Abu Ghraib. Many would have us believe that the atrocities committed there will taint America's image among Arabs for generations. Some fairly senior members of Congress and other partisans lay the blame at the feet of Secretary Rumsfeld. Candidate Kerry blames the President, of course.

Let's agree that the acts of the 7 soldiers accused so far are reprehensible. Those acts do not represent the America that we hold as an ideal to the world. Those soldiers--and any who abetted them, ordered them, or photographed them--should be punished, if they are found guilty after a fair trial.

However, let's not forget that the general in charge did not spring into being in late January of 2000. Nor did the officers who commanded the reserve troops who are at the center of this scandal. They were all in the military for some time. The training that they received--or didn't receive--should have taken place earlier than the immediate maelstrom that the war on terror became after 9/11.

I am not blaming the Clinton Administration per se. I am pointing out that the so called "peace dividend", the task force to cut the size of government--those initiatives of the Clinton Administration cut military head count and material during the 90s. The rapid expansion of the economy in the 90s left military salaries behind the civilian sector as well. Many of the best NCOs (Sergeants and Navy Chiefs)--the ranks where the real "soldiering" takes place--left for better paying civilian jobs.

The situation reminds me of many wars in the past. At the beginning, incompetent, ill equipped, poorly led soldiers were thrown into battle and expected to make do as best they could. Kasserine Pass, the Battan Death March, early reversals of the Northern forces versus the Confederacy; take your pick, they fit the bill.

If the war is going to last a very long time, as everyone expects, we should expect failures like this as the strains on our forces wax and wane as they adapt from their former peacetime roles to combat conditions. There will be a weeding out of incompetent troops and commanders, of weak leaders and people of weak character. We will recruit many more Pat Tillmans to fill the ranks and serve honorably. We will show the world--the part of the world that can be shown anything that doesn't fit their preconceived view of America--how we can adapt, and how the vast, vast majority of our fighting men and women uphold the American ideal. Those who commit crimes will be tried and punished if found guilty, just as they are at home.

If the Iraqis as a whole have lost faith in us, the 25 million or so of them could wipe out the 140,000 US troops in a day or so unless we used nuclear weapons to defend them. That hasn't happened. That is enough of a "poll" for me to establish in my mind that most Iraqis--like most Americans--only hope for a peaceful, stable country that will provide them economic opportunity and a safe place to raise a family. The ideals that President Bush offers them--and by extension, all of us offer them--are the ideals that all mankind strive for, whether they can articulate them in a Jeffersonian fashion or not.

We will do the right thing to set this right. I like the idea of destroying Abu Ghraib, and rebuilding a more humanely designed prison in its stead. We are figuring out many aspects of the post war period as we go, just as we did in Germany and Japan nearly 60 years ago. Although we have no General George Marshal or General Douglas MacArthur to lead the occupation of Iraq through the trials of today towards a stable postwar entry into the family of civilized nations, let us prove by our deeds and words that we are willing to live up to the American ideal.

For my part, I don't need to see any more sick photos or any video to make that goal happen.

Some specifics to bolster Michael Porter's points from last night USATODAY.com - Intel CEO: Let's end political games and compete

Michael Porter, the acclaimed author of such books as Competitive Advantage, Competitive Strategy, and The Competitive Advantage of Nations, dropped a bombshell on tonight's Charlie Rose show on PBS. He said--paraphrasing--that the single most important change in tax policy since WWII was the change in dividend taxation proposed and passed by the Bush Administration and the Republican-led Congress. He said that the benefits are only starting to show, but that it will have many benefits, among which will be a change in corporate management's focus from maximizing stock price to simply making the business perform at its best and earn money.

His next book is the third in his series on competitive aspects of corporate behavior. I look forward to adding it to my bookshelf alongside the three I already own and have owned since their first editions.

Professor Porter also said that Kerry's proposal for adjusting tax policy to try to affect outsourcing was of negligible value. His greater concern, as is that of Bill Gates, is that the graduation rates of engineers and scientists are down, and that the ability of people with average levels of education (high school) to actually fill the many jobs that will be created in the future is low at best. Clearly we need fewer courses on self esteem, and more hard facts and emphasis on critical thinking skills.

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.

