[mobglob-discuss] Bush's latest insanity

[Bella]

EXTREMELY SCARY stuff coming out of the Whitehouse!! Bush now wants a full
license to attack any country for any reason he thinks up. The guy is
insane! To see the full released document go to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/
Bella


Bush Unveils Global Doctrine of First Strikes 
By David E. Sanger 
New York Times 

Friday, 20 September, 2002 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 -- On Friday, the Bush
administration will publish its first comprehensive
rationale for shifting American military strategy
toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and
terrorist groups developing weapons of mass
destruction. The strategy document will also state,
for the first time, that the United States will never
allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way
it was during the cold war. 

In the 33-page document, Mr. Bush also seeks to answer
the critics of growing American muscle-flexing by
insisting that the United States will exploit its
military and economic power to encourage "free and
open societies," rather than seek "unilateral
advantage." It calls this union of values and national
interests "a distinctly American internationalism." 

The document, titled "The National Security Strategy
of the United States," is one that every president is
required to submit to Congress. It is the first
comprehensive explanation of the administration's
foreign policy, from defense strategy to global
warming. A copy of the final draft was obtained by The
New York Times. 

It sketches out a far more muscular and sometimes
aggressive approach to national security than any
since the Reagan era. It includes the discounting of
most nonproliferation treaties in favor of a doctrine
of "counterproliferation," a reference to everything
from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons
or their components. It declares that the strategies
of containment and deterrence -- staples of American
policy since the 1940's -- are all but dead. There is
no way in this changed world, the document states, to
deter those who "hate the United States and everything
for which it stands." 

"America is now threatened less by conquering states
than we are by failing ones," the document states,
sounding what amounts to a death knell for many of the
key strategies of the cold war. 

One of the most striking elements of the new strategy
document is its insistence "that the president has no
intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up
with the huge lead the United States has opened since
the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago." 

"Our forces will be strong enough," Mr. Bush's
document states, "to dissuade potential adversaries
from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of
surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United
States." With Russia so financially hobbled that it
can no longer come close to matching American military
spending, the doctrine seemed aimed at rising powers
like China, which is expanding its conventional and
nuclear forces. 

Administration officials who worked on the strategy
for months say it amounts to both a maturation and an
explanation of Mr. Bush's vision for the exercise of
America power after 20 months in office, integrating
the military, economic and moral levers he holds. 

Much of the document focuses on how public diplomacy,
the use of foreign aid, and changes in the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can be
used to win what it describes as a battle of competing
values and ideas -- including "a battle for the future
of the Muslim world." 

The president put the final touches on the new
strategy last weekend at Camp David after working on
it for months with his national security adviser,
Condoleezza Rice, and with other members of the
national security team. In its military hawkishness,
its expressions of concern that Russian reforms could
be undermined by the country's elite, and its focus on
bolstering foreign aid -- especially for literacy
training and AIDS -- it particularly bears the stamp
of Ms. Rice's thinking. 

A senior White House official said Mr. Bush had edited
the document heavily "because he thought there were
sections where we sounded overbearing or arrogant."
But at the same time, the official said, it is
important to foreclose the option that other nations
could aspire to challenge the United States
militarily, because "once you cut off the challenge of
military competition, you open up the possibility of
cooperation in a number of other areas." 

Still, the administration's critics at home and abroad
will almost certainly find ammunition in the document
for their argument that Mr. Bush is only interested in
a multilateral approach as long as it does not
frustrate his will. At several points, the document
states clearly that when important American interests
are at stake there will be no compromise. 

The document argues that while the United States will
seek allies in the battle against terrorism, "we will
not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise
our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively."
That includes "convincing or compelling states to
accept their sovereign responsibilities" not to aid
terrorists, the essence of the doctrine Mr. Bush
declared on the night of Sept. 11, 2001. 

