Shadowtax |
|
|
nonfunctional
Archives
|
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Friday, June 13, 2003
Gene Healy of CATO believes that the focus on WMD distracts from the underlying point that Saddam was never a threat to the US. The proposition that Saddam Hussein was willing to hand over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists appears to have been based on sheer speculation, and implausible speculation at that. Despite over 20 years of supporting terror against Israel, Saddam never turned over chemical or biological weapons to Palestinian terror groups, reasoning, correctly, that such action would provoke massive retaliation. Still less was he likely to hand over such weapons to Al Qaeda, a group that has long opposed his "socialist infidel" rule and could not be trusted to keep the deal secret. I disagree. I reject the presumption of innocence and substitute the presumption of guilt when dealing with monsters like Saddam. That "sheer speculation" really worried me. Now we don't have to worry about that and can turn attentions elsewhere. Thursday, June 12, 2003
Michael Novak on the WMD intelligence. Finally, Democrats in Congress should assemble all the evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction revealed by President Clinton and Vice President Gore right up till they left power in early 2001, and by the U.N. inspection teams both in 1998 and again in 2003. Then they should try to measure any daylight between this evidence and the evidence adduced by President Bush and his team. They may end up pointing fingers at themselves. The editors of National Review argue that both sides of the war debate are abusing the WMD issue. Many of Bush's defenders have argued that the Iraqi regime must have had WMD: Why else would it have kicked out the inspectors in 1998? That's an excellent point. But asking it is not a substitute for finding the weapons — and for redressing, with sobriety rather than reckless partisanship, the possible intelligence failures that have brought us here. Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Howard Kurtz addresses the museum looting exaggeration in his Media Notes column. Everyone in journalism makes mistakes, especially routine mistakes – the misspelled name, the mangled title, the wrong date. In this case, though, the press told us that, in a crushing loss for western civilization, 170,000 artifacts were stolen. The actual number: 33. Yes, some of the booty was later returned, but 169,967 items? Maybe Don Rumsfeld was right that TV kept showing the same vase being carried away over and over. Mark Steyn on his recent trip to Iraq. Although the camp had set up enough tents for hundreds, the members of this family were the only refugees in residence. The singular of that "IRAQI BOARDER" sign was a slight exaggeration, but not by much. And that underpopulated border camp is a fine motif for what's going on: vast numbers of bureaucrats are running around Iraq with unlimited budgets in search of a human catastrophe that doesn't exist. "Had a lot of refugees?" I asked the Jordanian customs officer. "We had about 10 through last week," he said. "Palestinians." "Where were they headed? Amman?" "No, he said. "They were going back to Iraq." Dennis Prager on the Middle East. Like the proverbial broken record, some of us have been saying for years that only one thing can bring peace to the Middle East: a Palestinian civil war. Sadly, I agree. Both war and peace happen because people want them. Unfortunately, too many Palestinians hate Israel too damn much. Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Robert Kagan of the Washington Post debunks the WMD conspiracy theory by presenting the excessively long list of necessary co-conspirators. Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe. Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them." Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "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." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush. Stanley Kurtz weighs in on the WMD issue by reminding us of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The radiation poisoning suffered by Iraqi looters indicates that Iraq indeed had materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. He points out that Saddam's nuclear ambitions were a proven quality. [T]he administration had not been able to fully and frankly emphasize the connection between Saddam's nuclear ambitions and the war. Both the president and the vice president did, of course, talk about the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam. But to emphasize that, and especially to spell out the danger scenarios outlined explicitly by Kenneth Pollack, would have been difficult and awkward. It would have harmed American power to note in too much detail just how vulnerable we were to nuclear blackmail. The same dynamic helps explain the administration's relative silence about the barrel over which the North Koreans now have us. We do our best to pretend that Kim Jong Il has not got us in as difficult a situation as