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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (419449)6/27/2003 2:14:17 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
WMD search logic

By Mona Charen

There is a camp of Iraq war cheerleaders who say it is irrelevant whether we find out what became of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The war was such a smashing success, they urge, that objections about WMDs are mere footnotes.
This is too pat. The case the administration made (as did many of us who supported the war) rested upon many factors, including: the regime's treachery; aggression toward its neighbors; hatred for the United States; support for global terrorists; internal barbarism; and mass murder of civilians. But the clincher was the regime's determination to possess the most dangerous weapons known to mankind. It was known Saddam not only held but had used poison gas against Kurdish civilians. His nuclear ambitions were delayed by the Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor at Osirak, but there were solid reasons to believe that he had never abandoned his goal.
This requires a bit more elaboration because there are some simple-minded types who say: "Hey, Israel has nuclear weapons, why don't we take Tel Aviv? And India has nuclear weapons, why doesn't Bush put India on the Axis of Evil?" Obviously, possession of deadly weapons alone is not a compelling reason to engage in pre-emptive action. It is the nature of the regime combined with the nature of the weapons that creates a threat. We had every reason to fear Saddam might share his WMDs with terrorist groups and we would have no way to prove it or hold him responsible. Who was behind the anthrax attacks of October 2001?
Few would have urged a war against Saddam if he had not possessed weapons of mass destruction. However much we rejoice for the Iraqi people who have been freed from his freak-show of a government, we are not in the business of militarily liberating all the world's oppressed.
It is important to know what has become of those chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons or the programs to produce them. If the weapons were destroyed, we need to know where and how. If they were exported, we need to know that even more urgently.
But there are many plausible explanations why we haven't yet found the answers we seek:
(1) Saddam is not certifiably dead. Until such time as his corpse is produced, many Iraqis who know the details of these banned weapons programs may be reluctant to talk out of continuing fear of retribution. Don't Saddam's remaining thugs retain the ability to pick off U.S. servicemen?
(2) Iraq had years to hide the weapons from U.N. inspectors and many months of notice of impending U.S. action. As we slow-walked to war, Saddam may have hidden the weapons (which are not large) anywhere in that capacious country.
(3) The weapons may have been destroyed when the war began. There were traces of chemical agents in the Euphrates River, and the biological weapons vans U.S. forces discovered had been scrubbed clean with disinfectant. Further, we intercepted communications among Iraqi officers ordering that the banned weapons be disposed of.
The interpretation liberals are placing on this though is literally incredible. They leap to the conclusion President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair intentionally deceived the world. According to this reasoning, the political leaders knew the WMD threat was nonexistent and brazenly lied to drag their deluded publics into a war they wanted for other reasons.
What other reasons? Is this a watered-down "blood for oil" argument? And if Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair were telling lies about these weapons, then so were the intelligence services of France, Germany and Russia, as well as the U.N. Security Council. Further, if Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair were capable of such a colossal lie, why weren't they capable of planting the evidence?
Besides, there are many aspects of this war's history that did not turn out as predicted, and most of those surprises reflect poorly on antiwar, not pro-war, predictions. There were no massive civilian casualties, no severe damage to Iraq's infrastructure, no refugees, no rising Arab street, no increase in terror attacks at home, no involvement of Israel, no lengthy "quagmire" and very few American casualties.
The fate of those WMDs is an unfolding drama. But to believe they never existed is to flout all the available facts.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the best-selling book "Useful Idiots," released by Regnery Publishing.



To: calgal who wrote (419449)6/27/2003 2:21:34 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
JEWS, COMMUNISM, U.S. IMPERIALISM AND BUSH'S NEOCONS

Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House. Influence on Bush aides: Bolshevik's writings supported the idea of pre-emptive war,

