Best of the Web Today - October 7, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
Duelfer Damns U.N.
With a presidential election less than a month away and the press and the Democrats eager to discredit the Bush administration, most of what we've been hearing about the final report of Charles Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group, issued yesterday, has centered on the question of whether Saddam Hussein's regime possessed stockpiles of mass-destruction weapons. The U.S. and most other world intelligence services believed it did, and this was among the justifications for Iraq's liberation last year. The absence of such stockpiles is supposed to prove that the U.S.-led coalition was wrong to liberate Iraq--that Saddam Hussein did not deserve to be toppled and George W. Bush does not deserve to be re-elected.
It won't surprise anyone to learn that we disagree. This column has long supported the liberation of Iraq, and weapons of mass destruction were in our view at most a secondary part of the case (see here and here). To our mind, the main lesson to be drawn from the ISG report is that the United Nations is ill suited to manage international crises.
Consider where things stood preliberation. As we noted in January 2003, Saddam Hussein had been technically at war with the U.S. and "the world" for more than a decade. There was never a peace agreement to end the Gulf War, only a cease-fire conditional upon Saddam Hussein's compliance with 17 U.N. resolutions. These resolutions required not only that Saddam not possess weapons of mass destruction, but also that he prove to the world that he had destroyed all such weapons programs. Resolution 1441 enumerated his other obligations:
The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq.
The alternatives to military intervention were continuing the 12-year status quo, in which the U.N. applied sanctions designed to force compliance, or lifting the sanctions. In either case, the U.N.--and the U.S., had it continued to cooperate--would have been complicit in keeping this vicious dictator in power.
Twelve years of sanctions should have been enough to prove that they were ineffective in forcing Saddam to comply with his obligations--except, it now seems, for his obligation not to possess weapons of mass destruction. And of course because Saddam failed to verify the destruction of those weapons, he could not be trusted even on that score.
According to the Duelfer report (at page 63 of this PDF document), Saddam "used to say privately that the 'better part of war was deceiving,' according to Ali Hasan Al Majid," the Saddam henchman known as "Chemical Ali." The report says that al-Majid, in coalition custody since August 2003, "stated that Saddam wanted to avoid appearing weak and did not reveal he was deceiving the world about the presence of WMD."
The sanctions regime had the effect of punishing the Iraqi people while allowing Saddam to remain in power. Saddam was able to circumvent the sanctions by misusing the Oil for Food program. At the same time, he sought to end the sanctions by offering material inducements to sympathetic countries with permanent U.N. Security Council seats.
According to the report (pages 68-69 of the above PDF, which we've reproduced here), Saddam's regime "sought a relationship with Russia to engage in extensive arms purchases and to gain support for lifting the sanctions," and "in order to induce France to aid in getting sanctions lifted, [Baghdad] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq or held pro-Iraqi positions."
Had sanctions been lifted, the report makes clear, Saddam was preparing to rebuild his weapons capabilities. "According to Abd Hamid Mahmud [his private secretary], Saddam privately told him that Iraq would reacquire WMD post-sanctions" (page 76). "Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW [chemical weapons] agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. . . . An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard--if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment" (page 88).
The end of sanctions might have meant a nuclear-armed Iraq. "Saddam would have restarted WMD programs, beginning with the nuclear program, after sanctions, according to [Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz. Saddam never formally stated this intention, according to Aziz, but he did not believe other countries in the region should be able to have WMD when Iraq could not. Aziz assessed that Iraq could have a WMD capability within two years of the end of sanctions" (page 80).
If President Bush had decided not to liberate Iraq without yet another U.N. resolution, it seems clear that Saddam's coalition of the bribed would have continued to balk. The Iraqi people would have continued suffering under dictatorship or sanctions, while Saddam bluffed the world by pretending to have weapons of mass destruction.
Had the sanctions been lifted, Saddam likely would have acquired such weapons for real. Given that he had used them in the past, against both Iranians and Iraqi Kurds, there's no assurance he would have employed them only as a "deterrent"--or that he would not have given them to terrorists.
