From: Kimberly Roberts <kroberts@psr.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:52:53 -0400
Subject: PSR Security Information Service 10.14.02

OPINION UPDATE
Monday, October 14, 2002

NOTE: With the events leading up to the Congressional vote on Iraq, this
edition of the Security Information Service is particularly lengthy. We hope
this is a useful resource and beneficial rather than detrimental for your
purposes.

Dear Friends,

Below, you will find a collection of editorials and op-eds from news sources
over the past week. The articles are organized into the following
categories: Weapons of Mass Destruction, War on Terrorism, and International
Relations. To read the full story, click on the title.

As always, we hope you find these weekly emails useful and informative and
would welcome any comments or suggestions you have regarding this service.
If you do not wish to continue receiving these news briefings please send an
email to ahughes@psr.org and we will gladly remove your name.

Thanks,
Kimberly Roberts
Deputy Director of Nuclear/Security Programs
Physicians for Social Responsibility
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1012
Washington, D.C. 20009
202.667.4260 x212
202.667.4201(fax)
kroberts@psr.org
http://www.psr.org/

This service is a project of PSR's Center for Global Security and Health.
For more information see our website at www.psr.org/s11/





WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


The smallpox decision
<http://iht.com/articles/73655.html>
International Herald-Tribune, originally printed in the New York Times
Tuesday, October 15

President George W. Bush faces a momentous public health decision: whether
to make smallpox vaccine available to all who want it or limit its use to
the health personnel who would have to cope with any bioterrorist attack.
The issue is fraught with difficulties. If Bush makes the vaccine widely
available, there will be severe side effects in a small percentage of
recipients. If 100 million people chose to be vaccinated, perhaps 100 of
them might die and many more could be severely injured. But these casualties
would pale in comparison with the toll that would be exacted by a smallpox
attack.

Should a smallpox epidemic spread out of control, it could kill tens of
thousands or even hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated people. Decades ago,
when smallpox was still rampant, the decision to vaccinate was easy.
Smallpox was such a great risk, killing some 30 percent of those it
infected, that the vaccine complications seemed acceptable. In 1968, some 14
million Americans were vaccinated, and only nine died from the side effects.
But as smallpox was being eradicated around the globe, routine vaccination
was dropped in America in 1972.

Once smallpox was eradicated, all supplies of the virus were supposed to be
concentrated in two well-guarded laboratories, one in the United States and
one in Russia. No one, however, can be sure that all the virus was turned
in, and no one is certain whether impoverished Russian scientists may have
sold some to rogue nations.



Let the public choose on smallpox vaccination
<http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1612680>
The Houston Chronicle
Friday, October 11
Sen. Judd Gregg
Gregg is a Republican senator from New Hampshire.

With a mortality rate of more than 30 percent, smallpox was one of the
world's most feared diseases until a collaborative global vaccination
program eradicated it in the 1970s. Smallpox no longer occurs naturally, and
today it can be found only in laboratories in the United States and Russia.

Or so we believe. With the fall of the Soviet Union, some intelligence
officials are concerned that samples of the virus may have found their way
to other countries, including Iraq. This is of grave concern to our nation
and the world.

Highly contagious and easily dispersed in the air, smallpox virus could be a
deadly weapon in terrorist hands. Congress and the administration have
responded to this potential threat by authorizing the purchase of
approximately 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine, enough for every man,
woman and child in America. To date, nearly 100 million doses have been
delivered, with the remainder expected by early next year.


Smallpox: Preparing for the Worst 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/opinion/L11SMAL.html>
New York Times
Friday, October 11
Stanley O. Foster, M.DTo the Editor:

Re "Researchers Test Old Smallpox Vaccine, Just in Case" (news article, Oct.
10): Instead of deterring the spread of agents of bio-terrorism, military
intervention in Iraq could disseminate these agents. In the case of
smallpox, an organism rumored to be in the Iraqi arsenal, dissemination to
the Middle East, Asia and Africa is possible. Since these regions lack the
expertise and vaccine stockpiles that would enable the United States to
control the disease rapidly, the accidental reintroduction of smallpox could
result in as many as 100 million cases and 30 million deaths within a three-
to five-year period.

As an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
the World Health Organization, I worked with colleagues in Nigeria,
Bangladesh and Somalia to eradicate smallpox. I never expected to witness
again the anguish, the open sores and the 30 percent mortality of smallpox.
No individual, group or country has the right to risk exposing the world to
the tragedy of smallpox or any other biological agent.

STANLEY O. FOSTER, M.D. Atlanta, Oct. 10, 2002


A Virus-Fed Doomsday: 'Bio-Armageddon' is a possibility if U.S. hits Hussein. 
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-layne10oct10,0,72794>
L.A. Times
Thursday, October 10
By SCOTT P. LAYNE and MICHAEL H. SOMMER
Scott P. Layne is an associate professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School
of Public Health. Michael H. Sommer is a visiting scholar at the Institute
of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley.

The debate among the nation's politicians and the advice they're receiving
from intelligence experts should not focus exclusively on diplomacy versus
preemptive military action against Saddam Hussein. Instead, there is one
nightmarish outcome--the so-called bio-Armageddon scenario--that is of
immediate concern.


To take the shot, or not
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0210090223oct09,0,6526912>
The Chicago Tribune
Wednesday, October 9

As the federal government struggles to decide who and how many to vaccinate
against smallpox, it makes sense for Americans to start asking: Should I get
the immunization?

The answer is far more complicated than it may seem at first. Lost amid the
extraordinarily ambitious plans for mass inoculations in event of a
wide-scale attack is a simple fact: Millions of Americans dare not take the
vaccine because it could be dangerous, if not lethal, to them.


UNMOVIC inspections are almost certain to fail
<http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3352749.html>
Minnesota Star-Tribune
Wednesday, October 9
Katherine Kersten
Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow of the Center of the American
Experiment in Minneapolis.

In recent months, we've heard alarming evidence that Saddam Hussein is
developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Many -- including our
European allies and some congressional leaders -- insist that U.N.
inspections are the best way to counter this threat, and that military force
must be a last resort. But unless the United Nations radically reforms the
inspections process, inspections are doomed to fail.

