that we just don't know everything the Pres. knows and therefore we need to just trust him.

That is similar to the story of LBJ, who mismanaged Viet Nam.....he just had more information.

[oyez]

Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

What is that all saw about those that forget history? Anyway, if we don't act, the media will have to report and show more scenes of wholesale distruction. What is it. don't they think it can ( and will) happen again?

[denydenydeny]

Seguet: Go away.

[weikel]

Its the only method short of total genocide that will keep these Wahabbi fanatics from coming after us. Im not normally into nation building either.

[Torie]

Senator Hagel, who was among the earliest voices to question Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq, said today that the Central Intelligence Agency had "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.

I hope we don't wait until we decide that they will be operational a week from Sunday. I doubt our intelligence is that good. If there is substantive evidence that Saddam is really pursuing developing operational nukes, then we should go in now. If not, we shouldn't. It is really quite simple.

[AIG]

Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf came out against attacking Iraq today. The whole US military top brass is, in fact, against attacking Iraq and letting it be known publicly. Sen. Hagel's line about letting Mr. Perle be on the first attack wave into Baghdad was precious. What is Mr. Perle doing now in France, of all places, anyway instead of on the front lines? Luckily for America, some Americans (Kissinger, Scowcroft, the US Joint Chiefs, etc.) can still distinguish what are America's own interests and keep America's interests first. American young soldiers' lives are at stake, after all, and there's no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. If Saddam ever did develop nukes, he couldn't use them anyway without getting himself nuked himself. Warren Buffett also warned about America's increasingly self-defeating Mideast policy. As an insurance man, he knows the probability of America's being attacked with nukes increases as America continues to needlessly antagonize the whole Arab world. Do war hawks really want New York or Washington, D.C. to be eventually nuked? America needs a lower probability of another 9-11, not a higher probability. America is not making itself very popular or liked these days, which is a shame because the best thing about America -- its good image -- is being thoughtlessly destroyed overnight by certain irresponsible Americans themselves.

[TLBSHOW]

Kissinger and Scowcroft work for the Chinese communists

bump to truth and the enemy within

[Torie]

If Saddam ever did develop nukes, he couldn't use them anyway without getting himself nuked himself.

IC. Let Saddam have nukes because he would be too rational to use them. Whatever.

[elbucko]

"those pushing for war have the same world saving engineering hubris as the whiz kids who got us in the Vietnam War. An attempt to bring democracy to the hell hole of Iraq.."

Those pushing for action against Iraq are not the same whiz kids that got us into Vietnam. I don't think the US has any priority about democracy and Iraq, I do think the US has an agenda about blowing up any nasty weapons Saddam may have or acquire before he uses them on us or Israel.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Iraqi babies, yes. Ours no. You make the choice. I'll be interested to see it.

[griffin]

WAY past time to cut Powell loose. Get rid of him. "Either your with us or against us". PERIOD.

I've had it with all these UN boot licking one worlders trying to force us to bow down to an international authoirty that will give us permission to defend ourselves.

Go BUSH, GO!

[FreeReign]

But the government has to be deposed and the inhabitants particulary the ruling class and clergy have to be purged( no upper class and we can MTVize the remaining Arab mob in a generation).

The real problem of terrorism in S.A. is not the ruling class. The problem in S.A. is the "Arab Mob" -- the numerous fanatic Wahabi.

BTW, we maintain the no-fly zone in Iraq from a base in S.A. So how could S.A. be more of a problem than Iraq if we use S.A. bases to quell Iraq?

[dighton]

Stick to your specialty, which is China.

[Dale 1]

Great post - - Thanks...

[elbucko]

"That is similar to the story of LBJ, who mismanaged Viet Nam.."

This situation is NOT at all like LBJ and Vietnam.

LBJ wouldn't make a pimple on GW's....