As it is, Saddam is in prison, and Iraq is disarmed and moving toward democracy. Can there be any doubt that America is safer--or that it would imperil both America and the world if a president were to subject U.S. national security to a "global test"?
Analog Thuggery
Remember when Al Gore called online critics of the Democratic Party "digital brownshirts" merely for exercising their First Amendment rights? Nazi analogies are overwrought even for what we're about to describe, but there have been a variety of reports in recent weeks of violence and intimidation directed against Republicans:
Near Milwaukee, "more than 50 demonstrators supporting Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry stormed a Republican campaign office in West Allis at mid-day [Tuesday], trespassing, creating a disturbance through the use of a bullhorn in the office and then refusing to leave when asked," according to a Wisconsin GOP press release. State party chairman Rick Graber also pointed "to an incident in Madison last week in which Bush-Cheney yard signs were stolen from the yards of three homes. The vandals then used chemicals to burn swastikas into the lawns of the homes."
In Huntington, W.Va., "someone fired a shot at the Republican Headquarters office" on Sept. 2, as local party members were watching President Bush's nomination speech, reports WSAZ-TV. "The bullet left a hole in the front window," but no one was hurt.
In Knoxville, Tenn., "an unknown suspect fired multiple shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning." No one was in the office. "One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors."
In Orlando, Fla., "a group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building" on Tuesday. WKMG reports that most of the intruders "were from the AFL-CIO and were taking part in one of 20 other coordinated protests around the country."
In Tampa, Fla., "labor activists stormed President Bush's campaign headquarters" Tuesday. No one was injured or arrested.
To be sure, in the most serious of these incidents, the gunshots in Huntington and Knoxville, the perpetrators were unknown. It's possible they were random acts of violence. But can you imagine the outcry if this sort of thing were going on at Democratic campaign offices?
Scary Kerry
"Sen. John Kerry had a very senatorial response when his elementary school-aged daughter asked where babies come from," the Associated Press reports from Washington. He drew a diagram":
"She got so terrified, she ran out in tears," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on "Dr. Phil," a daytime television advice show.
We're terrified just thinking about it.
MoveOn: Osama's Innocent!
From an e-mail we received yesterday from Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org:
We're on a roll. In last night's vice presidential debate, Dick Cheney was angry, misleading and petulant; Edwards took him on with warmth, clarity and the facts. CBS News reported this morning that Edwards "continued the Democratic ticket's winning streak," beating Cheney by 13 percentage points in a post-debate poll of uncommitted voters.
Again and again, Cheney tried to mislead the public about the war in Iraq and our economic problems here at home. He even claimed that he'd never met Edwards before when he had, in public, twice. But John Edwards wouldn't let him get away with it: when Cheney tried once again to link al Qaeda and 9/11, Edwards said, "Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people," and explained that there was absolutely no connection.
If MoveOn doesn't think al Qaeda is linked to 9/11, who does it think was behind the attack?
Greasy Polls
"I am told that the [Democratic National Committee] is, via e-mail, distributing the results of the online polls" about who "won" the vice presidential debate, reports National Review Online's Jim Geraghty. We can't confirm that the DNC is crowing about this stuff, but we did find the most lopsided such survey: The Philadelphia Inquirer's, which recorded 56,565 votes, or 99%, for John Edwards, and just 668 votes (1%) for Dick Cheney. That means Edwards is just 1% short of Saddam Hussein's total in his last "election."
Maybe They Should Try the Atkins Diet Instead
"The debate format encouraged give-and-take, and neither the vice president nor Sen. John Kerry's running mate shrunk from the task."--Associated Press, Oct. 5
What Would Cheney, Edwards Do Without Experts?
"Experts: Cheney, Edwards Strong in Own Way"--headline, FoxNews.com, Oct. 6
Whose Shoes?
