SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (1157)6/1/2003 11:50:06 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
URL:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/stayskal/stayskal1.asp



To: calgal who wrote (1157)6/9/2003 2:11:19 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1604
 
Endangered Democrats
It is 17 months before the next national elections, and Republicans already smell victory in the air. In Capitol Hill watering holes and the halls of congressional office buildings, members and aides are whispering about the prospects of a major power shift in favor of the GOP come November 2004. Senate strategists are daring to predict a possible six- or even seven-seat pickup, which would strengthen the majority party's currently undependable 51 votes. More Republican senators would make significant changes in policy possible exponentially, and prevent legislative logjams, such as the stalling on President Bush's tax cuts. At this early date, however, it is prudent to keep in mind that everything would have to go right to bring about such a lopsided outcome.
Providing fuel for GOP optimism is the list of senators up for reelection. The Democratic Party has four more Senate seats to defend than do Republicans, and 10 of the 19 in play are reasonably possible turnovers. Particularly exciting to Republicans is the opportunity to knock off Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle with former Rep. John Thune, who lost by only 524 votes to Sen. Tim Johnson last year. As South Dakota's only House member, Mr. Thune was elected statewide three times, and a recent poll has him leading Mr. Daschle by two points. Democratic recruiters already are considering presidential candidate Bob Graham's seat vacant because Florida law prevents him from running two races at once, and he seems intent on seeking national office. Homeland Security Department undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, a former House member, is said to be eager to take on Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, which should worry her.
Geography can play an important role in horse races. As National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Dan Allen told us, "Many of the competitive races fall in Bush country, where the president was strong in 2000, which bodes well for our candidates in 2004." Ten of the contested Democratic seats are in states Mr. Bush won in the close 2000 race. For example, Bush-Cheney won North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia by 13, 15 and 17 points respectively. Georgia's Zell Miller announced his retirement in January, and South Carolina's Ernest Hollings isn't raising any money and is expected to announce that he's stepping down too. Numerous polls have shown that first-term North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, whose attention is focused on running for president, would get beaten by Mr. Bush by between 15 and 20 percentage points in his own state, and would face an uphill battle defending his seat. Perhaps the most intriguing rumor is that Louisiana Sen. John Breaux is increasingly dissatisfied as a moderate in an increasingly liberal party — and might duck out of a reelection bid. Mr. Bush won the state by 13 points in 2000.
A few insecure Republican seats pore a little rain on the party's parade. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed to fill her father's post when he was elected governor of Alaska, is below 50 percent in some statewide polls. Peter Fitzgerald will be hard to replace in Illinois — where the GOP is not very solid — Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter faces a potentially damaging primary fight and the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee considers Sam Brownback a worthwhile target in Kansas. Otherwise, the Republicans' 15 contestable seats are relatively safe.
President Bush is not leaving anything to chance, and is on track to raise more campaign contributions than ever before in history. If his popularity remains high, much of the funds will be available to distribute to close races — an advantage Democratic candidates aren't likely to receive from their ticket. At the start of 2003, the Democratic Party was $5.5 million in debt. Extra cash for ads and get-out-the-vote drives can be the deciding factor coming down the stretch. We try not to encourage irrational exuberance, especially with an economy impossible to predict. But the chessboard looks promising for the Grand Old Party.
Endangered Democrats