Charles Krauthammer its the nail on the head in this column Charles Krauthammer: Partisan Clarke

I think that Clarke enjoyed being President Clinton's source for the information Clinton received on terrorism, while knowingly or unknowingly insulating Clinton from criticism that he (Clinton) wasn't listening to his intelligence chiefs. Clinton could make public comments that implied toughness while remaining happily tied down by bureaucratic procedures involving DOJ, State, DOD and the NSC. Clarke blamed NSC chief Rice for his loss of direct access to the President under the Bush Administration. When Clarke did brief the President in a 1:1 meeting, his presentation centered on cyberterror, not bombings or hijackings. Clarke's knowledge of cyberterror has been found wanting by those in the know

Clarke appears to be a thin-skinned bureaucratic bully, skilled in playing and being played as long as he perceives the game is one he can win. However, by "sexing up" his charges against the Bush Administration in his book and before the 9/11 Commission while giving Clinton a pass, he's angered members of the Congressional Leadership enough that they may declassify portions of his testimony before Congress. While further besmirching his credibility--the small amount that remains--he could face Contempt of Congress charges. I find the legal danger somewhat unlikely, but Clarke is likely to wind up wishing he'd played it straight.

Gee, who would've thought that this analysis would have come from this source TIME.com: Richard Clarke, at War With Himself

After reading Rich Lowry's column Rich Lowry on Richard Clarke on National Review Online, I had these thoughts on the Clinton Administration's attitude on terrorism:

It is possible that President Clinton was fixated on trying to "Carterize" his legacy by moving the Middle East peace process forward at the end of his administration, and may well have been "distracted" due to his laser-like focus on the process (viewed somewhat favorably from Clinton's perspective) from rolling up al Qaeda. Perhaps his calculation was that an attack on al Qaeda wouldn't go down well with the Palestinians and their Arab allies, potentially sidetracking his effort. After all, the President hadn't really been called on the carpet for his failures to deal with terrorism; why worry now over the lives of a few sailors?

Also, it seems to me that the Clinton national security team was much more focused on process than results. Each new attack seemed to completely reset their deliberations, not add urgency and impetus towards an effective response.

One takeaway that these hearings have left me with is that another of the great failings of Clinton was his lack of faith in his ability to truly lead the American people towards an unpopular goal. Perhaps some of his advisors may have argued for reforms akin to the Patriot Act; some may have argued for more aggressive changes in diplomacy towards Pakistan and the other former Soviet countries surrounding Afghanistan that provided basing and other support after 9/11. He could have fired generals and/or his CIA, FBI and DOJ heads--anyone who wasn't pulling their weight towards solving the problem rather than finding excuses for inaction. He could have ordered a KH-11 to be tasked permanently over Afghanistan to watch for UBL instead of depending on the Predator and its limitations. He could have done a thousand things to demonstrate action over symbolism--his calculus seemed to be that the latter is always good enough for his image.

I find this article on the aftermath of 9/11 very interesting The New Yorker: Fact

Which Clarke is the real one? FOXNews.com - Politics - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Dick Clarke: channeler of Alexander Haig, as chronicled here New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

I missed Richard Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes yesterday. I watched his interview with Charlie Rose on his (Rose's) PBS show tonight. Here are the key points that I took away:
1) He believes that if the Bush Administration had heeded his advice, the FBI may have apprehended 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, possibly disrupting the plot--perhaps causing one of the four teams to abort.
2) The Bush Administration used too few troops in Afghanistan to cut off and capture bin Laden.
3) George Tenent of the CIA may privately agree with him, but probably won't say so until after he leaves government service.
4) He won't serve in a Kerry Administration, should we be cursed with same.
5) Had the Bush Administration followed his advice...had it not gone to war with Iraq (I'm not totally clear that he advised anyone on totally avoiding war with Iraq)...our security situation would be much better.
6) No one in the Bush Administration lied, but they came close to doing so.

