Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (4785)	3/19/2003 12:11:17 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Democrats Against Democracy How did the GOP become the party of Woodrow Wilson? BY LAWRENCE F. KAPLAN Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003218 The ghost of Woodrow Wilson walks again. The president who pledged to adopt a more "humble" approach to the world now speaks of remaking the world in America's image, beginning with Iraq, where he has now committed us to building a "prosperous and free" state. But if President Bush's commitment to exporting democracy begins with Iraq, that is also where the commitment of others ends. A chorus of leading Democrats and liberal foreign policy types--that is, voices that once could be counted on to support the promotion of democracy abroad--has emerged to lampoon the president for his "Wilsonian" idealism. Far from being the result of doubts about President Bush's sincerity, their critique questions the broader wisdom of exporting democracy and even the desirability of democracy itself. Inveighing against the president's commitment to mounting "a massive democratic revolution throughout the Arab world," Gary Hart writes, "The extravagance, not to say arrogance, of this epic undertaking is sufficiently breathtaking in its hubris to make Woodrow Wilson blush." Ted Kennedy scoffs at the administration's "simplistic" vision of "democracy flourishing in Iraq," while Al Gore's national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, is doubtful that the U.S. is capable of installing a "democratic government in a place that has never known one." According to these voices and their supporters in the liberal foreign-policy community, the inclination to "impose" democracy derives from a lethal mixture of chauvinism, naiveté, and hubris. Harvard professor Stanley Hoffmann cannot fathom why the Bush team would wish to remove tyrannical regimes "even in countries that have no past experience of democracy and where repressive regimes face no experienced or cohesive opposition." For her part, former Clinton administration official Jessica Mathews warns that a "crusade on behalf of democracy is arrogant, blind to local realities, dangerous, and ignorant of history." History? If these doubts about democracy's ability to flourish in foreign soil and America's capacity to plant it there sound familiar, it's hardly because these skeptics have spent years peddling them. On the contrary, the Clinton administration, of which many of them were a part, offered us strategies of "Democratic Enlargement" and "neo-Wilsonianism." Its interventionist brand of idealism was duly applauded by liberals like Mr. Hoffmann, who even penned an essay-long defense of it, "In Defense of Mother Teresa: Morality in Foreign Policy." In fact, skepticism about democratization was until recently the signature of Kissingerian "realists"--and, as such, enjoyed far more traction among the ranks of the Republican Party than it did among Democrats. How to account for this transformation? At the simplest level, it derives less from opposition to President Bush's foreign policy than from opposition to its architect. But the looming war has also unearthed a contradiction at the heart of American liberalism. The contradiction pits the liberal ideal that no people ought to be governed without their consent--and its admonition to support the democratic aspirations of foreign peoples--against the liberal ideal that discourages impinging on the autonomy of others. The tension between the two manifests itself every time America goes to war, with liberals who heeded George McGovern's summons to "come home, America" arguing that we have no right to violate the sovereignty of a Yugoslavia or an Iraq, while the descendants of Woodrow Wilson argue that to do otherwise would amount to a betrayal of liberalism. In his own way, Bill Clinton sought to reconcile these impulses, insisting that American power and ideals were not inherently incompatible. But the suspicion of U.S. might that still lingers on the left, coupled with the fact that President Bush wields that might so unapologetically, has pushed many liberals to the side of noninterference. This has left them making arguments that are not only morally questionable, but also recklessly ahistorical. One is the claim that "democracy cannot be imposed through force of arms," as the Brookings Institution's Shibley Telhami puts it. Never mind that millions of Germans, Japanese, Italians, Bosnians and Panamanians would argue otherwise. For democracy-skeptics awash in cultural relativism, this is beside the point. Thus, American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner indicts the president's democratic vision for embracing the premise that "most of the world, given the choice, really wants to be just like us." But is it really necessary to point out that citizens of nondemocratic states have never been "given the choice" and that liberty is not a uniquely American desire? Apparently so, for asked to choose between the cause of democracy, on the one hand, and faux anti-imperialism, on the other, not a few opinion-makers have proclaimed themselves liberals against liberalism, Democrats against democracy. And so the task of making the world safe for democracy falls to the democrat in the White House. Mr. Kaplan is a senior editor at The New Republic and co-author, with William Kristol, of "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission," published last month by Encounter.