It is 17 months before the next national elections, and Republicans already smell victory in the air. In Capitol Hill watering holes and the halls of congressional office buildings, members and aides are whispering about the prospects of a major power shift in favor of the GOP come November 2004. Senate strategists are daring to predict a possible six- or even seven-seat pickup, which would strengthen the majority party's currently undependable 51 votes. More Republican senators would make significant changes in policy possible exponentially, and prevent legislative logjams, such as the stalling on President Bush's tax cuts. At this early date, however, it is prudent to keep in mind that everything would have to go right to bring about such a lopsided outcome.
Providing fuel for GOP optimism is the list of senators up for reelection. The Democratic Party has four more Senate seats to defend than do Republicans, and 10 of the 19 in play are reasonably possible turnovers. Particularly exciting to Republicans is the opportunity to knock off Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle with former Rep. John Thune, who lost by only 524 votes to Sen. Tim Johnson last year. As South Dakota's only House member, Mr. Thune was elected statewide three times, and a recent poll has him leading Mr. Daschle by two points. Democratic recruiters already are considering presidential candidate Bob Graham's seat vacant because Florida law prevents him from running two races at once, and he seems intent on seeking national office. Homeland Security Department undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, a former House member, is said to be eager to take on Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, which should worry her.
Geography can play an important role in horse races. As National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Dan Allen told us, "Many of the competitive races fall in Bush country, where the president was strong in 2000, which bodes well for our candidates in 2004." Ten of the contested Democratic seats are in states Mr. Bush won in the close 2000 race. For example, Bush-Cheney won North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia by 13, 15 and 17 points respectively. Georgia's Zell Miller announced his retirement in January, and South Carolina's Ernest Hollings isn't raising any money and is expected to announce that he's stepping down too. Numerous polls have shown that first-term North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, whose attention is focused on running for president, would get beaten by Mr. Bush by between 15 and 20 percentage points in his own state, and would face an uphill battle defending his seat. Perhaps the most intriguing rumor is that Louisiana Sen. John Breaux is increasingly dissatisfied as a moderate in an increasingly liberal party — and might duck out of a reelection bid. Mr. Bush won the state by 13 points in 2000.
A few insecure Republican seats pore a little rain on the party's parade. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed to fill her father's post when he was elected governor of Alaska, is below 50 percent in some statewide polls. Peter Fitzgerald will be hard to replace in Illinois — where the GOP is not very solid — Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter faces a potentially damaging primary fight and the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee considers Sam Brownback a worthwhile target in Kansas. Otherwise, the Republicans' 15 contestable seats are relatively safe.
President Bush is not leaving anything to chance, and is on track to raise more campaign contributions than ever before in history. If his popularity remains high, much of the funds will be available to distribute to close races — an advantage Democratic candidates aren't likely to receive from their ticket. At the start of 2003, the Democratic Party was $5.5 million in debt. Extra cash for ads and get-out-the-vote drives can be the deciding factor coming down the stretch. We try not to encourage irrational exuberance, especially with an economy impossible to predict. But the chessboard looks promising for the Grand Old Party.

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030608-090335-4243r.htm



To: calgal who wrote (1157)6/9/2003 10:47:33 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Edwards Campaign Comes Up Short — So Far







Monday, June 09, 2003

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Edwards (search) kicked off a weeklong birthday bash this weekend with a series of activities that aim to enhance the "golden boy" persona that first accompanied his announcement that he is running for president.





"I am going to take this fight right at President Bush, and when American people understand they have a real choice, a real alternative in 2004, there will be a new president and that president will be John Edwards," Edwards said Saturday at a birthday and campaign event in his home state of North Carolina. He turns 50 on Tuesday.

On the trail, the good-looking, youthful Edwards has a Clinton-like energy that voters love. He fancies himself the Democrat that the Bush White House fears most, in many ways a model candidate.

A Newsweek cover boy last year and top fund-raiser in the first quarter of this year, conventional wisdom would have people thinking that the first-term senator is doing well in his bid to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, but so far expectations have outpaced performance.

In the crucial early primary and caucus states, he has yet to catch on with the electorate. Polls put him fifth out of nine in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire and fourth in South Carolina, next door to his home state.

Nationwide, Edwards remains largely unknown. In the latest Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, 70 percent say they can't form an opinion of him. Seventeen percent view him favorably and 13 percent do not.

To his advantage, seven months remain before the first votes, and Edwards is ready to go, having fully outfitted his campaign with the message, money and organization needed to launch a serious challenge.

