found at: http://motherjones.com/web_exclusives/features/news/index.html
All the debate in Congress over going to war with Iraq may be beside the point: President Bush's attorneys now claim that he has the authority to attack Iraq even without Congress's consent (1), report Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post. The lawyers' premise: The authority given George Bush Sr. in 1991 still stands. All of this could lead to a "showdown this fall between Congress and the White House," Allen and Eilperin predict. Still, that didn't stop Vice President Dick Cheney from dismissing those who have questioned the administration's intentions as being guilty of "wishful thinking or willful blindness," (2) the Los Angeles Times reports. Nevertheless, new critics of the "Bush doctrine" are weighing in daily. In an op-ed piece for The New York Times, former Secretary of State James Baker supports a regime change in Iraq but insists that the Bush administration shouldn't attempt it without a broad international coalition. "The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two other countries," (3) says Baker. Noting that the US is already amassing troops in the Persian Gulf, the Toronto Sun's Eric Margolis blasts Bush's policy of "pre-emptive intervention," calling it " nothing less than a frightening revival of the old imperialist Brezhnev Doctrine of 25 years ago that called for Soviet intervention wherever socialism was threatened." (4) On that note, Leon Wofsy opines in CommonDreams that lawmakers need to consider broadening their debate beyond the planned attack on Iraq. What ought to be debated is the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, a historic shift in international policy and philosophy." (5)
source
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61040-2002Aug25.html
(2) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-082602usiraq_wr.story
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/opinion/25BAKE.html
(4) http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_aug25.html
(5) http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0824-05.htm
All the debate in Congress over going to war with Iraq may be beside the point: President Bush's attorneys now claim that he has the authority to attack Iraq even without Congress's consent (1), report Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post. The lawyers' premise: The authority given George Bush Sr. in 1991 still stands. All of this could lead to a "showdown this fall between Congress and the White House," Allen and Eilperin predict. Still, that didn't stop Vice President Dick Cheney from dismissing those who have questioned the administration's intentions as being guilty of "wishful thinking or willful blindness," (2) the Los Angeles Times reports. Nevertheless, new critics of the "Bush doctrine" are weighing in daily. In an op-ed piece for The New York Times, former Secretary of State James Baker supports a regime change in Iraq but insists that the Bush administration shouldn't attempt it without a broad international coalition. "The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two other countries," (3) says Baker. Noting that the US is already amassing troops in the Persian Gulf, the Toronto Sun's Eric Margolis blasts Bush's policy of "pre-emptive intervention," calling it " nothing less than a frightening revival of the old imperialist Brezhnev Doctrine of 25 years ago that called for Soviet intervention wherever socialism was threatened." (4) On that note, Leon Wofsy opines in CommonDreams that lawmakers need to consider broadening their debate beyond the planned attack on Iraq. What ought to be debated is the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, a historic shift in international policy and philosophy." (5)
source
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61040-2002Aug25.html
(2) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-082602usiraq_wr.story
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/opinion/25BAKE.html
(4) http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_aug25.html
(5) http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0824-05.htm