In a recent article in Commentary magazine, two arms control monitors tell
us why. "Iraq: The Snare of Inspections" is by Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz
-- both analysts with the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which
is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin. Their article explains why
the current U.N. inspection process is wholly inadequate to the task of
unmasking Saddam's menacing weapons programs.

Shifting debate on smallpox vaccine
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20021008-7667721.htm>
The Washington Times
Tuesday, October 8

As this page has repeatedly advocated, the debate about allowing Americans
to be voluntarily vaccinated against smallpox appears to have shifted from
the question of "if" to the question of "when." Last Friday, Dr. Julie
Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, publicly acknowledged they support such a policy.

Over the weekend, senior White House officials confirmed to the Associated
Press that the administration plans to offer the vaccine to the public. It
is a welcome development, even though the timing, and the potential staging
of such a policy remain uncertain. Some officials, including Vice President
Dick Cheney, are pushing for public vaccinations as soon as possible, while
other public-health officials want to use a tiered approach, first offering
the vaccine to those first-responders thought to be most vulnerable to a
smallpox attack, and then, when it is fully licensed, (probably around 2004=)
to the general public.





THE WAR ON TERRORISM

CIA report weakens premise for Iraq war
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/2002/10/14/news/opinion/4278242.htm>
The Miami Herald
Monday, October 14
Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute
(www.cato.org ) and author of the book Putting 'Defense' Back into U.S.
Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World.'

The CIA's newly declassified judgments on the likelihood of Iraq's use of
weapons of mass destruction severely undercut the Bush administration's case
for attacking Iraq.

The CIA noted that Iraq now appears to be deterred from initiating terrorist
attacks against the United States with conventional, biological or chemical
weapons. But if the United States invades Iraq and attempts to depose Saddam
Hussein, the CIA concluded that he would be more likely to conduct such
attacks.

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER): Don't dismiss a policy of deterrence so quickly
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0210140213oct14.st>
Chicago Tribune
Monday, October 14
Dan Reiter
The writer is a Professor of Political science at Emory University Atlanta

Should we abandon deterrence to the trash bin of history? As the Tribune has
noted in a Sept. 24 editorial, the Bush administration downplayed 50 years
of deterrence successes in shifting American foreign policy from deterrence
toward a policy of pre-emptive attack. The administration's central claim is
that deterrence won't succeed against rogue states armed with weapons of
mass destruction.

The administration has it exactly backward. Deterrence will be easier
against this kind of state, not harder. Countries like Iraq, North Korea and
Iran are much weaker militarily than were the Soviet Union or China. Their
leaders know that any aggression can be repulsed quickly and effectively by
stronger, better-equipped American forces.

Public should know: Case for war is weak: Iraq strike would threaten security, bring bloodshed
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0210130289oct1>
Chicago Tribune
Sunday, October 13
Doug Cassel
Doug Cassel is the director of the Center for International Human Rights in
Northwestern University's law school.

Last Monday's address to the nation by President Bush not only fails to
justify war, it reinforces the case that an invasion of Iraq would be
unwarranted, unwise and unworthy of a peace-loving nation.

An invasion is not needed to meet any imminent threat. On the contrary, it
would trigger imminent threats to our national security. And it probably
would end in a bloodbath in Baghdad.

Not In The Same League
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15074-2002Oct11.html>
The Washington Post
Sunday, October 13
Michael Lind
Michael Lind, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America
Foundation, is the co-author with Ted Halstead of "The Radical Center: The
Future of American Politics" (Doubleday).

Although he has been dead far longer than Elvis, Adolf Hitler is having an
even busier posthumous career. The late German dictator has been sighted in
various guises around the world in recent weeks: in Baghdad, Colorado,
Washington, D.C., suburban Maryland. But those who glibly use the Hitler
analogy misunderstand history and lack moral judgment.

The potential war with Iraq has provided the biggest -- although by no means
the only -- arena for the F=FChrer's latest appearances, as the Bush administration and conservative journalists muster public support for
invasion by recycling the decade-old "Saddam is Hitler" theme. Like Hitler,
they argue, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant who has
sought to obtain weapons of mass destruction and invaded or attacked
neighboring countries. In the lead-up to the Gulf War, the current
president's father went even further, pronouncing Hussein "worse than
Hitler."

It's an obvious comparison to make, but it doesn't hold up. It is true that
Hussein's Iraq is a dictatorship that has sought to obtain weapons of mass
destruction. But so is Pakistan, America's ally in the war on al Qaeda. In
fact, Pakistan is a military dictatorship that already possesses weapons of
mass destruction and has sponsored Kashmiri terrorism against India, just as
Hussein has encouraged Palestinian terrorism against Israel. True, Hussein
invaded Iran and Kuwait. But the United States, which went to war with Iraq
after the latter invaded Kuwait, secretly supported Hussein's regime during
Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s. A more accurate 1930s parallel would
have FDR helping Hitler to invade Poland, only to turn against him after he
invaded the Soviet Union.

Our fears are not a reason for war
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15088-2002Oct11.html>
The Washington Post
Sunday, October 13
Herold Meyerson
Harold Meyerson is editor at large of the American Prospect, a biweekly
journal of liberal opinion and analysis.

Did ever a declaration of war (or its functional equivalent) spring from a
more dampered debate? It's not that there weren't impassioned speeches of
opposition in both the Senate and House chambers this past week as Congress
gave President Bush the unilateral authority he wants to wage war against
Iraq. Critics of the administration's policy raised doubts about the Iraqi
threat, the distraction from our war against al Qaeda, and the wisdom and
propriety of preemption itself. Old Robert Byrd of West Virginia did a
pretty fair imitation of Frank Capra's young Mr. Smith. But there's an
emotional undercurrent to the Iraq debate that was largely missing from this
nation's earlier deliberations on war and peace, and that most certainly
played no part in the wrangling over Vietnam. That emotion is fear -- in the
Congress, but more important, in the nation as a whole. And the president
has done a masterful job of exploiting it.