My take on his assertions:
1) Pre-9/11, the Bush Administration was still operating under the Clinton Administration's dictum that the FBI and the CIA could not cooperate at the operational level to share information that could be used in domestic counterintelligence. Clarke says that Clinton officials had held high level meetings to "shake the tree" to get such information out that Clarke claims thwarted terrorist attacks going back to 1996. At least, that's the impression that he gave--that Clinton's NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was ignoring or countermanding Reno's order so that better inter-agency coordination could take place. He apparently feels that Condi Rice, Bush's NSC Director, should have listened to him and done the same. The Bush Administration says that the chatter that the intelligence services picked up in the first 8 months of 2001 indicated that attacks would come against US or allied interests overseas, not domestically. I don't know what other arguments he used in classified meetings with Administration officials, but it sounds like they were alert to a threat. Clarke doesn't deal with the issue of the FBI bureaucracy's poor handling of a low-level agent's reports on the terrorists' activities. Apparently, no chatter alerted anyone to activities involving aircraft, and still fewer "experts" would have believed that the goal of the terrorists was to crash the planes instead of holding the passengers as hostages. He seems to be on shaky ground.
2) I expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will comment on the Afghanistan strategy at some point. I believe--based on my reading of history--that the Bush Administration was mindful of the failure of the Soviet Union to conquer the country, despite deploying over 100,000 troops and planting one of the largest minefields in history. Fifteen thousand Soviet troops died during the 10-year conflict. The USSR withdrew in 1989 after reaching a face-saving agreement with the US that called for the ending of US support for the Mujahidin. Afghanistan suffered huge losses during the conflict: almost one million Afghanis died; five million more were forced to leave their homes.
The US Special Ops/Air Force approach destroyed the Taliban and resulted in destroying or capturing 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership. Whether we would have suffered unacceptable losses in a more massive buildup--a buildup that would have taken much more time to transport and stage prior to invasion--is a question that Clarke wasn't asked. We cannot know whether more troops would have meant immediate capture of bin Laden given the terrain and weather conditions during the period of the war. Again, Clarke doth protest too much.
3) If Tenent turns on the President, he'll betray a man who stood by him when many in Congress and around the country were (and are) looking for a head to chop off. The "failure" of pre-Iraq war intelligence arguments pointed to Tenent and his daily briefings of the President as a scapegoat for the "failure".
4) Good.
5) That's not clear. Clarke says that Dean was right, that we're no safer after the fall of Saddam. I disagree.
-- Saddam was corrupting the UN, and allied governments, to get sanctions lifted.
-- Saddam gave speeches (see the MEMRI site) praising his scientists for their research on nuclear weapons and other WMD programs. It appears that if he didn't have WMD programs, he had WMD experts in place ready to resume the programs once the sanctions were lifted.
-- Saddam hosted terrorist camps, and paid the families of Palestinian homicide bombers after their deaths in attacks on Israel.
-- Saddam was in a position to destabilize the supply of a crucial national resource used by the entire world--something he had done once before. He could damage the economies of the industrial world, and hold them hostage if he became powerful enough to stand against the West.
6) Don't think so. President Bush is a man who says what he means, and means what he says. I think that's true of the Vice President as well. No senior official would last long in this Administration if caught in a lie.

Richard Perle will appear on the Charlie Rose show tomorrow night to rebut Clarke's assertions. It should be a good one.

Richard "Dick" Clarke certainly has changed his tune on the administration's approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism. National Review magazine's blog, The Corner, excerpts a portion of an interview PBS's Frontline program conducted with Clarke in 2002 The Corner on National Review Online

National Review also carries the text of a White House document that contains responses to charges Clarke now levels against the Administration here

CBS didn't chalk up any points for journalistic integrity by failing to mention that Clarke's book, like Paul O'Neill's book, were published by CBS's parent company, Viacom. The publishing subsidiary, Simon & Schuster, also publishes books by James Carville, Paul Begala and other Clinton-friendly authors.

Read this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002759.html#002759

... then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002760.html#002760

... and then this http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002761.html#002761

These people don't mind ruling society under martial law, as long as they're the martials. I pray that they are never given the chance here. Their track record speaks for itself.

Take the test According to the "Which Big Lebowski character are you?" quiz:

Why don't you check it out? Or we cut of your Johnson!

Who knew that the 82nd Airborne has a men's chorus? The world's toughest "boy band" gave a great rendition of the national anthem at today's Nextel Cup event in Atlanta, followed by a slow flyover by a formation of 4 A-10 Warthogs. The Warthog is one of my favorite aircraft. This site A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II - Military Aircraft contains a great deal of information on the best tank killer in service today. As the A-10 pilots proudly say, "Go ugly early".

In honor of St. Patrick's month

Danny Boy

Oh Danny boy, the pipes,
the pipes are calling
From glen to glen,
and down the mountain side

The summer's gone,
and all the flowers are falling
'Tis you, 'tis you
must go and I must bide

But come ye back
when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed
and white with snow

And I'll be here
in sunshine or in shadow
Oh Danny boy, oh Danny boy,
I love you so

But if you come,
and all the flowers are falling
And I am dead,
as dead I may well be

You'll come and find
the place where I am lying
And kneel and say
an "Ave" there for me

And I will hear,
though soft your tread above me
And o'er my grave
will warmer sweeter be

And you will bend
and tell me that you love me
And I will sleep
in peace until you come to me

But if I live
and should you die for Ireland
Let not your dying thoughts
be just of me

But say a prayer to God
for our dearest Island
I know He'll hear
and help to set her free

And I will take your pike
and place my dearest
And strike a blow,
though weak the blow may be

Twill help the cause
to which your heart was nearest
Oh Danny Boy, Oh, Danny boy
I love you so.

