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

To: calgal who wrote (532742)	1/30/2004 11:55:46 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Charles Krauthammer Consumer Reports What Kay really was saying newsandopinion.com \| Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look at what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. First, and most trumpeted, he did not find "large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction." He did find, as he reported last October, WMD-related activities, from a very active illegal missile program to research and development ("right up until the end") on weaponizing the deadly poison ricin (the stuff London police found on terrorists last year). He discovered "hundreds of cases" of U.N.-prohibited and illegally concealed activities. Significant findings, but still a far cry from what the administration had claimed last March. Kay has now offered the most novel and convincing explanation for why U.S. intelligence — and, for that matter, U.N. inspectors and the intelligence agencies of every country that mattered — misjudged what Iraq possessed. It was a combination of Iraqi bluff, deceit and corruption far more bizarre than heretofore suspected. Kay discovered that an increasingly erratic Saddam Hussein had taken over personal direction of WMD programs. But because there was no real oversight, the scientists would go to Hussein, exaggerate or invent their activities, then pocket the funds. Scientists were bluffing Hussein. Hussein was bluffing the world. The Iraqis were all bluffing each other. Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure other guard units did. It was this internal disinformation that the whole outside world missed. Congress needs to find out why, with all our resources, we had not a clue that this was going on. But Kay makes clear that President Bush was relying on what the intelligence agencies were telling him. Kay contradicts the reckless Democratic charges that Bush cooked the books. "All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [Iraq] had WMD." That includes the Clinton administration. Kay told The Post he had found evidence that Hussein had quietly destroyed some biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s — but never reported it to the United Nations. Which was why President Bill Clinton in 1998 declared with great alarm and great confidence that Hussein had huge stockpiles of biological and chemical arms — "and some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." The intelligence failure is quite spectacular, but its history is quite prosaic. When the U.N. inspectors left in 1998, they assumed that the huge stockpiles of unaccounted-for weapons still existed. What other assumption could they make? That Hussein had destroyed them and not reported that to the very agency that could have then vindicated him and gotten sanctions lifted? Secretary of State Colin Powell correctly makes the case that this very fact — the concealment of both the weapons and their possible destruction — clearly justifies the legality of the Iraq war, since the terms of the 1991 cease-fire placed the positive obligation on Iraq to demonstrate its own disarmament. It clearly and repeatedly failed to do that. But beyond the legal question is the security question. People forget that when the Bush administration came into office, Iraq was a very unstable place. Thousands of Iraqis were dying as a result of sanctions. Containment necessitated the garrisoning of Saudi Arabia with thousands of "infidel" American troops — in the eyes of many Muslims, a desecration (cited by Osama bin Laden as his No. 1 reason for his 1996 "Declaration of War" on America). The no-fly zones were slow-motion war, and the embargo was costly and dangerous — the sailors who died on the USS Cole were on embargo duty. Until Bush got serious, threatened war and massed troops in Kuwait, the U.N. was headed toward loosening and ultimately lifting sanctions, which would have given Hussein carte blanche to regroup and rebuild his WMDs. Bush reversed that slide with his threat to go to war. But that kind of aggressive posture is impossible to maintain indefinitely. A regime of inspections, embargo, sanctions, no-fly zones and thousands of combat troops in Kuwait was an unstable equilibrium. The United States could have either retreated and allowed Hussein free rein — or gone to war and removed him. Those were the only two ways to go. Under the circumstances, and given what every intelligence agency on the planet agreed was going on in Iraq, the president made the right choice, indeed the only choice.

To: calgal who wrote (532742)	1/30/2004 11:57:10 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

A new GOP enlightenment? By Abe Novick The Republican Party has an opportunity to tap into its very roots, as it gathers in Philadelphia this weekend for its annual retreat. It's worth noting that before we were a country, a group made up of the best and brightest of their time, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay met in Philadelphia during spring and into summer 1787. They put quill to parchment and sketched down their thoughts. Those thoughts became the Federalist Papers and would be the draft for The Constitution. At a time when the divide among Americans has grown ever sharper, part of the fault lies in the two major political parties resorting to name calling, divisiveness and polarization to demonize the other. What's needed today is a unified government at home, to hold as a beacon of light for Iraq and others to be guided by. Soon after September 11, 2001, a wave of patriotism brought us together. Unfortunately however, it was followed by an America that became more dichotomized. Instead of uniting, we broadened the pre-existing lines of division. Clearly the lines were not new. They've been there since the beginning. Yet one can't help feeling they have gradually grown to an unprecedented level. Over the last 50 years, in bumper-sticker speak, it would look something like: Commie or patriot. Ike or Stevenson. Hawk or dove. And now, with us or against us. As healthy as it is for debate to occur and take place, The Republican Party has a chance to lower its weapons of political attack and broaden its appeal by opening up to outsiders. Politically and at this juncture, it would be a good move too. As Republicans hold the head of Saddam (a symbol of tyranny), they invite their opposition and the world to understand from whence they come. And just as importantly, where they wish to go. What better place to mark such an effort than in Philadelphia. First, they should look back and see that the Founders' thoughts were influenced and born out of the Enlightenment. They had all read the philosophers who made up that epoch: Hume, Locke and Montesquieu. They were thinkers and theorists who revolutionized the world by changing the way we look at it. America became the actualization and culmination of philosophical thinking. America was the realization of a European revolution in ideas. Similarly, we now stand at a precipice. George W. Bush and this country have begun working on rooting out terror and planting democracy in an arid region of the world where it has never existed. Politically it is an extremely risky ambition, just as it was in the 18th century. Some would say noble. Others are appalled. Either way, our actions will have consequences for the rest of human history. If the goal in Iraq with Saddam gone is to impart the ideals of democracy in that part of the world, the Republican Party should counter the political campaign mounted by its opponents with a high-ground stance rooted in what built this country. From there, the Republicans' can chart a future that articulates for Americans and our allies what we intend to plant, how we plan to nurture it and what its impact will be on us here at home. One of the greatest minds of the Enlightenment, Voltaire, believed many evils were avoidable, especially those caused by ignorance and fanaticism. His "Candide" satirized the notion of living with evil and making the best of a bad situation — the best of all possible worlds. Toleration of evil for Voltaire was a doctrine of despair. By charting a path for the Constitution, the authors of the Federalist Papers achieved, beyond their expectations, a lasting influence, perhaps best exemplified when Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison praising the authors for "the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written." Republicans need to articulate, as did the Founders, what it is they intend to grow and how they plan to nurture it, so all Americans can reap the benefits, while the world can support its application. Abe Novick is senior vice president of Eisner Communications in Baltimore.