Midlands Voices: America should seek peace options instead of hurrying to war 
<http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=3D0&u_pg=3D609&u_sid=3D530894>
Omaha World-Herald
Saturday, October 12
Rheta Johnson
The writer, of Omaha, is a retired government construction analyst and
residential construction contractor.

While we all want as much assurance as possible that there will not be
further attacks on Americans, especially on American soil, do we really know
that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear
weapons? Has there been any confirmation concerning the implied tie to
Saddam Hussein for the attack of Sept. 11?

If we go to war, we can expect this dictator to again put his military men
and equipment in civilian areas. This time it will necessarily be a ground
war, and occupation forces will be required after a presumed victory, with
possible biological attacks on our military fighting forces as well as
military and civilian occupation forces. All that will be in addition to the
initial air strikes, which will clearly be lengthier and more costly than
those of the last Iraq war.

Will not retaliatory terrorism strikes at home be inevitable, whether or not
Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or was involved in 9/11? After all,
if we can't protect our citizens now from further terrorism attacks, what
will happen if we defy the people of the Middle East by pursuing military
aggression in their territory?

The Hazardous Path Ahead
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/opinion/11FRI1.html>
The New York Times
Friday, October 11

With war resolutions from the House and Senate now in hand, President Bush
has won the Congressional assent he requested for a military showdown with
Iraq. That makes it all the more important that Mr. Bush and the nation
consider the dangers that lie ahead. As lawmakers were debating this week,
new information came to light that made plain just how difficult it will be
to manage an escalating crisis with Iraq in ways that assure a constructive
outcome.

One area of concern is the period immediately ahead as Washington increases
the pressure on Iraq to comply voluntarily with the United Nations'
disarmament orders. As long as the United States continues to work with the
Security Council to insist that Iraq comply, Saddam Hussein seems unlikely
to strike out wildly with his chemical and biological weapons. That could
change quickly, however, if the Iraqi leader believes that an American
attack is imminent.

To war or not to war? NO
<http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/4260560.htm>
The Mercury News
Friday, October 11
Rep. Pete Stark
Pete Stark is a Democratic congressman from Fremont.

I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to
bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and
cautious diplomacy. The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his
advisers.

Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority
to the president who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific
act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the
aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our
nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world
without regard to international law or international consensus.

To war or not to war? YES
<http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/4260567.htm>
The Mercury News
Friday, October 11
Rep. Tom Lantos
Tom Lantos is a Democratic congressman from San Mateo.

Over the course of the last two days, my colleagues have expressed many
different views on this important subject. But all have affirmed their
commitment to safeguard our national security, to pursue peace, to wage war
only as a last resort.

The depth and dignity of the debate unfolding on this floor is most worthy
of this grave subject and of our great democracy. Mr. Speaker, as our debate
has shown, none deny the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. We differ only in
the means of addressing this mounting threat. And in doing so, we grapple
with two paradoxes.

U.S. could pay big price for inaction against Iraq
<http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=3D0&u_pg=3D609&u_sid=3D529670#top>
Omaha World-Herald
Friday, October 11
Rowland Nethaway

WACO, Texas - For my money, the best argument President Bush gave Monday
night for holding Saddam Hussein's feet to the fire was the living-with-fear
alternative.

"I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein,"
Bush said. No reasonable person should. The fact is, Saddam lost the Persian
Gulf War and has refused for 11 years to abide by the conditions laid down
to end that war.

<http://www.iht.com/articles/73332.html">
The days of denial are over; We know enough 
International Herald-Tribune, originally printed in The Washington Post
Friday, October 11
Jim Hoagland

WASHINGTON On Iraq, the world has too long rushed past the obvious. As
George W. Bush and Tony Blair spotlight and lengthen the list of the dark
deeds already committed and now planned by the Ba'ath regime in Baghdad,
there is no intellectually honest way to continue saying "We didn't know."
Or to ask "What's that got to do with us?" Bush's immediate predecessors
overlooked the genocide against the Kurds, the defiance of the United
Nations on weapons of mass destruction, the harboring of terrorists, the
breaking of the overly generous cease-fire terms that the United States
dictated at the end of the Gulf War and other parts of what Bush on Monday
accurately called Iraq's "unique" record of evil. Until the Sept. 11
attacks, Bush and his cabinet seemed able to also argue information about
Iraq round or flat.

A sea change has occurred in official Washington since the president decided
last summer that he would soon have to be ready to go to war against Iraq.
Public attempts by officials to bury or explain away menacing information
about Iraq have largely dried up or gone underground, although the CIA
fights a rearguard action. Now information and intelligence are marshaled to
make the case rather than deflect it.

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/opinion/10BYRD.html>
The New York Times
Thursday, October 10
Robert C. Byrd
Robert C. Byrd is a Democratic senator for West Virginia.

WASHINGTON - A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the
Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last
week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether
and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the
mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution
in order to give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's
military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. How have we gotten
to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist
the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of
Congress to his will - a president who is changing the conventional
understanding of the term "self-defense"? And why are we allowing the
executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress,
under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its
Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting
such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

The case for war looks weak: Saddam is contained
<http://www.iht.com/articles/73226.html>
International Herald-Tribune
Thursday, October 10
Andrew Mack
The writer directs the Human Security Centre at the Liu Institute for Global
Issues at the University of British Columbia. He contributed this comment to
the International Herald Tribune.

VANCOUVER It is true that inspections, however intrusive, can never
guarantee that all of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs will be uncovered.
Mobile and underground facilities for weapons of mass destruction are almost
impossible to detect. And yes, the Iraqi regime is utterly untrustworthy.
Any promises to come clean on its weapons programs are never worth the paper
they are printed on.

Regime change is indeed a necessary condition for getting rid of Iraqi
weapons programs. But does it follow from all this that war is necessary?
Much of the Bush administration's case for war is driven by politics rather
than logic and evidence. It is often plain wrong, and it reeks of hypocrisy.