After the terrorist attack on Spanish citizens on 3/11, it is worth rereading the remarks made by another world leader a few days after the seminal moment in America's battle with terrorism President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear"

¡Viva España!

I'm an enzyme, and now I've got a song

what's your cowboy bebop theme song?

You are an enzyme. You are powerful, dark,
variable, and can change many things at your
whim...even when they're not supposed to be
changed. Bad you. You can be dangerous or
wonderful; it's your choice.


Which Biological Molecule Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:04 PM
To: 'imus@msnbc.com'
Subject: Cover up?

Have you seen these articles?

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003264.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

If the identity of Col. Campenni can be confirmed, the bona fides of his account established, and the assertions laid out in Bill Hobbs' article confirmed, will you retract your charge that the President engaged in a cover up of his service in the Air National Guard? Perhaps the more appropriate charge would be that the President is guilty of allowing those partisans who choose to think the worst of the President to express their black thoughts, and thereby expose their small minds and shriveled hearts before the nation. I think much more of you than I do of that wasted poseur "Fat Teddy", Don.

I volunteered for the Air Force even though I wasn't drafted. It gave me a skill--computer programming--that I turned into a career. I've worked for two start ups as well as, EDS, Apple and Microsoft in my time. The biggest impression that any organization made on in all those years me was the Air Force. The men I served with there were bitter that they weren't allowed to use their full skills and the total power of the Air Force until Nixon authorized Linebacker II. Like the air operation in Afghanistan, the North Vietnamese air defenses were destroyed in days, its infrastructure and war making ability eviscerated, and the North Vietnamese leadership suddenly dropped their bravado and came to the table without pretense. This could have been done on Johnson's watch, or earlier in Nixon's, saving untold thousands of lives.

Veterans like Bush--love Bush--because he doesn't commit troops unless there are no shackles. Once sent to fight, we fight to win, and then to come home, not to die in vain attempts to bomb truck parks, defend non-strategic territory and defoliate the landscape. If the intelligence is bad, that's bad, and the root causes should be corrected. However, what if we'd acted on "bad intelligence" to take down Al Qaeda and the Taliban in August, 2001? Would you "blame America first" like the rest of the fat, smug self proclaimed intelligentsia?

This may be the last time that these real veterans rise up before passing the torch one final time. I predict that they and their brothers and sisters in every service will join them in their rebuke for Kerry and his ilk.

Kerry painted virtually every Vietnam veteran as a war criminal after his discharge. Let him explain himself, not to gatherings of photo op vets, but the thousands of real vets who remember being cursed and reviled, not only by the press and uniformed civilians, but by his "brothers" in uniform. They haven't forgotten the slander, and neither have the families of the POW/MIAs whose hopes for closure he dismissed. At last, Hanoi Jane and the VVAW will have their answer, and the humiliation and shame will be lifted from those shoulders that bore more than just the scars of battle. They suffered unfair curses from the very citizens that they in their innocence were sent by their nation to protect, like so many simple men and women in so many wars before.

The New York Air National Guard flies one of my favorite aircraft, the A-10 tank killer. This is the preeminent close air support fighter bomber, in my opinion. The pilots are brave men and women, some of whom may fly some of your listeners on commercial aircraft when they're not called to duty. President Bush's F 102 Delta Dagger was tasked with the defense of the homeland from a possible Soviet bomber attack. It wasn't meant for ground attack or bombing roles. That is the main reason why that group wouldn't have been called to duty in Vietnam. Lt. Bush had too little time remaining in his service commitment in 1972 to begin the years of training to become proficient on a new aircraft.

I think that he had to be pretty skilled to fly a supersonic interceptor. Taking your concentration from the controls of the twitchy Delta Dagger for a few seconds was a much more serious mistake than looking away from the dash of a Maybach.

I often watch your show when I pull an "all nighter" because I enjoy the humor and your conversations with most of your guests. In the future, I suggest that you take your own advice and just "shut up" until all the facts are in on such stories involving attempts at partisan character assassination of either candidate.