Reader Curtis Wayne offers this counterpart to the New York Times' lame account of two abandoned Marine uniforms at a dry-cleaning shop, which we noted Monday:
I happened to be inspecting the former Downtown Athletic Club, just south of Ground Zero, early this past spring, as a part of my work in which I analyze prospective real estate projects on behalf of construction lenders. The club is to be converted into apartments, and the building was in the process of being emptied before interior demolition commenced.
In the men's squash locker room lay dozens upon dozens of abandoned athletic shoes. And high-end squash racquets. Sweats, shorts, T-shirts. The lockers had been removed, their contents left on the floor. The workers who had removed the salvageable materials of the locker room had, apparently, no interest in the clothing--much of it new, some of it valuable. There was a sense about that mostly empty room, with the heaps and mounds of clothing, of something very wrong.
Squash being a sport generally played at the collegiate level--or, in downtown New York City, by young men and women in the financial services industry, it become obvious to me that no one wanted to pick up these clothes. No one, in fact, even wanted to touch them (myself included), for it was clear the owners' last moments in this world were on the morning of September 11, 2001.
I am haunted by the sight of these "unclaimed" object--the most compelling of which was a large pair of sneakers, one sitting upright, its mate lying on its side. The feet that wore those--whose? What was his name? Did he have a family?
Death Imitates the Onion
"Organizers Fear Terrorist Attacks on Upcoming al-Qaeda Convention"--headline, the Onion, Sept. 22
"Two bombs exploded at a gathering of Islamic radicals in central Pakistan before dawn Thursday, killing at least 33 people and injuring dozens in what appeared to be the latest in a string of sectarian attacks, police said."--Associated Press, Oct. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a Boy!
Our items Tuesday and yesterday on "Congresswoman" Dana Rohrabacher prompted several readers to contact us with evidence that Rohrabacher is in fact male, as we remember his having been when we met him in 1990. Several readers referred us to Rohrabacher's congressional Web site, which refers to him as "Congressman Rohrabacher." That's strong evidence, but not proof; after all, ex-Rep. Helen Chenoweth preferred to be addressed as "Congressman."
More persuasive was a phone message we received from a Rohrabacher spokesman that began, "Hey James, this is Aaron Lewis with Congressman Rohrabacher's office" (emphasis his).
But the best evidence of all is the photo above, which we lifted from Rohrabacher's Web site. That's definitely a man--either that or the congresswoman could bring one heck of a malpractice suit against her plastic surgeon.
World Ends; Women, Minorities Hardest Hit
"Anti-Gay Policies Blasted: Black same-sex couples could be doubly harmed, report concludes"--headline and subheadline, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 7
What Would Owls Do Without Experts?
"Expert Says Reasoning Not Driving Owls' Actions"--headline, Tampa Tribune, Oct. 4
Marvin the Marshmallow
Kathy Skippen, a Republican state representative from Idaho, "is being challenged from the right" in next month's election, the Idaho Statesman reports:
Constitutional Party candidate Marvin T. Richardson doesn't think government should be involved in economic development. He said he would eliminate the sales tax altogether if he could and thinks government shouldn't have extended into education, health care and other aspects of private lives.
He and his wife said they left the Mormon Church because its policies on abortion became too liberal.
"Obviously we have a failing economy, and we're failing morally in this country," he said. "We kill one-third of all children through abortion. We're going to get homosexual marriage unless we get enough spine to impeach some judges. Marriages, half of them fail. And we don't have enough jobs because we export them." Richardson said his family does not believe in having health insurance, but that they eat well from their garden, without refined sugar or flour. If others followed suit, he said, rising medical costs would drop.
"Marvin, if you're going to get rid of our chocolate, you're in trouble," Skippen said while the two met with The Statesman's editorial board. "I wouldn't legislate against it," he replied.
Oh sure, he says he's antichocolate, but when crunch time comes and he's asked if he's willing to bar it, he fudges the question for fear of being thought a nut. If he wins, he may find victory bittersweet, especially if the next election features a challenger who's prepared to milk the issue. |