The first casualty
<http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial/4A51F5C0F%2020F58C386256C4E003C9563?OpenDocument&Headline=3DThe%20first%20casualty>
The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch
Thursday, October 10

PRESIDENTS shouldn't wage wars by exaggerating threats. But President George
W. Bush is overstating the case on Iraq.

In his speech on Monday, Mr. Bush pulled together all of the reasons that
war may be needed to disarm or depose Saddam Hussein. By addressing the
questions of critics, Mr. Bush seemed to make his case more persuasively
than in the past. But when that case is held up to the light, it is full of
holes.

The war resolution
<http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial/3EC01581A%20DB60C4586256C4E003C9573?OpenDocument&Headline=3DThe%20war%20resolution>
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Thursday, October 10 CONGRESS

THE HOUSE is expected to vote overwhelmingly today in favor of a resolution
granting President George W. Bush broad authority to use military action to
enforce a long list of United Nations' resolutions that Saddam Hussein has
violated. The congressional resolution is too broad, in that the U.N.
resolutions cover everything from weapons of mass destruction -- which are
worth fighting about -- to reparations for Kuwait -- which are not.
Nevertheless, passage is assured.

The only impediment to a quick Senate vote is the idiosyncratic opposition
of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who pulls out his pocket Constitution to argue
that it is Congress, not the president, who declares war. It's a principled
view, but one that has been obsolete since about 1800. Presidents,
exercising their constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, have broad
authority to commit U.S. forces to military action. The most recent wars
fought by the United States were authorized by congressional resolutions,
not declarations of war.

Ready for War
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3737-2002Oct9.html>
The Washington Post
Thursday, October 10
Richard Cohen

In listing his reasons for (probably) going to war against Iraq soon -- the
threat of weapons of mass destruction, the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime
and its flouting of international law -- President Bush the other night
failed to mention the most important one: Now's the time. Just as the attack
on Pearl Harbor enabled President Roosevelt to go to war against Germany as
well as Japan, so did the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 give Bush the
opportunity to do what three administrations -- his, his father's and Bill
Clinton's -- had wanted to do for some time. The attacks galvanized the
nation and altered the political climate. Hussein hadn't changed any.
America had.

Absorbing Iraq's 'Unique' Evil
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3739-2002Oct9.html>
The Washington Post
Thursday, October 10
Jim Hoagland

It is accurate to say that there was little "new" in the three major
speeches on Iraq given recently by President Bush and British Prime Minister
Tony Blair. Accurate, but irrelevant. Information does not have a use-by
date stamped on it. Changed circumstances make the truth important even
after it has ceased to be novel.

Confusing the urgent with the important is a constant risk in daily
journalism and in election-year politics. On Iraq, the world has too long
rushed past the obvious. As Bush and Blair spotlight and lengthen the list
of the dark deeds already committed and now planned by the Baathist regime
in Baghdad, there is no intellectually honest way to continue saying, "We
didn't know." Or to ask, "What's that got to do with us?"

Give the president the power to act
<http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_14696>
Rocky Mountain News
Thursday, October 10

Slightly more than a year ago, Congress gave President Bush the authority to
wage the first phase of America's war against terrorism. Today the House of
Representatives is expected to vote on whether to give Bush authority to
begin phase two, if Iraq refuses to disarm. The House should grant him that
power.

We're aware of the many serious arguments against toppling Saddam Hussein
and the questions critics are asking.

Why is the United States so worried about Iraq? Why not other countries that
possess equally destructive weapons?

Setting a Course on Iraq
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3754-2002Oct9.html>
The Washington Post
Thursday, October 10

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS now say they expect both chambers to vote
overwhelmingly to grant broad authority to President Bush to move against
Iraq, with the House acting as early as today. We believe they are right to
do so, as we have written before. President Bush is correct in his
assessment of the dangers in a world where Saddam Hussein is permitted, in
long-standing defiance of United Nations demands, to assemble arsenals of
chemical, biological and, in time, nuclear weapons. As even Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy, a critic of administration policy, has acknowledged: "There is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant,
and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be
tolerated. He must be disarmed." But we also believe that the congressional
vote will be a step in a continuing diplomatic process, not a concluding
declaration of war. As Mr. Bush said in his speech Monday evening, the
course of U.S. policy is not yet set.

Both chambers of Congress this week have been conducting a serious and
useful debate. Critics have emphasized risks that the administration had
skated over and have urged an effort to build alliances, to which the
administration had not always seemed committed. What the critics have not
done is offer a cogent alternative policy. One could make a case that the
risks of disarming Saddam Hussein outweigh the risks of living with his
regime -- that he can be contained and deterred, that he will eventually die
in his sleep or at an assassin's hand, that the unpredictability of war
poses greater dangers than the threat of his regime. We would not be
persuaded, but the argument is respectable; the dispute is a matter of
judgment, with evidence carrying you only so far.

Democrats Need Ideas
<http://www.iht.com/articles/73120.html>
International Herald-Tribune, originally published in the New York Times
Wednesday, October 9
Gary Hart
Former Senator Gary Hart, commenting in The New York Times

It is not too late for Democrats to dominate the defense debate. National
defense must fit within the broader context of foreign policy. To this end,
Democrats can and must spell out the conditions under which American forces
would be deployed to promote peace and protect global security.

We can also propose such initiatives as an international peacemaking force.
And we can show that there are alternatives to the administration's calls
for preemptive "regime change" - a euphemism for overthrowing governments -
and to its aggressive pronouncements that no nation will be permitted to
rival America militarily. There are alternatives to Republican-dominated
defense thinking generally. But we will not hear them so long as the
Democratic Party continues to confine itself to reacting to Republican
initiatives and thus continues to shy away from leadership on the security
of our nation.

Bush's Zero-Risk Policy
<http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2002/1009/p08s03-comv.html>
The Christian Science Monitor
Wednesday, October 9

The key point in President Bush's Monday night speech was that the United
States should not accept any level of risk in letting Iraq create or deliver
weapons of mass destruction.

"I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," the
president told a "heartland" audience in Cincinnati. Ensuring that the US is
totally free of any terrorist risks sets a high goal, requiring all sorts of
sacrifices that many Americans aren't yet ready to accept.