he in fact does. But, again, this dynamic was by no means a complete secret before the war. The administration did include the danger of nuclear blackmail from Iraq in its publicly stated reasons for the war. And pundits did argue about all this. In particular, the war's proponents made the point that, Saddam's being perhaps a year or two away from a nuclear weapon (if we were lucky) made this exactly the moment to strike. Good strategic analysis here. In the context of nuclear proliferation, the elimination of the Iraqi threat clears off a potentially dangerous piece from the chessboard. Now the United States and the United Nations can concentrate on North Korea, Iran, and the Kashmir Crisis. That is quite a host of threats. End game is not yet in sight, but a dangerous piece has been removed. Sunday, June 08, 2003
Oh, so that's what she meant. From the Hillary book excerpts released in next week's Time courtesy of The Drudge Report: Advice from Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: "Jackie and I also discussed the Secret Service. She confirmed my instincts that even though security was necessary, it was important to stress to Chelsea, as she had to her own children, that she owed respect to the agents sworn to protect her...Jackie spoke frankly about the peculiar and dangerous attractions evoked by charismatic politicians. She cautioned me that Bill, like President Kennedy, had a personal magnetism that inspired strong feelings in people. She never came out and said it, but she meant that he might also be a target. 'He has to be very careful,' she told me. 'Very careful.' My first thought upon reading this had nothing to do with asassination. Maybe Jackie was hinting at something else and Hillary missed the point. John W Dean says missing WMDs are worse than Watergate. Talk like this would worry me more if Republicans didn't control the House of Representatives. I still believe the WMD justification was valid based up future capacity and past Iraqi lies. It bothers me that some will pass over the possiblity that Bush was mistaken and settle upon the more emotionally satifying possibility that he lied. It's preposterous. Friday, June 06, 2003
Larry Kudlow sees bright economic times ahead: Without any nasty external shocks to derail this forecast, the Dow Jones Industrial Average could reach 10,500 by the end of this year, 12,000 by the end of next year, and over 13,000 by the end of 2005. You say it can't happen? I say it can. Has there ever been a period of strengthened national security, lower tax rates, and an expanding money supply that did not produce prosperity? Never. And when these policies are combined with unbelievable advances in science and technology, when they exist in a free-market capitalist system where every instinct is for more progress, prosperity, and freedom, and when they are leveraged through the economy by way of historic productivity increases — you have a mighty economic boiler that's primed to burn. Today is the 59th Anniversary of D-Day. Nineteen years ago today Ronald Reagan addressed the world standing on Omaha Beach: Today, the living here assembled-officials, veterans, citizens-are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for. Lisa Zannata Henn began her story by quoting her father, who promised that he would return to Normandy. She ended with a promise to her father, who died 8 years ago of cancer: "I'm going there, Dad, and I'll see the beaches and the barricades and the monuments. I'll see the graves, and I'll put flowers there just like you wanted to do. I'll never forget what you went through, Dad, nor will I let any one else forget. And, Dad, I'll always be proud." Through the words of his loving daughter, who is here with us today, a D-Day veteran has shown us the meaning of this day far better than any President can. It is enough to say about Private Zannata and all the men of honor and courage who fought beside him four decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. Thank you. Sammy Sosa has been suspended 8 games for using a corked bat. This suspension is entirely appropriate. Sammy doesn't dispute that he broke the rules although he claims it was a one-time mistake. I believe him. Broken bats are too common an occurence in today's game for a player to get away with using a corked bat on a regular basis. Why would he choose to start against the Devil Rays of all teams? Granted, Sosa is coming of an injury, but I can't imagine he'd be so anxious to contribute to his team that he would cheat. The reason I believe Sosa should be punished is that I don't believe a corked bat should be present in the dugout at all, not even to thrill fans during batting practice (although this claim is dubious considering Cubs batting practice is closed to the fans at Wrigley). Sosa will appeal the suspension. This will allow him to play in the weekend series against the New York Yankees. This is the first time the two teams have met since the 1938 World Series. Personally I would prefer that Sosa serve his suspension during a Cubs-Cardinals series, but that's just me. :) |