One word: Ooo-rah! FrontPage magazine.com :: A Plea from a Marine in Iraq by Robert Nofsinger

Hmmm...what would one do with 500 tons of natural uranium in a single location? What would one do with missiles capable of traveling not the 93 miles allowed by UN proscription but 691 miles--a radius that includes cities in Egypt, Turkey and Israel? Why would one store large...LARGE...amounts of pesticides--each container is larger than the standard 55 gallon size--stored in an ammo dump the size of Washington DC? Would you say that this passes the WMD "smell test"? Don't inhale...the smell'l just kill ya Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found - Insight on the News - World

Ted forgot to mention the Internet, and blogs in particular, as alternative sources of information for younger audiences today. Otherwise, his speech makes a number of very telling points about the fate of the TV news business Poynter Online - Ted Koppel Bets on Quality

Those who claim to know better should know better, and do better. Sentencing the rest of the world to poverty and disease is an unintended consequence, but a real reason for the third world to despise and in some cases ignore the "first world"Earth Day / Has the environmental movement left the world behind?

For a guy who's supposed to be so worldly, so well traveled, so...nuanced in the way of the French, Kerry sure seems to only have one place on his mind Yahoo! News - Kerry Sees a Little Vietnam in Louisiana Coastline

After reading this excellent rebuttal to a Time magazine article by Andrew Sullivan in favor of higher gasoline taxes in the US, I predict lots of fun in the blogosphere over the next few days. The gauntlet--err, gas pedal--has been floored!

I have two words for you: "Well, now!" Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe (washingtonpost.com): "UNITED NATIONS, April 14 -- Large amounts of nuclear-related equipment, some of it contaminated, and a small number of missile engines have been smuggled out of Iraq for recycling in European scrap yards, according to the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and other U.N. diplomats. "

"Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned the U.N. Security Council in a letter that U.N. satellite photos have detected "the extensive removal of equipment and, in some instances, removal of entire buildings" from sites that had been subject to U.N. monitoring before the U.S.-led war against Iraq."

I am no expert, but I have to say that this is a whole lot harder to explain than "My dog ate my homework", especially since the reporting comes from that notable oracle of pro-Administration advocacy, the Washington Post (/irony off). Like cockroaches under the kitchen light, can you imagine the diplomatic scrambling underway in the countries that are "housing" Iraq's former nuclear facilities?

I've written about the issue of Kerry's loan to his campaign that he secured with his jointly-owned Boston home previously DRUDGE REPORT 2004?.

Here's my post that is missing from my blog for some reason, but exists in my e-mail archives.

From:
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 12:40 AM
To:
Subject: I'm not voting for a "Gigolo in chief".


I'm not voting for a "Gigolo in chief".
- President Bush, his Texas unit, the Air Force Reserve and the active duty Air Force stood on ready alert in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere against possible incursions by Russian bombers. Was their service any less vital to the safety of the country than those who fought in the Vietnam war? As far as thinking fast, how fast do you suppose one has to think fast at the controls of a >800 MPH fighter to avoid a solo accident or a mid air collision?

- The textbook definition of a recession is two successive quarters where the economy does not grow--it recesses. If your assertion that the recession started in March 2001, what policy initiative that the President proposed and the democratically controlled Senate voted for was in place to trigger it? Or is it more likely that it started in 2000 since the high water mark of the NASDAQ index was in March of 2000? The stock exchanges are widely regarded as reliable leading indicators of economic strength or weakness.

- VA spending has gone up every year under President Bush.
- If the troops lack equipment, blame the Congress that writes the bills and appropriates the money. The President can lobby for legislation and sign the bills. I don't agree with lots of things the President does, but Congress has long voted for entirely new systems, construction and other "jobs bills" disguised as military spending instead of supporting spare parts. Look at the flap over the Boeing tankers vs. repairing the perfectly serviceable 707-based and DC-10/L-1011-based tankers in service today. John McCain led the fight to expose that fraud.

- Kerry mortgaged his home for ~$6 million. The interest on a loan that size would be at least 2-3%--my second is 9%, and I have good credit. Three per cent is $180,000 per year. A Senator's salary is $158,000. If Kerry's wife is paying that loan, that may well be an illegal campaign contribution.

Perhaps this should be Kerry's campaign song.

Great wisdom, plainly spokenCold Fury quotes Patton

The New York Times reports in its April 13, 2004 editions that "Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology around the world, has told his interrogators that during a trip to North Korea five years ago he was taken to a secret underground nuclear plant and shown what he described as three nuclear devices, according to Asian and American officials who have been briefed by the Pakistanis."The New York Times > Washington > Pakistani Tells of North Korean Nuclear Devices

For the mathematically challenged, five years ago would be 1999, and the President's name was Clinton, not Bush.

Care to comment, Secretary Albright?