Wary of war, some critics first insist on an imminent threat from Iraq or
from an Iraqi weapon handed over to a terrorist. They cite the United
Nations Charter, which allows a war of self-defense only in the case of
armed attack.

Bush showed new readiness to let diplomacy work, though war remains a very real option
<http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=3D0&u_pg=3D608&u_sid=3D527500>
Omaha World-Herald
Wednesday, October 9

President Bush, coming across as serious, methodical and forthright rather
than emotional in Monday night's address to the nation, was at his most
effective so far in making a case that Iraq is a threat that can't be set
aside forever.

Hearteningly, Bush for the first time asserted the need for Iraqi
disarmament without also asserting that the United States and Britain will
pre-emptively take on Saddam Hussein by themselves. Monday's stance - that
the United States will lead a coalition force if necessary - undoubtedly
makes it easier for many members of the U.S. House and Senate to vote for
the war resolutions the president has sought.

This is to the good. The administration's prior strong suggestion that
America would try to knock out regimes unilaterally if they seem dangerous
was troubling, bordering on arrogant. The American people have long had an
aversion to starting wars, but few qualms about ending one to restore peace.

An Iraq strategy full of holes 
<http://www.sfgate.com/news>
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, October 9

LIKE A tough-minded prosecutor, President Bush made his case against Saddam
Hussein in measured, forceful terms. But doubters were left with important
questions unanswered as he takes the country to the precipice of war.

In a summation of his position, Bush laid out Hussein's murderous record as
"a student of Stalin" and his disregard for United Nations agreements to
disarm after the Gulf War. No argument there, Mr. President.

But the speech fell short on other scores. His evidence of Hussein's near-
term nuclear capability was questionable. A smoking-gun link between Baghdad
and al Qaeda leaders was not established. The "imminent threat" to the
United States to justify a pre-emptive strike was implied, not shown.

A new seriousness on Iraq
<http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E417%257E911487%257E,00.htm>
Denver Post
Wednesday, October 9

President Bush came closer than ever Monday to explaining why Saddam Hussein
is an imminent threat to the United States and global stability. However,
Bush still must earn crucial support from our allies and the United Nations.

The United States must not go to war unilaterally. The looming conflict
would be more easily won with allies at our side, but more importantly, our
long-term interests are served by preserving the U.N. Security Council's
role in protecting world peace and security.

Closing on Saddam
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/282/editorials/Closing_on_Saddam+.shtml>
Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 9

IN A TEMPERATE speech Monday, President Bush sought to explain and justify
his determination to confront the challenge from Saddam Hussein's regime and
its unchecked chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Bush
offered substantive answers to what he called ''legitimate questions'' about
his Iraq policy. He refrained from overstating his case and acknowledged
some of the perils and uncertainties inherent in the course of action he
proposes. But he also suggested that war need not be the inevitable result
of a renewed United Nations Security Council demand that Saddam keep the
promises he made in 1991 to declare and dismantle all his weapons of mass
destruction.

U.S. aims must be sharp if we're shooting for peace
<http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/today/opinion_d33a7ca0947>
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, October 9

In his sober and well-delivered remarks to the nation Monday evening,
President Bush repeatedly stressed his hope that war on Iraq would not be
necessary. That marked a welcome and necessary step backward from previous
rhetoric coming from the administration.

That language had created the impression that war was the preferred choice
of the Bush administration, rather than the last resort. And that
impression, in turn, has made it much more difficult for the president to
win support in the United Nations and indeed among many Americans. Other
countries clearly do share U.S. concerns about Saddam Hussein possessing
weapons of mass destruction. On those grounds, they are also willing to
press hard for a return of inspectors to Iraq and if necessary to approve a
U.S.-led invasion to ensure that all Iraqi-held chemical and biological
weapons are destroyed. They will accept --- and the American public will
accept --- a war that is truly a last resort.

President makes his case
<http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=3D0&u_pg=3D609&u_sid=3D527505>
Omaha World-Herald
Wednesday, October 9
Cal Thomas

WASHINGTON - President Bush has soberly and systematically laid out his case
for why Iraq's Saddam Hussein must go. In a speech Monday night, delivered
to an audience in Cincinnati and carried only on the all-news cable channels
(more about that in a moment), the president lifted the curtain on some of
the intelligence information that has led him to oppose further delay in
forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm. He said he believes delay is the riskiest
of several options.

Calling Iraq's leader "a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of
mass destruction," the president said Saddam is developing an "arsenal of
terror" with crude but effective delivery systems that include "a growing
arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles." He said such vehicles could carry
anthrax or other biological and chemical agents over the United States and
be easily flown or brought in by a terrorist or Iraqi intelligence officer.

Gloss over war's details
<http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/4241293.htm>
Philadelphia Inquirer
Wednesday, October 9
Trudy Rubin

Are we ready? The President's speech on Monday began the countdown to an
Iraq war. The speech was heavy on spin but provided no new facts about why
war is so urgent.

And it gave little hint that the Bush team is prepared for the chaos likely
to follow in Saddam's wake.

Truth on Iraq Seeps Through
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer8oct08,0,32633>
The L.A. Times
Tuesday, October 8
Robert Scheer

In a speech intended to frighten the American people into supporting a war,
the president Monday again trotted out his grim depiction of Saddam Hussein
as a terrifying boogeyman haunting the world. However, a CIA report released
late last week and designed to bolster Bush's case for preemptive invasion
instead provided clear evidence that Iraq poses less of a threat to the
world than at any other time in the past decade.

In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined
with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker
militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran
by the United States.

The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq
possesses nuclear weapons, although it lamely attempts to put the worst spin
on that embarrassing fact: "Although Saddam probably does not yet have
nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on
acquiring them."

Closer to the Middle
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bush8oct08,0,7778403>
The L.A. Times
Tuesday, October 8

President Bush's sober address last night showed an encouraging hint of
restraint cloaked in tough declarations about the United States' new role in
the post-9/11 world. As he took his case for confronting Saddam Hussein
directly to the American people, Bush also acknowledged that questions about
going to war were legitimate, rather than anti-American. Perhaps most
important, Bush emphasized again that he would go through the United Nations
first and that any war would be waged "with allies," presumably meaning more
than Britain alone.