Best regards,

JDF
Tacoma, WA
USAF 1975-79

Lou Pinella's return to Seattle and SafeCo Field last night was, in a word, terrific. The crowd roared "Lou!" lustily. Lou's voice cracked with emotion as he thanked the fans during a brief ceremony before the game. TV shots of the crowd showed more than a few fans wiping a tear or holding hand-made signs expressing their thanks and love for Lou.

Lou spent ten years as Seattle's manager. Ten years doing anything is a rarity these days. Lou committed himself to building a successful organization, and demanded commitment to that same goal from his players and coaches. He is responsible for the team's ability to continue to succeed despite the departure of Tino Martinez, Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez.

Now the torch has been passed to Bob Melvin and his staff. It will be a testament to Bob, and to what Lou started, if the team continues to perform at the high level Lou set over the next decade. I hope that the fans will continue to turn out and show their love for the team.

Strong, vocal fan support can't be overrated. Anyone who's seen the energy of the Yankee fans during the playoffs can see how the Yankee players turn it up a notch time and again while often playing down to the competition during the regular season. Even the Angels fans with their annoying "thunder sticks" were a force to be reckoned with during the 2002 World Series.

Here's to you, Lou. May we all help carry the torch you lit for many years to come.

I'm delighted that Blogger fixed whatever was wrong with my blog. Thank you.

Thanks of another sort; with a much deeper meaning, go to the men and women of the armed forces. As a veteran, I teared up watching the President's speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln tonight. I served during an era when the military was vilified--hated as "baby killers". We weren't then, and we aren't now. Instead, we fight for freedom. Only the will of our leadership affects the outcome. In my day, Vietnam was not a war, but a battle of attrition. Only during the operation named "Linebacker II" was the Air Force allowed to project its true power. After less than two weeks, the North Vietnamese dropped their objections to the shape of the table, and other trivial matters, and earnestly agreed to an armistice so that their entire government would not disappear in a rain of iron bombs.

Today's warriors fight with a mixture of new and old. My favorite airplane, the mighty B-52, can perform close air support missions thanks to the JDAM and other precision guided munitions. The B-52--the BUFF--is older than most of its crews, and is nearly as old as I am. I expect it to serve longer than I will.

Tonight's speech reminds us of the dedication of our best, our young men and women, to the cause of freedom. We did not seek this conflict. Al Qaida and Saddam underestimated our President, and our nation. The President declares us victorious in the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in the war against terrorism. That war goes on, as does our resolve.

God bless America.

I don't know why I bother, but I occasionally watch The West Wing on NBC. Tonight's episode included a conversation between a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and "Toby Ziegler" about reinstating the draft in order to somehow make the military more racially and economically balanced. They also said that military service was the only choice for some; the other choice would be a McDonalds uniform.

Well, according to this article, it appears that the composition of the military is diverse. It may not match the exact ratios of the racial composition of the nation according to the census. However, everyone enlisted serves by choice. There are no deferments for the elite; no draft dodgers. The level of professionalism of today's force is far greater than the Vietnam era military.

I became a computer programmer while serving in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. I learned my skills well enough to join EDS, then a company known as Raychem, then Doelz Networks (a data communications startup), Apple Computer, GO Corporation (a pioneer in pen-based computing), and finally Microsoft. I would never have achieved what I did without that founding experience in the Air Force.

I served with all sorts of people during those years. It was tough; Vietnam had just ended, the economy was bad, almost anything was more popular than the military. However, if anything, our isolation had a positive effect. All of us felt a strong bond with one another. It was the closest experience to the feeling that I get from my family that I've ever felt.

NBC doesn't provide e-mail addresses for The West Wing on its web site--at least, that I could find. I'd certainly like to give them a piece of my mind on this issue. Shilling for Charlie Rangel's loony draft reinstatement idea makes no more sense in Bartlett-land than it does in real life.

Perhaps their overt left slant during these times accounts for their ratings decline. Or perhaps it's for this reason href="http://espn.go.com/page2/s/merron/021024.html"

So the die is cast. Saddam and his sons—plus, I imagine, some of his other toadies—must either leave Iraq within the next 48 hours, or there will be war.