He raised $7.4 million dollars in the first three months of 2003, more than any of his rivals. His campaign staff is spread over 10 states and they are hiring.

As for his message, it's pure populism and he casts himself as the embodiment of it — a southerner from a small-town, working-class family.

"The values I learned, I learned growing up in Robins, North Carolina, with my mom and dad who are standing beside me right now," he said at a stop this weekend.

He constantly pledges to assail the powerful and to stand up for the little guy, particularly in rural America, where Democrats are looking to recruit new voters. Democrats say the "rural strategy" will fit well with his humble roots.

"Their cause is my cause. It has been the cause of my entire life," he said.

But part of that life includes having become a nationally-recognized and very powerful trial lawyer, not the most popular profession in America.

Others say they can't figure out where he is running from, sometimes lambasting President Bush, other times clearly supporting the president's positions, for instance, by voting for war in Iraq.

Last week, Edwards praised Bush for his strong response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but he also criticized the president because Bush "has not maintained it, he's diverted from the path."

But having moved to Washington five years ago to become a U.S. senator prominent in several key legislative battles, some are concerned that his image has turned to one of millionaire insider.

Edwards is up for Senate re-election next year and has not taken himself out of the running to focus on the White House. To some, that says even Edwards has doubts. Some say they believe he is running in 2004 as practice for another try later in his career.

Fox News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report.

URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88970,00.html



To: calgal who wrote (1157)6/10/2003 11:50:21 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp,
and Jeane Kirkpatrick
URL:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/mideast_facts.asp

Re=Post:

Twenty Facts about Israel and the Middle East

newsandopinion.com | The world's attention has been focused on the Middle East. We are confronted daily with scenes of carnage and destruction. Can we understand such violence? Yes, but only if we come to the situation with a solid grounding in the facts of the matter—facts that too often are forgotten, if ever they were learned. Below are twenty facts that we think are useful in understanding the current situation, how we arrived here, and how we might eventually arrive at a solution.

ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT

When the United Nations proposed the establishment of two states in the region—one Jewish, one Arab—the Jews accepted the proposal and declared their independence in 1948. The Jewish state constituted only 1/6 of one percent of what was known as "the Arab world." The Arab states, however, rejected the UN plan and since then have waged war against Israel repeatedly, both all-out wars and wars of terrorism and attrition. In 1948, five Arab armies invaded Israel in an effort to eradicate it. Jamal Husseini of the Arab Higher Committee spoke for many in vowing to soak "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood."
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964—three years before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza. The PLO’s declared purpose was to eliminate the State of Israel by means of armed struggle. To this day, the Web site of Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA) claims that the entirety of Israel is "occupied" territory.* It is impossible to square this with the PLO and PA assertions to Western audiences that the root of the conflict is Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The West Bank and Gaza (controlled by Jordan and Egypt from 1948 to 1967) came under Israeli control during the Six Day War of 1967 that started when Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran and Arab armies amassed on Israel’s borders to invade and liquidate the state. It is important to note that during their 19-year rule, neither Jordan nor Egypt had made any effort to establish a Palestinian state on those lands. Just before the Arab nations launched their war of aggression against the State of Israel in 1967, Syrian Defense Minister (later President) Hafez Assad stated, "Our forces are now entirely ready . . . to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland . . . the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." On the brink of the 1967 war, Egyptian President Gamal Nassar declared, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel."
Because of their animus against Jews, many leaders of the Palestinian cause have long supported our enemies. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Adolf Hitler during WWII. Yasir Arafat, chairman of the PLO and president of the PA, has repeatedly targeted and killed Americans. In 1973, Arafat ordered the execution of Cleo Noel, the American ambassador to the Sudan. Arafat was very closely aligned with the Soviet Union and other enemies of the United States throughout the Cold War. In 1991, during the Gulf War, Arafat aligned himself with Saddam Hussein, whom he praised as "the defender of the Arab nation, of Muslims, and of free men everywhere."
Israel has, in fact, returned most of the land that it captured during the 1967 war and right after that war offered to return all of it in exchange for peace and normal relations; the offer was rejected. As a result of the 1978 Camp David accords—in which Egypt recognized the right of Israel to exist and normal relations were established between the two countries—Israel returned the Sinai desert, a territory three times the size of Israel and 91 percent of the territory Israel took control of in the 1967 war.
In 2000, as part of negotiations for a comprehensive and durable peace, Israel offered to turn over all but the smallest portion of the remaining territories to Yasir Arafat. But Israel was rebuffed when Arafat walked out of Camp David and launched the current intifada.
Yasir Arafat has never been less than clear about his goals—at least not in Arabic. On the very day that he signed the Oslo accords in 1993—in which he promised to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel—he addressed the Palestinian people on Jordanian television and declared that he had taken the first step "in the 1974 plan." This was a thinly-veiled reference to the "phased plan," according to which any territorial gain was acceptable as a means toward the ultimate goal of Israel’s destruction.
The recently deceased Faisal al-Husseini, a leading Palestinian spokesman, made the same point in 2001 when he declared that the West Bank and Gaza represented only "22 percent of Palestine" and that the Oslo process was a "Trojan horse." He explained, "When we are asking all the Palestinian forces and factions to look at the Oslo Agreement and at other agreements as ‘temporary’ procedures, or phased goals, this means that we are ambushing the Israelis and cheating them." The goal, he continued, was "the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea," i.e., the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea—all of Israel.
To this day, the Fatah wing of the PLO (the "moderate" wing that was founded and is controlled by Arafat himself) has as its official emblem the entire state of Israel covered by two rifles and a hand grenade—another fact that belies the claim that Arafat desires nothing more than the West Bank and Gaza.
While criticism of Israel is not necessarily the same as "anti-Semitism," it must be remembered that the Middle East press is, in fact, rife with anti-Semitism. More than fifteen years ago the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis could point out that "The demonization of Jews [in Arabic literature] goes further than it had ever done in Western literature, with the exception of Germany during the period of Nazi rule." Since then, and through all the years of the "peace process," things have become much worse. Depictions of Jews in Arab and Muslim media are akin to those of Nazi Germany, and medieval blood libels—including claims that Jews use Christian and Muslim blood in preparing their holiday foods—have become prominent and routine. One example is a sermon broadcast on PA television where Sheik Ahmad Halabaya stated, "They [the Jews] must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: ‘Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands.’ Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them."
Over three-quarters of Palestinians approve of suicide bombings—an appalling statistic but, in light of the above facts, an unsurprising one.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL

There are 21 Arab countries in the Middle East and only one Jewish state: Israel, which is also the only democracy in the region.
Israel is the only country in the region that permits citizens of all faiths to worship freely and openly. Twenty percent of Israeli citizens are not Jewish.
While Jews are not permitted to live in many Arab countries, Arabs are granted full citizenship and have the right to vote in Israel. Arabs are also free to become members of the Israeli parliament (the Knesset). In fact, several Arabs have been democratically elected to the Knesset and have been serving there for years. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and are freer than most Arabs living in Arab countries.
Israel is smaller than the state of New Hampshire and is surrounded by nations hostile to her existence. Some peace proposals—including the recent Saudi proposal—demand withdrawal from the entire West Bank, which would leave Israel 9 miles wide at its most vulnerable point.
The oft-cited UN Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the 1967 war) does not, in fact, require a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. As legal scholar Eugene Rostow put it, "Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War—not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories."
Israel has, of course, conceded that the Palestinians have legitimate claims to the disputed territories and is willing to engage in negotiations on the matter. As noted above, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered almost all of the territories to Arafat at Camp David in 2000.
Despite claims that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are the obstacle to peace, Jews lived there for centuries before being massacred or driven out by invading Arab armies in 1948-49. And contrary to common misperceptions, Israeli settlements—which constitute less than two percent of the territories—almost never displace Palestinians.
The area of the West Bank includes some of the most important sites in Jewish history, among them Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jericho. East Jerusalem, often cited as an "Arab city" or "occupied territory," is the site of Judaism’s holiest monument. While under Arab rule (1948-67), this area was entirely closed to Jews. Since Israel took control, it has been open to people of all faiths.
Finally, let us consider the demand that certain territories in the Muslim world must be off-limits to Jews. This demand is of a piece with Hitler’s proclamation that German land had to be "Judenrein" (empty of Jews). Arabs can live freely throughout Israel, and as full citizens. Why should Jews be forbidden to live or to own land in an area like the West Bank simply because the majority of people is Arab?

