Re: Gore, Bush and another Gulf War?

GO, Warren!  Torry Dickinson, Women's Studies, Kansas State

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:

> 
> Alan,
> 
>       Who cares what Gore and his murderers think?  I am with you all
> the way, but I repeat:  the practical consideration is which gang of
> murderers do you want to inhabit the White House?  Those who might help to
> protect women or those who, while murdering everyone else, do not?  I
> don't offer happy choices.
> 
>       Warren
> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Alan Spector wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > > 
>======================================================================
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
>