To: calgal who wrote (4785)	3/20/2003 12:07:18 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

BY JAMES TARANTO Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:30 p.m. EST URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003220 Tom Daschle and the Clinton Legacy More than five months after Congress redeclared war on Iraq, U.S. soldiers are about to enter the battlefield. Not everyone agrees that liberating Iraq is the right thing, or a wise thing, to do, but that is now a question for history to judge. The political debate is over--or it should be. A responsible political leader, whatever his view of the conflict, would say something to the effect of: Our troops are now in harm's way. Let us pray for their safety, and let's roll. So what in the world was Tom Daschle thinking Monday? Instead of expressing patriotism, the Senate minority leader decided to use the onset of combat as an opportunity to bash the commander in chief. Here's what he said: "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." As George Will points out, Daschle's complaint doesn't even make sense. Will notes that the diplomatic "failure" consisted in the failure to win U.N. Security Council approval for an 18th resolution, expressly authorizing the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime. "So Daschle's position is: America is 'forced to war' because presidential diplomacy failed to produce a broader coalition for war." Daschle's real purpose, of course, wasn't to make a coherent argument but to attack the president. Are we alone in hearing faint echoes of Bill Clinton in such behavior? Consider: The permanent campaign. The Wall Street Journal described this phenomenon in a 1998 pre-election editorial: "Its premise is that, like Christmas, there are only so many shopping days left till re-election, so one might as well give political calculation priority in the conduct of one's public life." The effect, the Journal argued, is to produce a politics devoid of substance. A brief post-Sept. 11 show of bipartisanship notwithstanding, the old Cold War idea that politics ends at the water's edge seems to have given way to the permanent campaign even during wartime. Triangulation. Some Democrats--Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Howard Dean--have consistently opposed the liberation of Iraq. Others--Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt--have consistently supported it. But in the middle is a group, including Daschle, trying to have it both ways. Daschle voted for war, yet he's attacking the president. Ditto Sen. John Kerry, who, though more supportive of President Bush than Daschle was, still accuses the president of having "botched the diplomacy," according to the Boston Globe. The meaning of "is." The brains behind the Democrats' "botched diplomacy" spin is Josh Marshall, who yesterday published a fascinating but disingenuous legal analysis in which he claims the French are right to say that America is violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 by enforcing it in the absence of yet another resolution. Marshall claims America snookered the French into thinking there would be no attack without another resolution--never mind that President Bush was quite clear about his intentions in his Sept. 12 U.N. speech. And Marshall's hair-splitting legal analysis completely ignores Resolution 678 of Nov. 29, 1990, which authorized U.N. member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area" (emphasis ours). Is this warmed-over Clintonism really going to be an effective political strategy? It doesn't seem likely. Clinton, after all, was the president, an awesome office even when a petty man holds it. He is a singular political talent; when he triangulates, he makes people on all sides of the issue think he agrees with them. In fact, he's been doing just that with regard to Iraq, sounding antiwar in Bush-bashing speeches before American Democrats while weighing in with a defense of Tony Blair in yesterday's Guardian. And it's telling that Clinton's wife, who is now a U.S. senator, has been among those supporting President Bush on Iraq. The Clinton style of politics was a product of the frivolous decade of the 1990s. The age of war and terror demands far more substance from Washington. We suggested Monday that in next year's presidential election the Democrats, by pandering to the antiwar fringe, risk going the way of George McGovern in 1972. Tom Daschle risks going the way of George McGovern in 1980. You Don't Say--I "Divided Democrats Concerned About 2004"--headline, New York Times, March 19 Hans Off Are other Swedish-Americans as embarrassed as