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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (22169)7/14/2003 11:00:09 AM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 89467
 
important read of the new neocon bible and it's future
Not good
Latest from Sen Ron Paul:
...There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol,
Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent
problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the
neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,
and subtitled: Why Machiaveli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is
indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on
Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting
shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this
1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and
abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.”
Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to
advance our historic mission.”

If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It
sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The
world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli:
“There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to
be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It
reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives
or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the
warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental
to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a
precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making
discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.”
Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine
the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and
give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that
condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from
which no good can come...

It is very worthwhile (and scary) to read through the entire text:

thelibertycommittee.org

.CC



To: stockman_scott who wrote (22169)7/14/2003 4:04:33 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 89467
 
From: LindyBill Monday, Jul 14, 2003 3:27 PM

ANDREW SULLIVAN

EXPOSING THE BBC: The Kurdish leader got it exactly right:{New York Times Article}

The liveliest moments of the news conference occurred when some council members disputed questions from the news media. The Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani criticized a BBC correspondent for suggesting that the interim government would have limited powers and therefore little legitimacy among the Iraqis. "The Council has a lot of authority, appointing ministers, diplomats, budgets, security," Mr. Talabani said. He then accused the BBC of having been biased toward Mr. Hussein's government during the war.And they still are pining for a Saddamite revival. I don't think it's because they actually consciously support a man who tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of people. I think it's because their hatred of the West trumps their disdain for tyranny. And that's been the story of the far left in the West for a century now.

andrewsullivan.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (22169)7/14/2003 4:32:43 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 89467
 
The Al Qaeda Connection, cont.

<font size=4>More reason to suspect that bin Laden and Saddam may have been in league. <font size=3>

by Stephen F. Hayes
07/11/2003 5:45:00 PM
Stephen F. Hayes, staff writer

THE INDISPENSABLE Glenn Reynolds has linked to an article in the Nashville Tennessean written by <font size=4>a Tennessee judge who believes he is in possession of documents linking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

The judge is Gilbert S. Merritt, a federal appeals court judge invited to help Iraqis construct a legal system in postwar Iraq. He is, according to Reynolds, "a lifelong Democrat and a man of unimpeachable integrity."

Here is an excerpt of his account:

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows. <font size=3>

Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.

On the front page of the paper's four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ''Revolutionary Council,'' together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians.

On the back page was a story headlined ''List of Honor.'' In a box below the headline was ''A list of men we publish for the public.'' The lead sentence refers to a list of ''regime persons'' with their names and positions.

The list has 600 names and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam's family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ''deck of cards'' Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended.

<font size=4>Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.''

The story Judge Merritt relates is similar to an account reported in The Weekly Standard last May. Splashed across the front page of the November 16, 2002, edition of Uday Hussein's Babil newspaper were two "honor" lists, one of which included Aswod (spelled "Aswad") and identified him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan."

I stumbled upon this passage doing research for another piece. So I brought the article to the attention of administration officials, who hadn't yet seen it, and asked for comment. Intelligence analysts were perplexed, particularly because of a passage in the text preceding the list. It read: "We publish this list of great men for the sons of our great people to see." And below that: "This is a list of the henchmen of the regime. Our hands will reach them sooner or later. Woe unto them. A list of the leaders of Saddam's regime, as well as their present and previous posts."

The second description was clearly hostile in tone--"henchmen of the regime" and "woe unto them." Analysts weren't sure what to make of the introduction or the list, but suggested Uday Hussein may have simply republished a list of "henchmen" distributed by an Iraqi opposition group without realizing he was publicly linking his father to Osama bin Laden. <font size=3>

That still seems like the most plausible explanation to me. (Although Judge Merritt's report that the front page of the four-page newspaper carried side-by-side photographs of bin Laden and Saddam is interesting.) Still, some intelligence officials believe that Aswad--who publicly raised doubts after September 11 about whether Osama bin Laden is a terrorist--was an important link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

<font size=4>If the newspaper reports are interesting but inconclusive, two other recent reports are more compelling. Jessica Stern, a Harvard professor and Clinton administration national security official, discusses the links in a fascinating and sober analysis of the Al Qaeda threat in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.

Under the subheading, "Friends of Convenience," she writes:

Meanwhile, the Bush administration's claims that al Qaeda was cooperating with the "infidel" (read: secular) Saddam Hussein while he was still in office are now also gaining support, and from a surprising source. Hamid Mir, bin Laden's "official biographer" and an analyst for al Jazeera, spent two weeks filming in Iraq during the war. Unlike most reporters, Mir wandered the country freely and was not embedded with U.S. troops. He reports that he has "personal knowledge" that one of Saddam's intelligence operatives, Farooq Hijazi, tried to contact bin Laden in Afghanistan as early as 1998. At that time, bin Laden was publicly still quite critical of the Iraqi leader, but he had become far more circumspect by November 2001, when Mir interviewed him for the third time.

Hijazi has acknowledged meeting with al Qaeda representatives, perhaps with bin Laden himself, even before the outreach in 1998. According to news reports and interviews with intelligence officials, Hijazi met with al Qaeda leaders in Sudan in 1994.

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the congressional commission investigating the September 11 attacks, added to the intrigue this week when he flatly declared, "there is evidence" of Iraq-al Qaeda links. Lehman has access to classified intelligence as a member of the commission, intelligence that has convinced him the links may have been even greater than the public pronouncements of the Bush administration might suggest. "There is no doubt in my mind that [Iraq] trained them in how to prepare and deliver anthrax and to use terror weapons." <font size=3>

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

weeklystandard.com.