In sum, a fair and balanced portrayal of the Middle East will reveal that one nation stands far above the others in its commitment to human rights and democracy as well as in its commitment to peace and mutual security. That nation is Israel.

* The official Palestinian National Authority Web site (pna.org) is currently not operating. Various reports provide different reasons and the Web site should be operating again in the near future.

Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick need no introduction. This report was produced by Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, a project of Empower America. Comment by clicking here.



To: calgal who wrote (1157)6/14/2003 1:21:26 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
Questions of Mass Destruction
From the June 23, 2003 issue: . . . for hawks and doves alike.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/23/2003, Volume 008, Issue 40

MUCH HAS BEEN SAID and written in recent weeks about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As the methodical search for those weapons continues in Iraq, the back-and-forth in the United States and Europe about their whereabouts has gone ballistic--with hysterical, unfounded accusations leveled by critics of the war and increasing defensiveness by the Bush administration.

There are two elements to the current debate: substance and politics. Sometimes it's hard to separate the two, as Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts noted last week in dismissing Democratic calls for a formal investigation. And as the nation slowly turns its attention to the 2004 presidential campaign, the politics of the war will be inescapable.

But first, the substance. There are serious questions the Bush administration will have to answer:

*How did a forged document about Iraq's pursuit of uranium make it into the State of the Union address?

*Why would President Bush tell the world that "we have found weapons of mass destruction," when quite plainly we have not?

*Before the war, the administration rightly focused on interrogating Iraqi scientists about WMD. What are the scientists in U.S. custody saying today?

*Is it possible that some of Saddam's WMD have already been distributed to terrorist networks?

These and other concerns deserve a full hearing--in Congress or elsewhere. As the president's critics point out, nothing is more serious than taking a nation to war, and the American people properly expect a full accounting of the Bush administration's reasons for doing so.

Many of those who argued for regime change in Iraq believed a compelling case for war existed before the Bush administration's attempt to make it last fall, and it even pre-existed the Bush administration itself. For seven years following the Gulf War cease-fire, Saddam Hussein claimed he did not possess weapons of mass destruction. And for seven years he lied. The routine, as described in detail by U.N. weapons inspectors, was simple: Iraqis told inspectors they had no mustard agent and then expressed their profound shock when quantities of mustard were found; Iraqis told inspectors they had never weaponized VX nerve agent and then feigned surprise when inspectors found weaponized VX nerve agent. And on it went. In the process, we learned that Saddam Hussein had constructed elaborate concealment mechanisms--the Iraqi regime spent a decade working to ensure that prohibited weapons' production was kept quiet. Still, black market procurement efforts continued unabated, and when inspectors were kicked out in 1998, the Iraqi regime had failed to account for vast quantities of its WMD stockpiles.

Here is what President Bill Clinton had to say about that, on February 17, 1998:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Clinton wasn't finished.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say--UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

On November 8, 2002, after nearly four years without U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, the world formally registered its belief that Iraq possessed WMD with a unanimous vote on Resolution 1441 at the U.N. Security Council. Four days later, speaking on French radio, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin told his countrymen, "If Saddam Hussein does not comply, if he does not satisfy his obligations, there will obviously be a use of force," later adding, "the security of the Americans is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons."