The aftermath of the President’s speech leaves a bitter resolve in the pit of one’s stomach. The most solemn duty a President can perform is to send America’s sons and daughters to war. The President and his advisors have determined that Saddam possesses weapons not seen on a battlefield since WWI—if then, and that he must be disarmed either voluntarily or by force, and according to the polls, most American’s agree with him. Nearly 300,000 American, British, Australian, Czech, Bulgarian, Albanian troops and support personnel—and with the inclusion of other support arrangements, a force comprised of about 30 countries or more in total—are arrayed against Saddam’s regime. All of these forces will act at a time of the President’s choosing, should Saddam not leave immediately.

How must Chirac and the weak leadership of Germany feel tonight? Defiant? Maybe. Fearful of being caught out in lies? Possibly. It appears that Saddam is at least giving the appearance that he will use chemical and biological weapons by issuing chemical/bio protection suits to his troops and moving artillery and chemical/bio capable shells near to our troops in Kuwait. If Saddam’s officers are foolish enough to use them, several things will no longer be in question, if they ever really were:
1) Saddam lied repeatedly when he claimed to have destroyed any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This past weekend, Saddam spoke to Iraqi TV viewers
admitting that Iraq had such weapons for "defensive purposes" against Iran.
2) World opinion will switch overwhelmingly in favor of the coalition of the willing, led by the US.
3) Should the war crimes trials be televised, they will rivet viewers to their sets beyond anything seen ever, including the "O. J. trial".
4) Chirac and his "coalition of weasels" will lose all credibility among those who give more than a cursory thought to these issues.
5) Tony Blair’s popularity will rise, and his career will be secure.
6) Should the war be fought successfully, and should the President be able to use his popularity to pass his stimulus package in Congress, he will be unbeatable in 2004.
7) Kim Jung Il will pull in his horns somewhat. The presence of one Trident submarine, which I can only imagine is somewhere in the Sea of Japan right now, is enough of a counterforce element to trump Kim’s two fission technology nukes. Add to that the failure of Kim’s recent ballistic missile test, the movement of Air Force fighters and bombers to the region, the movement of anti-missile weapons to Japan, and the face-saving shipment of food stocks from the UN to the region, it seems reasonable to expect that Kim will remain quiet for a time in the face of a display of American military power unfettered by the indecisive controls of a LBJ or a Bill Clinton.
8) France should be held accountable by any country whose soldiers or populace suffer casualties from chemical or biological weapons or through any additional preparations that Iraq made as a result of the delays caused by French "diplomacy". Now those are reparations I’d like to see paid in full.

I just watched part of Bill Maher's show on HBO. The estimable Dennis Miller was on, along with Arianna Huffington and a strikingly beautiful woman listed as a “Fox News analyst”. Well, I’ve seen Dennis on Leno, and he could have laid Huffington out flatter than Saddam will be in a week’s time, but he didn’t. A gentleman’s discretion? Or just letting the statements of the hypocrite speak for themselves?

Apparently Huffington owned a SUV last year, but now, she says, no one should own one. Oh, that’s good; the elitist deigns to tell us what to do again. She tried to help her husband, Michael Huffington, become a Senator from California in 1992—they were unable to buy the seat. I’ll let Paula Poundstone take it from here.

Obviously, Arianna has found the Democratic party’s point of view to be the most advantageous to her now—at least, she reasons, she can get the most TV time by pretending to be a Democrat.

Although Dennis didn’t “lay the smack down” on Arianna as fully as I think he could have, I’ll take 1 Miller over 50 Huffingtons any day.

Where can criminals score big heists easily? Why, from jail, of course!

It's not quite the equal of the theft of the Salvador Dali painting from Rikers Island men's prison in New York, but Seattle is trying its best. A sum of $10,000 in cash--part of a $20,000 bond from an accused drug dealer--was stolen today from a jail safe here.

This “editorial” is crap.

Once again, as a former Georgian, I am ashamed to have asked my father to vote for Carter for Governor. I voted for Ford for President, at least.

Let’s examine the “editorial” in more detail. I’ve copied Mr. Carter’s New York Times “Op-Ed” in plain text; my comments are italicized.

Just War — or a Just War?


By JIMMY CARTER


Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

Our nation fought two wars against England, and counted France as an ally. No “NGO” authorized our revolution according to Mr. Carter’s criteria. No restraints were placed on the efforts of the combatants other than their willingness to suffer losses and expend treasure. Little in the way of international law existed at that time, other than “to the victor go the spoils”.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

This is my favorite paragraph. Mr. Carter cannot resist a slap against his former colleagues in the Southern Baptist Convention. Little has been written about the opinions on the ward that the Southern Baptists hold in the mainstream press, at least the press that appears outside of Plains. Perhaps some readers of this “editorial” will be curious enough to find out what those religious leaders believe we should do, or not do, as concerns Iraq.