we are that Hans Blix is, at least for the moment, the world's most famous Swede? Here's Blix's latest: He said at a news conference yesterday that he doubts Saddam Hussein will use chemical or biological weapons against allied troops. Now, there are reasons to think this conclusion may be right. Iraqi officers may have the good sense to follow President Bush's advice and not follow orders that would get them charged with war crimes. America may succeed in destroying Saddam's chemical-weapons capability before he can deploy it. And, as our Brendan Miniter points out, the Iraqis may not want to risk gassing themselves in the process. But these aren't the reasons Blix cites for his conclusion. He doesn't even claim Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. No, here's Blix explaining why he thinks the Iraqi dictator will refrain from using them: "I think it is unlikely they will do that because I think world public opinion, which they study quite a lot, is in large measure feeling that going to war is too early. So there is a fair amount of skepticism about armed action. That skepticism would turn immediately around, if they used chemical weapons or biological weapons." So Blix thinks Saddam's chief concern is "world opinion," something even America doesn't care overmuch about. Alone in the Crowd The New York Times' Thomas Friedman is feeling lonely: We're riding into Baghdad pretty much alone. . . . Here we are, going to war, basically alone, in the face of opposition, not so much from "the Arab Street," but from "the World Street." So we are "pretty much alone." As Reuters notes, quoting Colin Powell, it's just us and Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. That's 30 countries, and Powell says there are 15 more that do not want to be identified publicly. The Heritage Foundation enumerates 16 countries that aren't on Powell's list but "have publicly offered either political or military support for the war": Bahrain, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Jordan, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Taiwan, Ukraine and United Arab Emirates. Well, it's a stretch to count Canada, Germany and especially France as allies (Reuters reports today that "Paris had to clarify remarks by its ambassador in Washington that gave the false impression that France would join the fight in Iraq if Baghdad used chemical or biological weapons"), and it's true that American troops will do most of the work (with a lot of help from the British and a significant contribution from the Australians)--but even so, and contrary to Friedman, isn't it getting a bit crowded in here? You Don't Say--II "War Will Be Mostly an American Effort"--headline, Washington Post, March 19 The First 16 Surrenders "Fifteen Iraqis surrendered to American forces at the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border on Wednesday," the Associated Press reports. "Capt. Darren Theriault of the headquarters company of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division told journalists with the unit that the Iraqis had been turned over to Kuwaiti custody." Slate's antiwar worrywart Robert Wright beat the Iraqis to it. Yesterday he wrote a piece disclaiming "nightmarish consequences that are in fact not all that likely" and lamenting that such doomsaying is "setting the stage for a postwar public relations triumph by hawks." Wright's new spin: Everything that goes badly in the next few decades will be the consequence of Iraq's liberation. The Times of London, meanwhile, reports that "masses of Iraqi soldiers are deserting and senior members of President Saddam Hussein's ruling family circle are defecting as the countdown to a British and US invasion reaches its final hours." Battle in Basra? "British and American troops were involved in fierce fighting near Iraq's main port today as the war to topple Saddam Hussein began," reports London's Evening Standard. "The firefight broke out near Basra as men of the Special Boat Service targeted the strategically vital city and the oilfields in southern Iraq. . . . The fighting reported at Basra was believed to involve British special forces and US marines in an operation to prepare landing sites for amphibious craft during an invasion." Where's Waldo? Reports of Tariq Aziz's death appear to have been greatly exaggerated. "I am carrying my pistol to confirm to you that we are ready to fight the aggressors," the Associated Press quotes Iraq's deputy prime minister as telling a Baghdad news conference. "American soldiers are nothing but mercenaries and they will be defeated." Reports had been circulating that Aziz either had defected or had