Re: Gore, Bush and another Gulf War?

Dear Progressive Sociologists,

        Thanks for belaboring the obvious.  Our "choice" in November will
be between Al Gore, who will select Supreme Court Justices slightly to the
left of center likely to uphold a woman's reproductive rights and throw a
bone or two (or three!) to the nation's poor, and George W., who will do
neither.  Period.  As for Iraq, Israel, or virtually anything else, the
differences will be negligible.  Get real!  I have often and properly been
accused of utopianism, but when it comes to Election 2000, I know where my
vote will go.

        So should yours.

        As for Ralph Nader, he's wonderful, but just let's PRAY that
he will be cancelled out by Pat Buchanan.

        Pragmatically (what!?),

        Warren


On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Alan Spector wrote:

> 
> 
> The following is from the Wall Street Journal. No doubt there are some 
>who would say that "at least Gore might get us a few more day care 
>centers."  etc. etc. etc.  But both candidates are committed to the 
>continuing and intensified slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Should we regard 
>supporting Gore as "at least getting a few reforms but having to 
>reluctantly go along with his mass murder" or should we regard those few 
>reforms as the bribe to some of the American people to go along with this 
>mass murder and imperialism in general?  Now that's a different way of 
>looking at the old expression "Half a loaf is better than none."
>  
> Alan Spector 
> 
> --------------
> 
> 
> 
> The following is from the Wall Street Journal. No doubt there are some 
>who would say that "at least Gore might get us a few more day care 
>centers."  etc. etc. etc.  But both candidates are committed to the 
>continuing and intensified slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Should we regard 
>supporting Gore as "at least getting a few reforms but having to 
>reluctantly go along with his mass murder" or should we regard those few 
>reforms as the bribe to some of the American people to go along with this 
>mass murder and imperialism in general?  Now that's a different way of 
>looking at the old expression "Half a loaf is better than none."
>  
> Alan Spector 
> Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2000
> Gore, Bush Seem Committed
> To Ousting Saddam Hussein
> UNDERSTANDABLY ENOUGH, most Americans are only starting to take 
> a close look at the coming presidential election. Six thousand miles from 
> here, though, stands a man who ought to be watching very closely -- and 
>getting a 
> little worried. He's Saddam Hussein, the maddeningly resilient dictator 
>of Iraq. Slowly but 
> surely, he's becoming an issue in the presidential race, and inspiring a 
> bitter war of words between the presidential camps of Al Gore and George 
>W. Bush. 
> Through the rhetoric, though, one reality is becoming clear: Saddam next 
>year 
> will face a new American president who is publicly committed to get rid 
>of 
> him, not merely contain him.
> 
> On the Gore side of the equation, the vice president himself met just 
>this 
> week with the leaders of the Iraqi National Congress, the umbrella 
> organization of Saddam foes. The meeting was loaded with symbolism. The 
>intended message 
> was that Mr. Gore isn't interested in simply humoring the Iraqi 
>opposition, 
> which critics charge the Clinton administration has done, but rather in 
>working 
> with the opposition to drive him out.
> Lest anyone miss the point, Mr. Gore's office issued a statement 
>declaring: 
> "The vice president reaffirmed the administration's strong commitment to 
>the 
> objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and 
>his 
> inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against 
>humanity." 
> There also was one tangible move to buttress those words, Gore aides say. 
>The Iraqi 
> opposition leaders delivered to Mr. Gore a list of 140 candidates for 
>American 
> training in ways to build the opposition into a meaningful force. 
>PRIVATELY, GORE ADVISERS talk of a kind of three-step process  for going 
>after Saddam. Step one would be to turn the Iraqi National 
> Congress, still a young and frequently querulous organization, into a 
>unified voice 
> that can win international respect. Step two would be to use that 
>international 
> respect to persuade Iraq's neighbors to let the opposition operate from 
>their 
> territory. Step three would be to figure out how to move -- and whether 
>to 
> try to precipitate a crisis that creates an opening.
> Such talk leaves some Bush backers sputtering in anger and charging that 
>the 
> words are hollow after the Clinton-Gore administration has let the 
>opposition 
> wilt over the last seven years. "I have never seen, in 30 years in 
>Washington, a 
> more sustained hypocrisy, never," says Richard Perle, a former senior 
>Pentagon 
> administration aide who now advises the Bush campaign. In his own 
>remarks, Texas Gov. Bush hasn't been particularly specific, saying  merely 
>that he would hit Iraq hard if he saw any clear sign that it is 
> building weapons of mass destruction or massing its military forces. But 
>look for Mr. 
> Bush to hold his own meeting with the Iraqi opposition soon. And Mr. 
>Bush's 
> lead foreign-policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is explicit: "Regime 
>change is 
> necessary," she declares.
> She is careful not to overpromise, asserting: "This is something that 
>could 
> take some time." Like team Gore, she talks of the need to rebuild the 
> anti-Iraq coalition, including Persian Gulf states and Turkey, as a 
>precondition for 
> eliminating Saddam. Others in the Bush orbit, offering their personal 
>ideas, sound more 
> aggressive. Both Mr. Perle and Robert Zoellick, a former top aide to Gov. 
> Bush's father, advocate specific steps to oust Saddam. Mr. Perle calls 
>for giving 
> the Iraqi National Congress tools such as radio transmitters to beam an 
> anti-Saddam message into Iraq and for more extensive training for 
>Saddam's foes in ways 
> to mobilize opposition, particularly in the Iraqi military.
> THEN, MR. PERLE suggests, the U.S. should help the opposition 
> "re-establish control over some piece of territory" inside Iraq and 
>remove 
> international economic sanctions from that toehold of Iraq. Saddam then 
>would 
> have to either accept losing a chunk of his country, a humiliation, or 
>mass 
> his army to take it back, leaving his forces vulnerable to American air 
>attack. 
> Either way, he says, Iraqi military defectors will "come in droves."
> In a similar vein, Mr. Zoellick talks of turning the existing "no-fly 
>zones" 
> in northern and southern Iraq, where American planes now patrol to keep 
>out 
> Iraqi aircraft, into "no-move zones," in which ground movements by Iraqi 
> forces would be blocked as well. That, he argues, would open the way for 
>the 
> opposition to occupy a piece of the country, where they could be 
>protected by U.S. 
> forces. This kind of talk leaves Gore partisans sputtering in their own 
>anger, for 
> they contend that the best chance to take such steps was squandered in 
>1991, 
> when the Bush team was in power right after the Persian Gulf War. Mr. 
>Gore, 
> one of the few Democrats to back the war, called then for ousting Saddam.
> In the end, both sides are right: The chances of ousting Saddam were best 
> back in 1991, and the Clinton administration hasn't made the Iraqi 
>opposition 
> into a serious force. But that shouldn't obscure the basic fact: Both 
> presidential contenders are talking a different game now.
> <
> 
> ======================================================================
>