Bush emphasized that war was not the first resort of a powerful democracy,
even as he warned that waiting too long was "the riskiest of all options."
If Hussein fully complies with whatever demands emerge from a new U.N.
Security Council resolution, Bush promised, Iraq can avoid war. Or, he all
but said out loud, Iraqis can just deal with Hussein and expect plenty of
American help afterward.

The president did not offer any shocking revelations--or even new
revelations--about Iraq's attempts to acquire biological, chemical and
nuclear weapons. He did state that Iraq was attempting to rebuild its
nuclear weapons program and that weapons could be funneled to terrorists or
aimed directly at the United States.

Why now? Americans still don't have an answer
<http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/3351100.html>
Minnesota Star-Tribune
Tuesday, October 8

"We refuse to live in fear," President Bush said in his speech Monday night
in Cincinnati, referring to the American people. And of course he is right,
but there are fears, and then there are fears, and the top one on most
Americans' list today is not Iraq, the focus of the president's remarks, but
the safety of their jobs, of their pensions, of their health care. On those
subjects, their president has been missing in action for many months now,
and the people do not know quite why.

The White House promised that Bush's focus on Iraq would be explained in
Monday night's speech, but the promise went unfulfilled. "Why now" was the
question the president's staff promised he would answer, but it seems that
Bush and the American people have a different frame of reference in asking
the question.

War and Peace
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0210080277oct08,0,2131406>
The Chicago Tribune
Tuesday, October 8

Speaking from Cincinnati on Monday night was President George W. Bush's
symbolic way of taking his case against Iraq beyond corridors of power and
directly to the American people. What matters now, though, is what effect
his strong words will have inside the corridors of power--at the U.S.
Capitol, the United Nations and the presidential palaces of Baghdad.

Bush's speech could not, and will not, convince those who wholeheartedly
oppose a war to change their minds. This remains a nation deeply divided.
But by synthesizing his arguments against Saddam Hussein, Bush probably has
raised the margins by which both houses of Congress will give him the
authority to take military action. His arguments were sharper than in the
past, including his assertion that "the threat from Iraq stands alone
because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place."

WAR DRUMS: Bush speech the way our process is supposed to work
<http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1607600#top>
The Houston Chronicle
Monday, October 7

This is the way it is supposed to work in our democracy. This is what
separates us from so many other nations: The president is expected to make a
clear and compelling case for his actions, especially for making war. The
American people, by their direct voices and through their elected
representatives, have a right to respond and should respond. Through this
process, one hopes, a consensus will emerge that will help to guide the
nation and its leaders and make us stronger. Both sides should be able to
speak their mind without incurring charges of being unpatriotic or worse.
Opponents of a unilateral attack on Iraq are not by definition un-American.
By the same token, President Bush, the commander in chief, should not be
liable to a baseless allegation that he wants to send U.S. troops into
battle to distract Americans from the ailing economy.

A Nation Wary of War
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/08/opinion/08TUE1.html>
The New York Times
Tuesday, October 8

Not quite four decades ago, Lyndon Johnson learned to his and the nation's
sorrow that taking a reluctant country to war can severely damage the body
politic. President Bush must be mindful of that danger as he draws the
United States ever closer to military conflict with Iraq. Americans are
worried about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, but are
also concerned about the anemic state of the nation's economy, and seem
uncertain how best to deal with Iraq. A New York Times/CBS News poll
published yesterday, and other surveys, support the sense of many around the
country that Mr. Bush still has work to do if he hopes to persuade Americans
of the need to use military force to disarm Iraq.

With Congress heading toward a vote on a war resolution, Mr. Bush marshaled
his arguments once again last night. Speaking in Cincinnati, he was forceful
in outlining the threat presented by Iraq. He laid out the ways in which the
Iraqi dictator has brazenly defied United Nations orders to destroy his
unconventional weapons, making Iraq, in the president's view, unique in its
ability to threaten the world. He was less convincing in addressing the
potentially costly consequences of a war against that country.

Punching holes in 'madman' myth
<http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman08oct08,0,1804216.>
Baltimore Sun
Tuesday, October 8
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Publishing
newspaper.

CHICAGO -- He's a megalomaniac who has weapons of mass destruction and
dreams of conquest. If left alone, he is bound to shatter the stability of
the Middle East and the world.

Anyone who expects him to behave rationally is deluded. He's so reckless and
warlike that there's no telling what he might do. No, I'm not talking about
George W. Bush. I'm talking about Saddam Hussein, as portrayed these days by
those advocating war with Iraq. They claim we must act now to keep him from
getting nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction.

Skeptics, including myself, reply that he would never use those weapons
against us because he knows we would obliterate his regime and his country.
The administration's supporters insist that though our nuclear arsenal was
enough to contain Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, it can't deter the Iraqi
dictator.



INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

American hegemony will be expensive: 'The Big Enchilada'
<http://iht.com/articles/73649.html>
The International Herald Tribune, originally printed in the Washington Post
Tuesday, October 15
Max Boot
The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author
of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power." He
contributed this comment to The Washington Post.

WASHINGTON The National Security Strategy released last month by the White
House may be the most significant U.S. foreign policy statement since NSC
68, the 1950 paper that codified the containment doctrine. Yet oddly most of
the debate has focused on only one of its aspects - the promise that America
will strike preemptively against potential threats. Almost no one is
criticizing President George W. Bush's pledge to maintain American military
hegemony.

North Korea is the problem: Iraq isn't top rogue
<http://iht.com/articles/73574.html>
International Herald-Tribune
Monday, October 14
Robyn Lim
The writer is a professor of international politics at Nanzan University.
She contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

NAGOYA, Japan George W. Bush has warned that Iraq and North Korea, members
along with Iran of his "axis of evil," will be held to account for
developing weapons of mass destruction. So why did President Bush, as he
prepares to attack Iraq, recently send a senior American official to
Pyongyang?

