Re: Gore, Bush and another Gulf War?

Warren and others:

If it were possible to get the supposed "benefits" of a Gore election over a
Bush election, WITHOUT in effect lending support to the rest of the
imperialist murder policies of Gore, then this might be called a trade-off.
But voting for Gore will unquestionably give Gore, and his allies in
business and politics, the belief (and possibly the reality) that those who
voted supposedly "ONLY" for women's rights are giving him a mandate and
won't object too much when another hundred thousand women are killed in
Iraq.

If Bush defeats Gore, but only ten percent of the people vote (to take an
extreme hypothetical example), then Bush and all the others will understand
that they don't have much of a mandate.  A vote for Gore may be a vote for
women in the U.S. to have reproductive rights, but it is also a public
statement of support for their imperialist policies of poverty, disease, and
death, no matter whether the voter privately disapproves of those murderous
policies. .



Alan Spector





----- Original Message -----
From: <wwagar@binghamton.edu>
To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: "PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK" <psn@csf.colorado.edu>; "WORLD
SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:13 AM
Subject: 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.
> > <
> >
> > ======================================================================
> >
>