Later that same month, 19 nations attending NATO's Prague Summit signed a statement backing Resolution 1441, which affords "Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council."

That consensus held in the months leading up to war. With a few exceptions, disputes about Iraq centered not on whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction but on the best way to disarm him.

All of this was on the public record. To believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq was WMD-free required logical gymnastics difficult even for the most limber of the antiwar contortionists--that Saddam Hussein lied about his WMD programs for seven years with U.N. inspectors in Iraq and then suddenly, when inspectors left, disarmed unilaterally. One also had to believe that after he got rid of these weapons--weapons that led directly to U.N. sanctions that crippled his country--he chose not to notify the international bodies who could have lifted sanctions if Iraq had demonstrated compliance.

This wasn't a serious argument before the war, and it's not a serious argument now. And if the Bush administration faces some difficult questions as the search for WMD continues, so do its critics:

*Why would a regime without weapons of mass destruction manufacture mobile laboratories to make such weapons?

*Numerous defectors, many with recent, firsthand knowledge of Iraq's WMD programs, have detailed elaborate production and concealment efforts. Were they all lying?

*Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. contained telephone intercepts between senior Iraqi military officers discussing concealment of proscribed weapons. He reported on a conversation that took place on January 30, 2003.

"They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes."

"Yes."

"For the possibility there are forbidden ammo."

"For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?"

"Yes."

"And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there."

"After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message."

"Okay?"

"Okay."

Would it be necessary to "clean out all of the areas" if "forbidden ammo" didn't exist? How do you explain these comments? Were the intercepts faked?

*Doesn't it seem odd that the Bush administration would "hype" or "fabricate" WMD reports knowing full well that such claims would be tested once the Iraqi regime fell?

Many of the loudest administration critics have avoided answering those questions. They have called for an investigation but claim they already know its conclusion: Bush lied. This is politics, pure and simple. In fact, many of the same voices screeching about the Bush administration's "alarmist" interpretation of intelligence today are the same ones who were faulting the administration for ignoring alarms before September 11.

Over the past several days, the Nation's Eric Alterman has accused the president of lying before the war; his boss, Katrina vanden Heuvel, hinted that Bush administration deception might be an impeachable offense; New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggested that the administration lied not only about the WMD but also about the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq. (How does he know? Two al Qaeda leaders have denied links, and Krugman apparently believes the world's top terrorists are more credible than President Bush.)

Liberal politicians are gleefully joining the fray. Jan Schakowsky, a member of the Democratic leadership in the House, said on CNN's "Crossfire" last week that the administration could be "lying" about WMD. (Struggling to contain her enthusiasm about her own cleverness, Schakowsky couldn't hold back a grin as she expressed concern that the world might believe the United States was "crying Wolfowitz.") After breezing past some of the difficult questions, Schakowsky said this: "If there are intelligence failures, let's find out about it. If not, why politically did we hear about this drumbeat to go to war when in fact those weapons--we may have had intelligence. In fact, we know that there was no reliable evidence."

No reliable evidence? That's not what she believed last fall, when she cited weapons of mass destruction as a reason to contain, rather than disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Once an attack on Iraq is launched complete with hundreds of thousands of ground troops," Schakowsky said in a statement September 6, 2002, "Saddam Hussein will have no incentive to refrain from using his chemical and biological as well as conventional weapons against our troops and Israel."

Two months later, on November 27, 2002, she wrote to defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to register her "concern that if President Bush decides to deploy U.S. military forces against Iraq, the service men and women who are sent into battle may not be adequately protected against chemical and biological attacks."

Schakowsky was right to have been concerned about WMD last fall. The entire world shared her concern. And the fact that U.S. troops have not yet turned up these weapons raises serious questions today. The most troubling of those is one that should be the center of the Bush administration's agenda today:

*Is it possible that some of the WMD has already been distributed to terrorist networks?

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

URL:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/805cwcjg.asp