North Korea and Iraq are both rogue states located in regions that have
caused problems for the United States for more than 50 years. But it is
North Korea, not Iraq, that is developing missiles which soon will be able
to reach the continental United States.

North Korea is also the world's worst missile proliferator, contributing to
the missile programs of Iran, Syria and others. Their missiles can now
target American forces and allies in the Middle East. And North Korea is
believed to possess one or two nuclear weapons, as well as a chemical and
biological arsenal.

A Precedent That Proves Neither Side's Point
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15080-2002Oct11.html>
The Washington Post
Sunday, October 13
Jefferson Morley
Jefferson Morley is World editor at washingtonpost.com.

President Bush and Teddy Kennedy don't agree about much, but they do agree
that the Cuban missile crisis is a relevant story today. As Americans debate
whether to wage preemptive war against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, both
the president and the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy are
citing the events of October 1962 to justify different courses of action.

In his speech to the nation last Monday, Bush dressed his policy in JFK's
mantle. "As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: Neither the United
States nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception
and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no
longer live in a world, he said, where only the actual firing of weapons
represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute
maximum peril."

But Sen. Kennedy, in a Sept. 27 speech at the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies, maintained that his brother's actions 40
years ago were anything but Bush-like.

Nuclear threat doesn't come from Iraq
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2002/10>
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, October 11
Eduardo Cohen
Eduardo Cohen is a a Vietnam veteran who hosted and produced "The Other
Americas" radio journal for 15 years, examining U.S. foreign policy. He is
coordinator of communications and information at Project Underground, a
nonprofit that supports communities.

As the Bush Administration pushes the nation toward war with Iraq,
completely ignored is one of the most serious moral issues to face Congress
in many years: The likelihood that a resolution for war in Iraq could lead
to the first use of nuclear weapons since World War II. It was decided long
ago that as a matter of policy, the United States would be prepared to "go
nuclear" in the case of a Soviet Bloc assault on Western Europe. That policy
derived from the military reality that Soviet Bloc military forces far
outnumbered those of our Western European allies. Without the use of nuclear
weapons, Western European armies would have almost certainly been
overwhelmed in a conventional conflict. And that's the way it was for many
years.

But that changed significantly when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld early
this year signed a revised nuclear weapons policy known as the Nuclear
Profile Review. This new policy creates new parameters in which the use of
nuclear weapons may be authorized.

The folly of pre-emptive war
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2002/10>
The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, October 11
Kevin Denaher, Ted Lewis, and Jason Mark

Jason Mark and Kevin Danaher promote international economic rights for the
human rights organization Global Exchange. Ted Lewis directs the
organization's human rights program.

In attempting to make the case for invading Iraq, President Bush's speech
Monday night revealed the folly of the new doctrine of pre-emptive attack.
More clearly than any other statement by the White House, the president laid
bare the weakness of his administration's foreign policy. According to the
president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" that Saddam Hussein's
government is planning an imminent attack against the United States. Even
though President Bush acknowledged in his speech that Iraq does not
currently threaten the United States, he said we must "assume the worst."
Essentially, the White House is proposing that the United States invade a
distant country without any evidence of impending aggression.

Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm Hussein.
Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What he failed to>
do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? Because there
is no coalition. Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, disregard
for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war without end
is causing traditional friends of the United States to join the majority of
the world's nations in distancing themselves from Washington in a fashion
not seen since the Vietnam War.

U.S. Needs Alliances, Not Short-Term Allies: Bush's approach places global stability at risk.
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goodby11oct11,0,4333>
The L.A. Times
Friday, October 11
James E. Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode
James E. Goodby is a retired diplomat with more than four decades of service
to the U.S. government; Kenneth Weisbrode is a member of the Atlantic
Council of the United States in Washington.

Concerns over American unilateralism have receded over the last few weeks as
the Bush administration and the president himself have gradually begun to
say positive things about the need for allies to accomplish U.S. aims in the
Middle East. Few proponents of war against Iraq or any other evil regime now
assert in principle that the United States should act by itself or with just
one or two coalition partners.

Polls show that a wide majority of Americans also reject "going it alone."
The shift toward a greater concern for allies is a positive one; it has
warmed the heart of the multilateralist backers of Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell in the administration and in the media.

However, the shift has overlooked a critical distinction. Allies are not the
same things as alliances. The latter subject has barely been mentioned in
the administration's public pronouncements.

Does U.S. want to be branded as a rogue state?
<http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3357297.html>
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Friday, October 11
Mike Klein
Mike Klein is an instructor in the Justice and Peace Studies Department at
the University of St. Thomas.

Much has been made lately of the threat posed to the world by rogue states.
Our administration recommends that they be controlled, contained or undone.
President Bush provided a clear definition of a rogue state in September's
National Security Strategy of the United States of America. While reading
his criteria, I couldn't help but reflect on recent U.S. foreign and
domestic policy. The following are criteria for a rogue state and evidence
that we qualify.

The Wrong Resolution
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iraq11oct11,0,731518>
The L.A. Times
Friday, October 11

The resolution Congress passed early today authorizing the use of military
force against Iraq gives too much power to this and, potentially, future
presidents to attack nations unilaterally based on mere suspicions.

This could fundamentally change the nation's approach to foreign policy. It
could also, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) observed this week, "have
ramifications for the future of the world, because other countries will
adopt this same philosophy." A preemptive strike against Iraq could spring
open a Pandora's box of aggression. Russia could cite it to crush insurgents
in Georgia. India could use it to justify a nuclear strike to prevent
Pakistan from such an attack.

A mischievous blame game
<http://www.iht.com/articles/73223.html>
India and Pakistan
International Herald-Tribune
Thursday, October 10
Husain Haqqani
The writer, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, served as adviser to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto.
He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

ISLAMABAD As Pakistan prepares to hold its first general election in five
years this Thursday, it has once again conducted tit-for-tat missile tests.
Tests last week were carried out by Pakistan and India soon after they
blamed each other for recent terrorist attacks. And Pakistan carried out a
successful test of a medium-range Shaheen ballistic missile on Tuesday.