been shot to death while trying to flee Iraq. Dept. of Redundancy Dept. "U.S. Denies as 'Not True' Rumors on Iraq's Aziz"--headline, Reuters, March 19 'Defiant' in Reuterville Reuters reports that Iraq's "parliament"--the scare quotes are ours, naturally, not Reuters'--met in "emergency session" today to profess their loyalty to Saddam Hussein. Several "legislators" chanted: "We'll sacrifice our blood and souls for Saddam." So, what adjective do you think Reuters uses to describe a sham legislature backing a dictator? You guessed it, "defiant." They Don't Have Alleged to Stand On The Associated Press headlines an Iraq timetable "Events in Alleged Iraq Weapons Crisis." Is that "Alleged" really necessary? Journalists are taught to use the word any time they describe a crime for which the perpetrator hasn't actually been convicted; failure to do so is an invitation to a libel suit. But the AP doesn't have to worry about Saddam suing. You can't libel a dead man. Great Moments in American Journalism A pair of professors, Allison Marston Danner of Vanderbilt and George Fisher of Stanford, scold the San Francisco Chronicle (seventh letter): On Sunday, The Chronicle's Insight section printed an opinion article in which we argued that if the United States goes to war against Iraq without a U.N. mandate, it would be breaking new and dangerous ground in international law. We do not believe the headline The Chronicle assigned our essay, "U.S. apes Nazi rationale," reflected what we intended to be a measured legal argument. Iraqi Official Defames American Indians "While we were building civilization here in Iraq," CBS News quotes Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri as saying, "people in America were living like animals." Everybody's Doing It I. "Aid Workers Prepare for War"--headline, U.tv (Britain), March 18 II. "Airports Prepare for War"--headline, CapitalNews9.com (Albany, N.Y.), March 18 III. "Area Churches Prepare for War"--headline, Kansas City Star, March 16 IV. "Californians Prepare for War, Possible Terror"--headline, KGO-TV Web site (San Francisco, March 18 V. "Federal Agencies Prepare for War"--headline, Washington Post, March 18 VI. "Filam Boys, Their Families Prepare for War"--headline, Philippine News, March 11 VII. "Hot and Dusty Diggers Prepare for War"--headline, (Melbourne, Australia) Age, March 14 VIII. "Houston Leaders Prepare for War"--headline, KPRC-TV Web site (Houston), March 18 IX. "Investors Prepare for War, Jump to Safety"--headline, Reuters, March 17 X. "Iraqi Civilians Prepare for War"--headline, WFIE Web site (Evansville, Ind.), March 18 XI. "Iraqi School Children Help Soldiers Prepare for War"--headline, Australian Broadcast Corp. Web site, March 13 XII. "Israelis Told to Prepare for War"--headline, IrelandOn.com, March 17 XIII. "Kids Prepare for War They May Fight"--headline, Los Angeles Daily News, March 16 XIV. "Kiwi Pilots Prepare for War in British Uniforms"--headline, Stuff.co.nz, March 14 XV. "Local Soldiers Prepare for War"--headline, WISN-TV Web site (Milwaukee), March 17 XVI. "Maryland Leaders Prepare for War, Terrorist Attacks"--headline, WEDN-TV Web site (Washington), March 17 XVII. "Military Spouses Prepare for War"--headline, Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle, March 18 XVIII. "News Teams Prepare for War"--headline, Guardian (London), March 17 XIX. "Oklahomans Prepare for War"--headline, Oklahoman (Oklahoma City) , March 16 XX. "Reserve Families Prepare for War"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle, March 17 Yankee Ingenuity A Los Angeles Times report on America's military strategy in Iraq carries the headline "U.S. Plans Lightning Strikes." Well heck, if we can cause the whole globe to get warmer, how hard can it be to summon a little lightning? (Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Christopher Garrett, Marie Bourgeois, Bob Krumm, Barak Moore, Chris Fehr, Shelley Taylor, Steve Sturm, Michael Smith, Damian Bennett, Patricia Catto, Bryan Tyson, Jim Orheim, Pearl Ladenheim, Linda Cooke, Bennett Ruda, Chris Sorensen, Charlie Gaylord, Drew Anderson, Peter Rice, Michael Miller, Jerome Marcus, Len D'Alotto, Pat Rowe, Thomas Linehan, David Cushing, Michael Segal, Rosanne Klass, Joe Hancock, John Hartness, Douglas Welsh, Chad Carlson, Robert LeChevalier, Pete Freeman, Michael Zukerman, Dave Purrington, Jennifer Ray, Edwin Frederick, S.E. Brenner, David Cushing, Raghu Desikan, Jim Reingruber, Ted Villa, Chris Rudek, Isiah Cox, Monty Krieger, Donald Walker, David Beebe, Daniel Bendheim, Peter Gallagher, Brandt Zembsch, David Stern and Terence Brady. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)