brutality, aggression, and violations of international law cannot be allowed to succeed.
[fn 62]
For those who had ever believed Bush's verbal declarations, here was an entirely new
policy, advanced without the slightest motivation. Bush argued that the current US troop
stregnth of 230,000 was enough to defend Saudi Arabia, but that was no longer good
enough. Bush's only argument was that gradual strangulation by sanctions might take too
long. Reporters pointed out that Thatcher had threatened to use military force the day
before. Did Bush want war? "I would love to see a peaceful resolution to this question,
and that's what I want." Some of the more lucid minds had now figured out that Bush was
indeed a pathological liar.
For the rest of the month of November, a modest wave of anti-war sentiment was
observed in the United States, some of it coming from Democrats of the strangler faction
who had never wavered in their devotion to evil. On Sunday, November 11 Sen. Sam
Nunn questioned Bush's rush to war. But Nunn did not call for a denial of funds to wage
war on the model of the Hatfield-McGovern amendment which had finally tied Nixon's
hands in Vietnam. Nunn was a leader of the strangler group, urging reliance on the
sanctions. James Reston wrote in the New York Times, that "Bush's comparison of
Hussein to Hitler, a madman with superior military forces in the center of industrial
Europe, is ridiculous." "Saying 'My President, right or wrong,' in such circumstances, is a
little like saying, 'my driver, drunk or sober,' and not many passengers like to go that far."
[fn 63] The following day, under a headline reading "Tide against war grows at home,
abroad," the Washington Times carried a warning from New York Senator Moynihan: "If
George Bush wants his presidency to die in the Arabian desert, he's going at it very
steadily and as if it were a plan. He will wreck our military, he will wreck his
administration, and he'll spoil the chance to get a collective security system working. It
breaks the heart." Sen. Kerrey of Oklahoma declared himself "not convinced this
administration will do everything in its power to avoid war. And if ever there was an
avoidable war, it is this one."
On November 15, Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey warned Bush that "to continue to hold
the support of Congress, [Bush] must suspend the newly announced buildup of offensive
forces against Iraq until he justifies why he has downgraded the promising strategy of
patient pressure. Without hearing a convincing explanation of that change, and with the
cost of Operation Desert Shield now heading toward $30 billion, Congress should
authorize no expenditures for an enlarged offensive option to invade Kuwait or Iraq." [fn
64] Bradley had to pay attention to public opinion; he had almost lost his seat earlier in
the month. On the following day, Gorbachov's special envoy to the Middle East,
Yevgeny Primakov, called for a delay in the resolution on the use of force against Iraq to
allow Saddam Hussein a "face-saving" way out. One week later, in the context of the
Paris Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Gorbachov directed his
desperate appeal to the world for food shipments to the USSR. Even if the Kremlin had
wished to resist Bush's war drive, their weakness was evident. The Soviet Union, like
China, would soon vote for the resolution that would justify Bush's January attack.