Mutual accusations and saber rattling have characterized India-Pakistan
relations for most of the last 50 years. But this latest round is fraught
with danger because it could provide terrorists in the region with cover to
stoke tensions at a time when India and Pakistan are in a military face-off
in Kashmir and have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

The twist in U.S.-Iraq game of chicken
<http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1609543>
The Houston Chronicle
Tuesday, October 7
Thomas L. Friedman
Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and a three-time Pulitzer
Prize winner.

To be successful in dealing with Iraq, President Bush has to tread the most
unusual line one could imagine for a statesman: He has to be wild, but not
crazy.

How so? Well, it all goes back to a well-known concept in strategic theory:
how to win a game of chicken between two drivers barreling head-on at one
another. If you are one of the drivers, the best way to win is, before the
race even starts, to take out a screwdriver and very visibly unscrew your
steering wheel and throw it out the window. The message to the other driver
is: "Hey, I'd love to chicken out and get out of your way, but I just threw
out my steering wheel -- so unless you want to crash head-on, you better get
out of the way."

We are witnessing a similar situation between Bush and Saddam Hussein. To
push the United Nations, the Arabs and the Europeans to finally get serious
about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. inspection resolutions, Bush
had to appear wild -- as if he had thrown out America's steering wheel and
was ready to invade Iraq tomorrow, alone. It was a very smart tactic, and if
it produces a serious, united international front, it may yet pressure
Saddam into chickening out and allowing unconditional inspections. It may
even turn up the pressure inside Iraq so much that someone there is
emboldened to take Saddam down. You never know.

Where are the questions about war and ethics?
<http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/4243798.htm>
Mercury News
Wednesday, October 9
Rob Elder
Rob Elder is senior fellow of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at
Santa Clara University.

Whoa! Run this past me again, real slow. I listened to President Bush's
speech. I read the text. I still don't see how we got to a choice whether to
invade Iraq with or without allies, now or later. When did we decide to do
it at all?

Granted, the president was reassuring, not bellicose. He reviewed questions
that bother Americans. Why Iraq? Because ``it gathers the most serious
dangers of our age in one place.'' Wouldn't war in Iraq distract us from the
war against terrorism? No, he said. It's a necessary part of the war against
terrorism.

Texas Hold 'Em With a Stacked Deck
<http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sorensen/>
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, October 9
Harley Sorensen
Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist and iconoclast.

I'd like to play poker with George W. Bush. I'd get rich. Any poker player
worth his salt knows you always call when the other guy is bluffing. If he's
bluffing, and you're holding any cards at all, you've got him beat. You
can't lose.

So how does George W. Bush respond to a bluff? He throws in his cards! He
gives up.

That's what he did recently in the never-ending saga of the Bush family
versus Saddam Hussein. First, Bush insisted that Saddam allow arms
inspectors into Iraq. Second, Saddam said, "Okay, bring 'em on. We have
nothing to hide." Third, Bush said, "He's bluffing. We're not sending any
inspectors."

Bargaining With Russia
<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/08/opinion/08BRZE.html>
The New York Times
Tuesday, October 8
Mark Brzezinksi
Mark Brzezinski, a Washington attorney, served as director for Russian and
Eurasian affairs on the National Security Council in the Clinton
administration.

WASHINGTON - At last week's meeting of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council, the Russian delegation insisted that the
terms of reference for arms inspection in Iraq already provide adequate
legal basis for access to relevant sites. The Russians believe that
negotiation of a new resolution would only delay further the return of the
inspectors. They have in private questioned the validity of the Bush
administration's assertion that Iraq is stockpiling weapons of mass
destruction.

What is driving Russia's actions at the United Nations? Self interest, of
course. Iraq owes Russia about $8 billion on loans dating back to the Soviet
era; Russia fears the debts will be renounced if there is regime change.
Private contracts benefiting Russian oil companies are in place. Under the
United Nations' oil-for-food program, Russian contractors have been by far
the biggest beneficiaries. Forty percent of Iraqi oil traded under the
program is sold via Russian intermediaries. Considering the dismal state of
Russia's economy, the $1 billion a year Russia gains from the program is
alone an important motivating factor.

'The Bush Doctrine' Leaps Into History: Wage first-strike war to achieve peace
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pink8oct08,0,6252697>
The L.A. Times
Tuesday, October 8
James B. Pinkerton
James P. Pinkerton writes a column for Newsday in New York.

Most television networks chose not to cover President Bush's speech Monday.
There would be no real news, they were told. Indeed, the White House wanted
to low-key the talk--perhaps to avoid accusations that it was wagging the
dog in regard to the midterm elections. And so the networks were eager to
carry on with their commercial programming. But long after "King of Queens"
and "Fear Factor" are forgotten, people will remember 2002 as the year that
Bush propounded a new doctrine for the world, one likely to define the next
century.

To be sure, much of Bush's speech was devoted to the question of "why now?"
for Saddam Hussein. As the president said, "By its past and present actions,
by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime,
Iraq is unique." But he also said, "For the sake of peace, we will lead a
coalition to disarm him ... we cannot wait for the final proof."
First-strike war to achieve peace--that's a new doctrine for America.

Beware perilous chain reaction
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/4234149.htm>
The Miami Herald
Tuesday, October 8
Michael T. Klare
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at
Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Resource Wars: The
New Landscape of Global Conflict.

In its rush to war against Iraq, the Bush administration is suffering from
tunnel vision. Its inability to see what is important outside of a narrow
range of considerations could lead to dangerous outcomes.

The U.S. effort to locate and destroy the surviving forces of al Qaeda would
have to be scaled back. Many senior officers and Special Forces personnel
have been withdrawn from Afghanistan and surrounding areas to join the
forces being assembled for the assault on Iraq. Particularly troubling in
this regard is the fact that Gen. Tommy R. Franks (commander of all U.S.
forces in the Persian Gulf area) and his senior staff have been devoting
almost all of their time to planning for the war on Iraq instead of
overseeing the war on terrorism.

Washington would be compelled to grant tacit support to Russia, China and
India to mimic the U.S. invasion of Iraq by engaging in attacks on their own
terror-linked enemies.