The good news is that one of the local papers here may have actually done some reporting on the millennium incident that took place at the US/Canadian border in 2000. The bad news is that they can't resist spackling over the errors to resurrect Clarke a bit The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Clarke book has errors about arrest of Ahmed Ressam

Paul Bremer of the CPA in Iraq said that the efforts underway to clear up the Sunni Triangle and to destroy Sadr's militia in Iraq were inevitable. Perhaps the situation could be likened to the efforts in the first half of the twentieth century to defeat organized crime familiesa and the KKK in America. The thugs in Iraq--Islamist radicals, former Baathists, and outside agitators from Syria, Iran and other countries--see an opportunity to create a failed state with vast oil reserves within striking distance of the most strategic area on earth. Roger Simon's post sounds an important warning: Roger L. Simon: It's Iran, Stupid! - A Message to the Blogosphere

The 9/11 commission is in danger of losing all semblance of credibility as a non-partisan effort. Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie S. Gorelick, Bob Kerrey, and Timothy J. Roemer all seem to have decided--and unashamedly state on TV and in print--that 9/11 could have been prevented, and should have been prevented--by the Bush Administration. To their credit, the chair and co-chair of the commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, seem to always appear together and have been generally fair in their assessments based on the information they've gathered and analyzed so far.

Ben-Veniste makes much of the title of the now infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing document that the White House declassified and released yesterday. He and the other four Democrats on the commission are trying to connect dots using hindsight based on what we know now, not on what the President and the NSC knew then. Apparently, the President was frustrated by the quality of the information he was getting on Al-Qaeda after the briefing.

Kerrey, who may or may not be campaigning to become Kerry's Vice President, is as bad as Ben-Veniste, although he doesn't have the crocodillian smile that Ben-Veniste has developed over the years. Kerry tries in his op-ed piece in the New York Times today to retract some of his more over the top comments for last Thursday's televised grilling of Dr. Rice.

Jamie Gorelick was a member of Janet Reno's Department of Justice. She apparently was a member of the team that imposed tight restrictions on sharing of information between the FBI and CIA. She was the first to see the PDB in full, and her notes on the document equipped the other commissioners to ask questions about it of Dr. Rice. She was as critical of Dr. Rice as any other member, especially when she tried to extrapolate warnings of possible hijackings in the U. S. to indicate that the plans could have been more sinister than just holding the passengers hostage, as most aircraft hijackings had played out in our past. There was no information in the PDB that could have been used to warn airlines--then in charge of airport security--that hijackers would behave in any way other than those who typically have demanded ransom, demanded freedom for prisoners, or simply used the plane to transport the hijackers to a foreign country.

Some of the structural failings that allowed Al-Qaeda to easily enter the US, to remain in the country after the expiration of their visas, to obtain funds, to contact foreign confederates in person or through electronic means, and to board aircraft carrying simple weapons and cannisters of pepper spray, have been addressed. Whether those measures are working well or not, no successful attack has been launched in the US since 9/11. It is arguable that further steps, including the creation of a separate agency apart from the FBI that is focused on domestic intelligence, should be taken, and soon.

No one can credibly make the case that either the Clinton or Bush Administrations could have sold Congress, the media, the punditry, and the public on the Patriot Act, the creation of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, the possible FBI reform, and other steps we've taken since 9/11 to protect the country before 9/11 ocurred. President Bush could not have invaded Afghanistan in the way we did after 9/11 before the attacks--the nation would not have allowed it. As it is, the Patriot Act is criticized today, protesters blame us for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, and all sorts of regular people hate the TSA for everything from long, slow lines to taking nail clippers from old ladies.

Perfect safety is impossible. Tornadoes are not subject to regulation. Radical Islamist terrorists dream of a world in flames, then expect the remnants of that world to be ruled by mullahs who debate the merits of throwing offenders from the roofs of tall buildings or pulling walls down on them as just punishment for their sins. They reject vaccines and treatments for HIV, claiming in their ignorance that the medicines are worse than the diseases they treat, and place their faith in God to save the sick. They allow men to divorce their wives, leaving them without income or property, simply by saying "I divorce you!" aloud three times. They harshly punish the victims of rape, rather than the rapists. They are descendants from a long line of slave traders who continue to sell women and children into bondage to this day. They teach little else other than hatred for others, using demagoguery to deflect complaints from their people for the failings of their societies. They claim to be willing to die for their promised afterlife with 72 virgins. They claim that this life is a way-station to paradise, that children should be willing to die, leaving their loved ones behind in the name of a jihad they cannot understand, while secretly enriching the mullocracy.

Fate has dealt the world a cruel blow, granting a precious commodity that fuels the commerce of the world to a people who use their wealth for weapons they use irresponsibly, for the destruction of peoples in their region and without, to foster hatred for civilization and revenge for offenses almost completely unknown to anyone other than to themselves, and to doom generations of a populace kept in economic squalor and in a criminal state of ignorance.

