|
|
|
|
|
| |
Saturday, September 07, 2002
And I didn't think that Col. Gaddafi could get any more stylish.
1:11 PM
"While precise estimates of the Iraqi nuclear programme are impossible, what is certain is that Baghdad has the desire, the talent and the resources to build a nuclear weapon given the time to do so."
-Charles Duelfer, Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"If Iraq were to acquire material from another country, it is possible that it could assemble a nuclear weapon in months."
-Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1:05 PM
Friday, September 06, 2002
More Political Infighting
A few months ago I did a blog on the infighting between the Republicans in congress and the White House. Now it seems like the biggest quarrel in the GOP are between the foreign policy leaders of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. In today’s Washington Post, former Secretary of State George Schultz followed in the footsteps of his predecessor in the Reagan State Department, Gen. Al Haig, in openly and badmouthing the Bush I handling of the Gulf War.
Schultz’s piece, which is actually good, is more restrained and related more to current policy than was Haig’s, but certainly made a point that we should have deposed Hussein in ’91. The General, who is becoming feistier and more blunt in his old age, has actually insulted the senior Bush and, Haig’s former staff member, Brent Scowcroft. Haig said this on Fox News Sunday in an interview with Brit Hume:
HUME: All right, now, you've seen how the president has managed this debate within his administration, and you talked about disagreement. You were a White House chief of staff, you know how this sort of thing works. How well is President Bush doing on that count?
HAIG: Well, I think he has to be careful of the old gang. These are the people that created the problems in the first place by not handling Saddam Hussein correctly.
HUME: Whom do you mean?
HAIG: I'm talking about the previous administration and their spokesman, Jim Baker, Scowcroft, and a very wise daddy who's not talking at all and he shouldn't.
HUME: Now, so your view is that this debate among Republicans is about the old guard from the Bush -- the previous Bush administration seeking to justify what it did or it didn't do?
HAIG: No, not entirely. No, not entirely. But these are the guys that have been out most recently on the hustings. There are plenty of people that just don't want to use force at all. In the Republican Party, we've confronted that as a party from day one, and it will continue.
It seems like the old battle between the “realists” and “moralists” in the GOP is coming to a head in this current situation. I think the victory will (and should) be won by the moralist, if not for their arguments, then simply because the Republican establishment worships Reagan’s legacy and reviles Bush’s. The current President has been very careful to stay close to the GOP base related to Reagan (tax cuts, religion, military spending,) rather than to his father’s more moderate approach (balance the budget, mild foreign policy), which was partly responsible for his loss in ’92.
The result of this battle could change the dynamics of the Republican Party in a way not seen since the split between the Humphrey and McGovern Democrats. Keep an eye on this one.
7:26 PM
“The Debate”
I think Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard is second only to Victor Davis Hanson in making the case in favor of a war against Iraq. For the past week he has been making arguments in favor a regime change in the Arabic despotism on the Standard’s home page. Today there is a particularly good piece describing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam and his sons from none other than Bill Clinton.
"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."
Clinton was on a roll:
"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an 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. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "
More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
Hayes also names off a list of Democrats who supported intervention in Iraq, while the Presidency was in their hands, but changed it when the Republicans took over the office.
Hayes along with David Brooks makes good logical cases for the war in their columns in the Daily Standard today. I hope that Congress reads them before beginning the national debate, if they even have the guts to initiate one.
11:43 AM
Bureaucracy = Safety?
I like Steve Chapman’s take on the new so-called “Homeland Security Dpt.,” which sounds a lot like something Levrenti Beria or Raul Castro would head in their respective totalitarian countries. I real issue that I have against the new department is what Chapman points out here: it will probably have little effect in the war.
“When America had an energy crisis, our leaders responded by creating the Department of Energy. When we perceived shortcomings in our schools, the Department of Education was formed. Likewise, the terrorist threat that became apparent last Sept. 11 prompted the Bush administration to propose a Department of Homeland Security. But our experience with the first two concerns raises a question: Why bother?”
The other two departments, while well meaning, aren’t doing much to solve the nation’s problems. Many cynics think that we are going to war solely to cure our energy problems. The Department of Energy hasn’t saved us in its area of expertise because the market can do its job in this area as long as we cough up the dough to support our energy inefficient way of life.
Education, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter that I don’t believe I have the knowledge to make an opinion about. I do know however that the state of public education has not become significantly better since the department’s creation in the 1970’s.
Chapman is a pretty rational libertarian and I think he makes some good points with regard to this new addition of federal bureaucracy.
12:24 AM
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
McCain Speaks on Iraq
This week’s issue of Time has a short Op-Ed piece by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona,) in which the maverick statesman stresses his strong support for “change” in the Middle-East. I thought the most important aspect his writing was the fact that he listed several countries in the region, including some professed allies, as corrupt and in need of internal reform. This is a lot ballsier, if you will, than the statements made by Bush 41’s cabinet members, who are buddies with the Saudis and Pres. Mubarak of Egypt.
Although he says he strongly supports the President’s plans for regime change, he still throws a few elbows Bush’s way.
“I wish the Bush Administration and its predecessor had given more serious support to internal and external Iraqi opposition than has been the case.”
-Sen. John McCain
Check it out.
http://mccain.senate.gov/iraqtimemag.htm
3:37 PM
Ode to O’Neill
In today’s Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson provides some advice to world leaders on how to help the stagnating (and possibly deflating) world economy. One of the ideas is to lower the value of the dollar and help exporters break into the growing Chinese market. O’Neill has been proposing this ever since entering office. As usual, he was called to resign. Hopefully the President sticks to his instincts and helps out his beleaguered Treasury Secretary.
3:22 PM
Sunday, September 01, 2002
Great Columns on the Iraqi War
The Washington Post continues with its great columns on the potential war in Iraq this week with today’s (Sept. 1st) piece by Bob Dole. This isn’t the justification for the war that many neutrals and opponents are hoping for, but more of a tactical plan for the President to stay within his constitutional powers and get the support of Congress before committing to a long engagement in the Middle East. It is good to hear the voice of reason coming from one of the senior statesmen on America and a man who definitely sacrificed in WWII.
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman has a good objective piece giving some background on the history of Iraq and some of the problems we are likely to face while nation building.
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune has a column similar to Dole’s, but much more belligerent. He refers to Bush as the “Generalissimo,” due to the seizure of power from the other branches of government during his tenure. I think Chapman is going a little too far in his criticism, but I agree with the point. Once again, I have learned the people who claim to be “strict constitutionalists” tend to be the ones who break the explicit rules the most (with the exception of Grover Cleveland.)
The best piece I have seen on the war, and the one I agree with most strongly, is David Ignatius’ “Wilsonian Course for War,” which gives several good reasons for the war in Iraq and discusses the reversal of the political parties in the area of foreign policy. The main point of the article is that if we don’t try and straighten things out in the Middle-East, we are left with a dangerous status quo that will only get worse as the despots in the region get their hands on more WMD’s.
All great columns.
1:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