I was in the Air Force from 1975 until 1979. Mr. Carter was concerned with weighty defense issues such as repainting parking lots for diagonal parking instead of straight in parking, at least as far as I can recall at Randolph AFB in Universal City, TX. His “leadership” left the Shah of Iran to the mercies of the Iranian mullahs, resulting in the first religious dictatorship in the region. He showed impotence in the face of a clear attack upon US diplomats, allowing them to rot in Iranian custody for over 400 days. If ever a President was presented with the causus belli for “a just war”, it was him. President Reagan would have used our sovereign power to rescue those people immediately, as would both Presidents Bush 41 and 43.

Mr. Carter is a coward who cloaks himself in self-righteousness and hypocrisy. I love seeing him nailing together homes for the poor and needy; he should stick to what he knows. Appropriate application of military power is as foreign a concept to him as how to focus on large strategic concepts instead of piddling details.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

Mr. Carter would have done nothing to stop September 11th even if he had precise knowledge of the events on September 10th. Endless wrangling and delay has created a split between the US and its “allies”—France, Germany, Russia and China—who are acting like opportunistic hucksters. When the war is over, and the records of the Saddam dictatorship are opened for all to see, the source of Saddam’s war material and technology in recent years will be found among these four “allies”.

Israel exists today because it acted in 1967 before the Arab nations could launch their attack. Israel was nearly destroyed in the Yom Kippur war because it failed to take action on information available to it before the Arabs attacked. America was thrust into WWII by an attack that may have been foreseeable, but was not prevented by measures to alert our forces or assume defensive postures to warn the Japanese that a sneak attack would be impossible. By Mr. Carter’s “logic”, our policemen would have to wait until a gunman fired on them before using force to defend themselves.

Would Mr. Carter have us wait until Saddam reaches the level of North Korea, the level where clear possession of weapons of mass destruction would embolden him to thumb his nose at the world and dare us to act? Where he could pursue his mad dreams of becoming the second coming of Saladin and arming terrorists to attack the US with his WMD, or to threaten our national interests in strategic places throughout the world? Aren’t twelve years and seventeen UN resolutions, meek cruise missile attacks and responses to anti-aircraft radar enough to have exhausted anyone’s reasonable definition of diplomatic efforts?

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

No sane person wants war for the sake of war. No sane person wants innocent lives to be lost by accident. The weapons that we will use are many times more accurate than those used in the Gulf War. However, Saddam deliberately positions some military targets near civilian sites in the hope to deter us, or to create “photo ops” to discredit us as indiscriminate killers.

It is the nature of war that some innocent lives will be lost. Our apparent strategy is to use massive firepower to shock and overwhelm Saddam’s forces in order to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion with minimum loss of life on both sides. I pray that we are successful in that regard more than anything.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

Nope. Apparently Mr. Carter was playing with his slide rule during War College. Our attack must be massive. It must cause the world to gasp in awe. Dictators and terrorists the world over must know, once and for all, that the way to engage the free world is not down the path of war, but through serious negotiation with real outcomes.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The last time Congress had the fortitude to declare war was in WWII. The resolution that authorized the President to act after September 11th is as close as we’ll come to such a declaration. The people voted last November, Mr. Carter, and they didn’t give the Democratic Party majorities in either house of Congress, nor in most state houses.

Our President, as he said this past week, swore an oath to protect the Constituition of the US and the people of our nation. He is not the president of some toothless NGO, and our foreign policy is not determined by the UN.

If we have to occupy Iraq for a time, I hope that we will do so in the spirit of the Marshall Plan and General McArthur’s efforts to restore Japan. The Marshall Plan cost ~$13 billion in late 1940s dollars. I’m sure that you would agree that it was a worthwhile investment in the future of civilization.

As Mr. Carter showed during his presidency, mastery of economics was and is not his strong suit. If the real motivation for the war was “about oil”, the President would only have to leave the situation as it is, without bringing an end to the crisis. The commodity markets hate uncertainty, and the rise in oil prices reflects the uncertainties of supply in the Middle East and in Venezuela. As in 1991, oil prices will decline swiftly once hostilities end and non-Iraqi suppliers bring their production back from temporary suspension.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

The Plains press has your knickers in a knot, Mr. Carter. How could the situation NOT be a clear improvement? Another haven for terrorists will be denied them, not to mention technology and funding. The Iraqi people, perhaps the best educated in the region before Saddam turned rogue, will be free to express themselves politically and economically. Our President has said that we will not stay a day longer than necessary. Would you condemn the citizens of Iraq to endless butchery and torture at the tender mercies of Saddam?