Radical Islam has not had its internal upheaval and reformation, like the long efforts that ended sad periods in history like the Spanish Inquisition. External critics are threatened with death if not killed outright; some have been lucky enough only to have been exiled. If these radicals are to survive their war with civilization, cooler heads in the Muslim world must speak out now and act fast, lest they be tarred with the same brush that will consign these perverted Islamists to history. As for the 9/11 commission, I hope that the report will be more bipartisan than the previews given by the four partisan Democrats, and that constructive reform--of the Executive Branch as well as of Congressional oversight--will be the result.

It's nice to see that this is getting some attentionCNN.com - Dangerous?space rocks under watch - Apr 8, 2004

It's 4/4/04, or 04/04/04. A date more unique than any "Average Joe's".

A must read on the 9/11 inquiry TCS: Tech Central Station - The Commission, the Democrats and Terrorism

Even worse for the bad guys, they were blown away by, and unable to shoot down, a GIRL! Military.com

Sunday, 3/28/04, on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: 'Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. '
The Real Clear Politics web site's take: Clarke's statement before the 9/11 Commission was designed to leave the impression that he voted Republican in the 2000 Presidential race (in other words for George Bush), thereby innoculating himself against charges of partisanship. It's now clear this was a clever semantic ploy intended to mislead the public - and the Commissioners as well."

This is one of the most cogent arguments ever presented for the United States action in Iraq.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________COMMENTARY

An Essential War

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ
March 29, 2004; Page A18

We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.)

In those days we focused on how to defend against terrorism. We reinforced our embassies and increased our intelligence effort. We thought we made some progress. We established the legal basis for holding states responsible for using terrorists to attack Americans anywhere. Through intelligence, we did abort many potential terrorist acts. But we didn't really understand what motivated the terrorists or what they were out to do.

In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.

Today, looking back on the past quarter century of terrorism, we can see that it is the method of choice of an extensive, internationally connected ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of cooperation and progress. We can see that the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid, and scores of other terrorist attacks in between and in many countries, were carried out by one part or another of this movement. And the movement is connected to states that develop awesome weaponry, with some of it, or with expertise, for sale.

What should we do? First and foremost, shore up the state system.

The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other -- bilaterally or multilaterally -- to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them.

Increasingly, the state system has been eroding. Terrorists have exploited this weakness by burrowing into the state system in order to attack it. While the state system weakens, no replacement is in sight that can perform the essential functions of establishing an orderly and lawful society, protecting essential freedoms, providing a framework for fruitful economic activity, contributing to effective international cooperation, and providing for the common defense.

* * *
I see our great task as restoring the vitality of the state system within the framework of a world of opportunity, and with aspirations for a world of states that recognize accountability for human freedom and dignity.

All established states should stand up to their responsibilities in the fight against our common enemy, terror; be a helpful partner in economic and political development; and take care that international organizations work for their member states, not the other way around. When they do, they deserve respect and help to make them work successfully.

The civilized world has a common stake in defeating the terrorists. We now call this what it is: a War on Terrorism. In war, you have to act on both offense and defense. You have to hit the enemy before the enemy hits you. The diplomacy of incentives, containment, deterrence and prevention are all made more effective by the demonstrated possibility of forceful pre-emption. Strength and diplomacy go together. They are not alternatives; they are complements. You work diplomacy and strength together on a grand and strategic scale and on an operational and tactical level. But if you deny yourself the option of forceful pre-emption, you diminish the effectiveness of your diplomatic moves. And, with the consequences of a terrorist attack as hideous as they are -- witness what just happened in Madrid -- the U.S. must be ready to pre-empt identified threats. And not at the last moment, when an attack is imminent and more difficult to stop, but before the terrorist gets in position to do irreparable harm.

Over the last decade we have seen large areas of the world where there is no longer any state authority at all, an ideal environment for terrorists to plan and train. In the early 1990s we came to realize the significance of a "failed state." Earlier, people allowed themselves to think that, for example, an African colony could gain its independence, be admitted to the U.N. as a member state, and thereafter remain a sovereign state. Then came Somalia. All government disappeared. No more sovereignty, no more state. The same was true in Afghanistan. And who took over? Islamic extremists. They soon made it clear that they regarded the concept of the state as an abomination. To them, the very idea of "the state" was un-Islamic. They talked about reviving traditional forms of pan-Islamic rule with no place for the state. They were fundamentally, and violently, opposed to the way the world works, to the international state system.

The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run.

That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.

They seize control of state power and use that power to enhance their wealth, consolidate their rule and develop their weaponry. As they do this, and as they violate the laws and principles of the international system, they at the same time claim its privileges and immunities, such as the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of a legitimate sovereign state. For decades these thugs have gotten away with it. And the leading nations of the world have let them get away with it.