The White House delayed releasing the document this
week so that its lengthy discussion of conditions
under which the United States might take unilateral,
pre-emptive action would not dominate delicate
negotiations in the United Nations or the testimony of
administration officials who appeared at Congressional
hearings to discuss Iraq. 

The new strategy departs significantly from the last
one published by President Clinton, at the end of
1999. 

Mr. Clinton's strategy dealt at length with tactics to
prevent the kind of financial meltdowns that
threatened economies in Asia and Russia. The Bush
strategy urges other nations to adopt Mr. Bush's own
economic philosophy, starting with low marginal tax
rates. While Mr. Clinton's strategy relied heavily on
enforcing or amending a series of international
treaties, from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty
to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to Kyoto
protocols on the environment, Mr. Bush's strategy
dismisses most of those efforts. 

In fact, the new document -- which Mr. Bush told his
staff had to be written in plain English because "the
boys in Lubbock ought to be able to read it" --
celebrates his decision last year to abandon the ABM
treaty because it impeded American efforts to build a
missile defense system. It recites the dangers of
nonproliferation agreements that have failed to
prevent Iran, North Korea, Iraq and other countries
from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and says
that the United States will never subject its citizens
to the newly created International Criminal Court,
"whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans." 

The document makes no reference to the Kyoto accord,
but sets an "overall objective" of cutting American
greenhouse gas emissions "per unit of economic
activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years." The
administration says that is a reasonable goal given
its view of the current state of environmental
science. Its critics, however, point out that the
objective is voluntary, and allows enormous room for
American emissions to increase as the American economy
expands. 

The doctrine also describes at great length the
administration's commitment to bolstering American
foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in
"countries whose governments rule justly, invest in
their people and encourage economic freedom." It
insists that the programs must have "measurable
results" to assure that the money is actually going to
the poor, especially for schools, health care and
clean water. 

***************************************************** 


Text of Bush's Iraq Proposal 
By The Associated Press 

Thursday, 19 September, 2002 

A text of the joint resolution that President Bush
asked Congress to approve: 

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States
Armed Forces against Iraq. 

Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then
in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations and thereby threatened the
vital interests of the United States and international
peace and security, stated the reasons for that
conclusion, and urged the president to take
appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with
its international obligations (Public Law 105-235); 

Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among
other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the
national security interests of the United States and
international peace and security; 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council by continuing to
engage in brutal repression of its civilian
population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby
threatening international peace and security in the
region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account
for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by
Iraq from Kuwait; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass
destruction against other nations and its own people; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
continuing hostility toward, and willingness to
attack, the United States, including by attempting in
1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by
firing on many thousands of occasions on United States
and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its
citizens, and interests, including the attacks that
occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; 

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other
international terrorist organizations, including
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of
American citizens; 

Whereas the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11,
2001. underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq
will transfer weapons of mass destruction to
international terrorist organizations; 

Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as
acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use
force in order to defend itself; 

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness
to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that
the current Iraqi regime will either employ those
weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its armed forces or provide them to
international terrorists who would do so, and the
extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the
United States and its citizens from such an attack,
combine to justify the use of force by the United
States in order to defend itself; 

UNDATED: to defend itself. 

Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament
and other obligations under United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its
civilian population that threatens international peace
and security under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors
of United Nations operations in Iraq under United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and United
Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use
of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with
these ``subsequent relevant resolutions;'' 

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law
102-1) has authorized the president to use the Armed
Forces of the United States to achieve full
implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677,
pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678; 

Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190
has stated that it ``supports the use of all necessary
means to achieve the goals of Security Council
Resolution 687 as being consistent with the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
(Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security
Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing
threat to the peace, security, and stability of the
Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress ``supports
the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
Resolution 688''; 

Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public
Law 105-338) has expressed its sense that it should be
the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime; 

Whereas the president has authority under the
Constitution to take action in order to deter and
prevent acts of international terrorism against the
United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107-40); and 

Whereas the president has authority under the
Constitution to use force in order to defend the
national security interests of the United States; 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Further
Resolution on Iraq''. 

