vision2020
RE: Iraq and energy
Greetings
Visionaires -
In March of 1991,
didn't President Bush (Sr.) say that the Persian Gulf War was going to be purely
a military action run by generals? Then a few weeks later tell General
Schwartzkopf not to advance on Baghdad?
Had President
Bush lived up to his word in 1991, we would not have this
problem.
Just counting my
blessings that George's brother Jeb (Governor of Florida) isn't intrerested in
the presidency,
Tom
Hansen
Moscow,
Idaho
Visionaries:
... It occurs to me, albeit
sneakily, that if we DO invade and occupy Iraq, and then, as several
Republican point men on the Sunday talkies suggested, militarily occupy it for
a very long time in order to "build democracy", we will in effect then own a
piece of the Persian Gulf "oil patch", and be in a position to pump millions
of gallons of cheap crude into tankers on a regular basis and send them
sailing off to the U S o A.
This entire eminent iteration of gunboat
diplomacy may be a deep Republican plot to continue America's dependence on
big pickup trucks and "soccer mom" SUV's. Not to mention thumbing our noses at
the Saudis, who will then not have such a sweet lock on the oil barrel padlock
via OPEC.
Regards,
Don Kaag
On Tuesday, Oct 8, 2002, at
13:30 US/Pacific, Charles Fulford wrote:
Members,
I sent an
email of concern to the senators and our representative considering
war
in Iraq and asking to consider an energy plan that would cut our dependence
on
foreign oil to alleviate our problems in the region. It seems the decision
is made and final.
Taze
Fulford
October 8,
2002
Charles Taze Fulford
407 North Jefferson St. Apt 4
Moscow,
ID 83843
Dear Charles,
Thank you for contacting me with
your concerns about Iraq. I appreciate
hearing from you and having the
benefit of your views.
As you know, the President recently sent a
draft resolution to Congress
authorizing whatever force is necessary to
enforce existing United Nations
(UN) resolutions on Iraq. This is in
response to repeated violations over
the past 11 years of resolutions
dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program, respect for the
cease-fire agreement, treatment of
the Kurdish minority, and the
international weapons embargo. Iraq's
intransigence on all of these
issues, combined with its existing ballistic
missiles and known chemical
and biological weapons programs, make it a
constant danger to its
neighbors in the Middle East and a natural ally of
all states and groups
who seek to harm the United States. Even more
dangerously, Iraq has shown
that it is committed to acquiring nuclear
weapons and, given enough time,
will almost certainly do so.
Authorizing the use of force is one of
the most important decisions a
Member of Congress can make. I have talked
to hundreds of Idahoans, and
received comments from hundreds more, with
their views. I have also
listened carefully to briefings by senior
military and intelligence
officials and heard the President's speeches
laying out the case for
action.
After carefully looking at the
evidence, talking to my fellow Idahoans,
and giving it much thought, it
has become clear that the threat of an Iraq
armed with weapons of mass
destruction, allied with terrorists, and
hostile to the United States
must be dealt with swiftly. The United
States, hopefully in partnership
with the rest of the world, but if not
then with close allies such as the
United Kingdom and others, should take
steps to end the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein and his regime. While I am
hopeful that this can be
accomplished without war, it may prove to be a
necessity.
I
understand those who remain concerned. We have to balance the
somber
decision of sending our young men and women into harm's way
against what
may be imminent danger to us all. In my view, we no longer
have a choice.
I will vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq to
prevent it from
ever threatening the peace of the rest of the world
again.
Thank you once again for contacting me.
As always, "Idaho -
Esto Perpetua"
?
C.L."Butch" Otter
Member of
Congress
CLO/mmj
Back to TOC