This is why the case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is so significant. After Saddam Hussein consolidated power, he started a war against one of his neighbors, Iran, and in the course of that war he committed war crimes including the use of chemical weapons, even against his own people.

About 10 years later he started another war against another one of his neighbors, Kuwait. In the course of doing so he committed war crimes. He took hostages. He launched missiles against a third and then a fourth country in the region.

That war was unique in modern times because Saddam totally eradicated another state, and turned it into "Province 19" of Iraq. The aggressors in wars might typically seize some territory, or occupy the defeated country, or install a puppet regime; but Saddam sought to wipe out the defeated state, to erase Kuwait from the map of the world.

That got the world's attention. That's why, at the U.N., the votes were wholly in favor of a U.S.-led military operation -- Desert Storm -- to throw Saddam out of Kuwait and to restore Kuwait to its place as a legitimate state in the international system. There was virtually universal recognition that those responsible for the international system of states could not let a state simply be rubbed out.

When Saddam was defeated, in 1991, a cease-fire was put in place. Then the U.N. Security Council decided that, in order to prevent him from continuing to start wars and commit crimes against his own people, he must give up his arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction."

Recall the way it was to work. If Saddam cooperated with U.N. inspectors and produced his weapons and facilitated their destruction, then the cease-fire would be transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war between the international system and Iraq. But if Saddam did not cooperate, and materially breached his obligations regarding his weapons of mass destruction, then the original U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of "all necessary force" against Iraq -- an authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended but not cancelled -- would be reactivated and Saddam would face another round of the U.S.-led military action against him. Saddam agreed to this arrangement.

In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of mass destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort.

By 1998 the situation was untenable. Saddam had made inspections impossible. President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime. By this time, he had openly and utterly rejected the inspections and the U.N. resolutions.

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days -- apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quantities of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

President Bush made it clear by 2002, and against the background of 9/11, that Saddam must be brought into compliance. It was obvious that the world could not leave this situation as it was. The U.S. made the decision to continue to work within the scope of the Security Council resolutions -- a long line of them -- to deal with Saddam. After an extended and excruciating diplomatic effort, the Security Council late in 2002 passed Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply or face military force. When on December 8, 2002, Iraq produced its required report, it was clear that Saddam was continuing to play games and to reject his obligations under international law. His report, thousands of pages long, did not in any way account for the remaining weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. inspectors had reported to be in existence as of the end of 1998. That assessment was widely agreed upon.

That should have been that. But the debate at the U.N. went on -- and on. And as it went on it deteriorated. Instead of the focus being kept on Iraq and Saddam, France induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the U.S. -- a position that seemed to emerge from France's aspirations for greater influence in Europe and elsewhere. By March of 2003 it was clear that French diplomacy had resulted in splitting NATO, the European Union, and the Security Council . . . and probably convincing Saddam that he would not face the use of force. The French position, in effect, was to say that Saddam had begun to show signs of cooperation with the U.N. resolutions because more than 200,000 American troops were poised on Iraq's borders ready to strike him; so the U.S. should just keep its troops poised there for an indeterminate time to come, until presumably France would instruct us that we could either withdraw or go into action. This of course was impossible militarily, politically, and financially.

Where do we stand now? These key points need to be understood:

• There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

• The international legal case against Saddam -- 17 resolutions -- was unprecedented.

• The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

• Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

• He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

• President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.


* * *
The question of weapons of mass destruction is just that: a question that remains to be answered, a mystery that must be solved. Just as we also must solve the mystery of how Libya and Iran developed menacing nuclear capability without detection, of how we were caught unaware of a large and flourishing black market in nuclear material -- and of how we discovered these developments before they got completely out of hand and have put in place promising corrective processes. The question of Iraq's presumed stockpile of weapons will be answered, but that answer, however it comes out, will not affect the fully justifiable and necessary action that the coalition has undertaken to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. As Dr. David Kay put it in a Feb. 1 interview with Chris Wallace, "We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened."

When asked by Mr. Wallace what the sellers could have sold if they didn't have actual weapons, Mr. Kay said: "The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists want. They don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons."

Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the take-over of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations -- including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use, or sale -- behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of these criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.

Sept. 11 forced us to comprehend the extent and danger of the challenge. We began to act before our enemy was able to extend and consolidate his network.

If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937. In the 1930s, the world failed to do what it needed to do to head off a world war. Appeasement never works. Today we are in action. We must not flinch. With a powerful interplay of strength and diplomacy, we can win this war.

Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his Kissinger Lecture, given recently at the Library of Congress.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108052892146167601,00.html

Copyright 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

I'm looking forward to Congressman Shays next appearance on television Winds of Change.NET: Shays on Clarke

The more you look at his record, his record reflects the worst...on Clarke.