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMS
FORCES. 

The president is authorized to use all means that he
determines to be appropriate, including force, in
order to enforce the United Nations Security Council
resolutions referenced above, defend the national
security interests of the United States against the
threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace
and security in the region. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes.)   


© : t r u t h o u t 2002
*******************************************************
Bush Asks Congress For Unlimited Power to Make War 
By The Associated Press 

Friday, 20 September, 2002 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sweeping authority sought by
President Bush to confront Iraq would allow him to
ignore the United Nations and fight Saddam Hussein at
the time, place and manner of his choosing. Some legal
experts said the proposed resolution would even permit
the president to use military force beyond Iraq's
borders. 

``It's wide open,'' said Scott L. Silliman, director
of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and
National Security. ``This resolutions says, `Mr.
President, you can use force anywhere to bring peace
and stability anywhere'.'' 

One Democratic lawmaker said Bush was writing himself
a blank check for war. 

The 20-paragraph proposed resolution would authorize
Bush to ``use all means that he determines to be
appropriate, including force, in order to enforce''
United Nation's Security Council Resolutions, ``defend
the national security interests of the United States
against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore
international peace and security in the region.'' 

Bush's advisers, citing the U.N. resolutions and a
1998 law, said his proposal allows for the violent
ouster of Saddam. While he believes the commander in
chief does not need Congress' authority to wage war,
Bush wants the political and moral authority that
comes with congressional action, advisers said. 

A show of unity with Congress also may help Bush's bid
for a U.N. resolution to disarm Saddam, advisers said.


``If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have
the authorization to use force,'' Bush told reporters
after a meeting with his war council in the Oval
Office. 

The proposal appears to be broader than an Iraq
resolution passed by Congress in 1998, which did not
specifically approve force, and may be more sweeping
than the measure giving Bush's father authority to
fight the Persian Gulf War, legal experts said. 

Congressional leaders predicted they would quickly
give Bush broad powers, though some Democrats objected
to his proposal. 

``I'm not giving the president a blank check,
period,'' said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. 

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said Bush's proposal was
more open-ended than the congressional resolution that
authorized war in Vietnam. 

``The Gulf of Tonkin resolution ... did at least limit
the president to repelling an armed attack and
preventing future aggression, and to aiding certain
treaty members who requested defense,'' he said. 

Though White House officials insisted the resolution
was limited to Iraq, legal experts said talk about
restoring peace and stability in the region is
unusually broad and could eventually be applied to
other terrorist havens. 

``What region? It doesn't say just Iraq. It says the
region,'' Silliman said. ``Would it allow him to use
force in Yemen? How about the Sudan? One could argue
that it could.'' 

Robert Turner, associate director of the University of
Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said a
sweeping resolution showcases American unity, which
can avert war -- as he said happened during the Cuban
missile crisis and amid confrontations in the Middle
East and China during the 1950s. 

``When Congress stood behind the president and
threatened the use of force, each time the bad guys
backed down,'' Turner said. 

The resolution embraces Bush's new ``first strike''
policy, allowing the United States to attack a country
over a perceived threat instead of waiting for America
to be struck first. 

``A pre-emptive, unilateral first strike would set a
terrible international precedent,'' said Rep. Barbara
Lee, D-Calif. 

White House officials said this would not be the first
time the United States has stood ready to strike
first. Two examples they offered: The 1962 blockade of
Cuba to keep Russian missiles out of the Western
Hemisphere and the nation's refusal during the Cold
War to rule out a first strike nuclear attack to
prevent a larger attack. 

Bush's resolution also would allow him to act on his
own, even if the United Nations refuses to bless his
Iraqi policy. 

``Going alone has some very significant risks,''
warned Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl
Levin, D-Mich. 

He wants Bush's resolution to say the president needs
a U.N. resolution backing the use of force. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes.)   

=====
talk-action=nothing

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com