by Jeet Heer, National Post (posted here at majority.com) June 07, 2003
"Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator, was paranoid. Perhaps his deepest fears centred around his great rival for the leadership of the Bolshevik movement, Leon Trotsky. Stalin went to extraordinary lengths to obliterate not only Trotsky but also the ragtag international fellowship known as the Left Opposition, which supported Trotsky's political program. In the late 1920s, Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Communist Party and deported him from the Soviet Union. Almost instantly, other Communist parties moved to excommunicate Trotsky's followers, notably the Americans James P. Cannon and Max Shachtman. In 1933, while in exile in Turkey, Trotsky regrouped his supporters as the Fourth International. Never amounting to more than a few thousand individuals scattered across the globe, the Fourth International was constantly harassed by Stalin's secret police, as well as by capitalist governments ... Trotsky's movement, although never numerous, attracted many sharp minds. At one time or another, the Fourth International included among its followers the painter Frida Kahlo (who had an affair with Trotsky), the novelist Saul Bellow, the poet André Breton and the Trinidadian polymath C.L.R. James. As evidence of the continuing intellectual influence of Trotsky, consider the curious fact that some of the books about the Middle East crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International. In seeking advice about Iraqi society, members of the Bush administration (notably Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President) frequently consulted Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi-American intellectual whose book The Republic of Fear is considered to be the definitive analysis of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. As the journalist Christopher Hitchens notes, Makiya is 'known to veterans of the Trotskyist movement as a one-time leading Arab member of the Fourth International.' When speaking about Trotskyism, Hitchens has a voice of authority. Like Makiya, Hitchens is a former Trotskyist who is influential in Washington circles as an advocate for a militantly interventionist policy in the Middle East. Despite his leftism, Hitchens has been invited into the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Other supporters of the Iraq war also have a Trotsky-tinged past. On the left, the historian Paul Berman, author of a new book called Terror and Liberalism, has been a resonant voice among those who want a more muscular struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Berman counts the Trotskyist C.L.R. James as a major influence. Among neo-conservatives, Berman's counterpart is Stephen Schwartz, a historian whose new book, The Two Faces of Islam, is a key text among those who want the United States to sever its ties with Saudi Arabia. Schwartz spent his formative years in a Spanish Trotskyist group. To this day, Schwartz speaks of Trotsky affectionately as "the old man" and "L.D." (initials from Trotsky's birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein). "To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D," he admits, and he observes that in certain Washington circles, the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around. At a party in February celebrating a new book about Iraq, Schwartz exchanged banter with Wolfowitz about Trotsky, the Moscow Trials and Max Shachtman. 'I've talked to Wolfowitz about all of this,' Schwartz notes. 'We had this discussion about Shachtman. He knows all that stuff, but was never part of it. He's definitely aware.' The yoking together of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky sounds odd, but a long and tortuous history explains the link between the Bolshevik left and the Republican right. To understand how some Trotskyists ended up as advocates of U.S. expansionism, it is important to know something about Max Shachtman, Trotsky's controversial American disciple. Shachtman's career provides the definitive template of the trajectory that carries people from the Left Opposition to support for the Pentagon ... By the early 1970s, Shachtman was a supporter of the Vietnam War and the strongly anti-Communist Democrats such as Senator Henry Jackson. Shachtman had a legion of young followers (known as Shachtmanites) active in labour unions and had an umbrella group known as the Social Democrats. When the Shachtmanites started working for Senator Jackson, they forged close ties with hard-nosed Cold War liberals who also advised Jackson, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz; these two had another tie to the Trotskyism; their mentor was Albert Wohlstetter, a defence intellectual who had been a Schachtmanite in the late 1940s. Shachtman died in 1972, but his followers rose in the ranks of the labour movement and government bureaucracy. Because of their long battles against Stalinism, Shachtmanites were perfect recruits for the renewed struggle against Soviet communism that started up again after the Vietnam War. Throughout the 1970s, intellectuals forged by the Shachtman tradition filled the pages of neo-conservative publications. Then in the 1980s, many Social Democrats found themselves working in the Reagan administration, notably Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was ambassador to the United Nations) and Elliott Abrams (whose tenure as assistant secretary of state was marred by his involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal)."



To: calgal who wrote (419449)6/27/2003 2:22:45 PM
From: Kevin Rose  Respond to of 769667
 
Ok, so then examine the remaining possibilities:

1) Intelligence failure. Intelligence agencies really believed that Saddam had a massive WMD program (I think the figure quoted was 1400 potential sites of weapons).

2) Intelligence manipulation. Wolfowitz and the neocons deliberatly inflated the intelligence data, effectively lying to their superiors.

3) Massive WMD disappearance. Although everyone was surprised at the speed and efficiency of the US invasion, Saddam was clever enough to destroy all evidence of this massive stockpile of arms, including the tons of anthrax (which in very small doses will sick and kill, as we've unfortunately seen). Not only all weapons, but all evidence of the manufacturing process, witnesses, etc.

There may be other possible scenerios (weapons shipped to Syria or other countries, weapons still to be found, etc). Given the current situation, IT IS MY OPINION (that's for you, Prolife) that #1 and #2 are more likely than the 'Bush lied' scenerio or #3. I believe this because I don't think Bush is dumb; it's just too easy to get caught in the post-Monica ear. #3 seems unlikely to me because the Iraqis would have had to be incredibly lucky to successfully wipe out all signs of WMD while under such enormous pressure amid such chaos.



To: calgal who wrote (419449)6/27/2003 10:51:49 PM
From: Don Hurst  Respond to of 769667
 
Hey Westi, can you get Jonah to dig into this Bush quote and write a column on whether Bush is talking to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim deity or some other less known heavenly (hopefully) being?

Message 19062132



To: calgal who wrote (419449)6/28/2003 2:41:24 AM
From: Thomas M.  Respond to of 769667
 
An article titled "Get facts straight" contains an obvious, flagrant lie! LOL! I suppose the author (Jonah Goldberg) felt his audience was rather dull-wtted. He claims that . . .

" . . . presidential candidates Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry - were strong Iraq hawks until a few months ago."

So, I do a little research, and I find that . . .

". . . the four candidates who voted to give Bush authority to attack Iraq - Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut . . ."

dfw.com

Tom