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Doing what must be done, despite the wrangling of those who would ensnare us in a bureaucracy run by Poodles, will gain us the respect of our people and of freedom loving people everywhere. Once despots and criminals learn that the United States is a country of principle, and of its word, they will fear to challenge us, and will lose respect among those they hope to attract to their cause. Weakness breeds weakness, Mr. Carter. Do you feel guilty for the weakness shown in your policy towards Iran, and the chain of events caused by it?

I am astonished that members of Congress, including one loony Senator, believe that bringing back the military draft is a good idea. Personally, I believe that the voluntary force has been a boon to our services. It has made overall morale higher, racial tensions have virtually disappeared, and the quality of the efforts made by the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are much higher.

One of the "reasons" for reinstituting the draft is to limit the President's ability to go to war! In my opinion, there can be no greater lunacy in these times than to propose anything to reduce the effectiveness of our national defense. If Senator Holling's dallying with Hollywood over copyright--in favor of Big Media--wasn't anti-consumer and against the public interest enough, this proposal should clinch it. The good people of South Carolina need to rid us of this idiot. As for Charlie Rangel, he seems to have lost his way after he failed to help his candidates win in NY. This seems a very cynical way to grab the spotlight again, Congressman. Find another issue to harp on; leave our national defense policy in the hands of those who understand what they're doing.

I listened to Secretary Powell's speech to the UNSC today, and I am impressed. I was already in favor of using force to overthrow Saddam. With the amount of evidence presented today--and we can only guess at the larger mountain of evidence that the government must have in its pocket to avoid revealing national technical means of gathering intelligence--I can only hope that reasonable Americans and citizens of other countries can only conclude that Saddam must go.

Thank God for George Bush, Colin Powell, and the rest of the Bush administration. Clinton dropped a few bombs filled with concrete in 1998 after the inspectors were expelled. We now have adults running the show. Saddam, as Arnold said in Raw Deal (1986), "Resign, or be prosecuted".

Please, Saddam, let us prosecute us with the full fury of our armed forces.

The loss of the space shuttle Columbia has affected the entire nation in a profound way. While some are calling for a total reexamination of the shuttle program—and perhaps, its termination—popular opinion seems to be on the side of continuation of the manned space program.

Despite the obvious risks, it seems equally obvious that humans are far better equipped than machines to perform tasks that require immediate decisions based on unforeseen data. For example, the painfully slow exploration of the Mars Lander—remarkable, to be sure—was limited to a tiny area that a man could traverse in a few steps. That same man could evaluate the locations of the most interesting rock formations in moments, not minutes—assuming the Lander’s camera would have been high enough and oriented correctly to see them.

In my opinion, the most deserved criticism of the shuttle program is that the vehicle is too expensive to operate and too limiting for the varieties of missions we should be focused on in the future. Jerry Pournelle, a scientist and science fiction writer whose writings I have enjoyed for many years in Byte magazine and in books has argued for decades that more specialty vehicles should be built according to the purpose they are meant to serve. Here is a sample of the debate on Jerry’s web site:

Whether the concept of a “single stage to orbit” spaceship is realistic or not, these things are true about today’s shuttle program:
1) The ship has a 50,000-pound payload capacity. Most of its missions have lifted less than half that amount. Using the shuttle to loft ant farms to orbit makes far less sense than using a Hummer H1 as a daily commute vehicle.
2) Lifting humans to the space station is expensive in the shuttle, and with no escape capabilities like the old Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo ships had, is very dangerous.
3) The shuttle was built in the era of 8086-based CPUs and decades-old knowledge of aircraft design for high temperature environments. However, the contractors who support the shuttle, and the Congressmen whose states and districts benefit from space, seem concerned only with continuing the status quo. Each shuttle flight costs about $500 million—so expensive that only four or five missions are launched each year, instead of the $5 per week that was promised at the inception of the program.
4) If we can produce a ship that cuts payload-lifting costs dramatically, more private sector companies will be interested in exploring the possibilities of space-based research and manufacturing. That would further cut costs to the taxpayer since businesses would partly defray the costs of flights, not simply feed at the public trough.
5) It is arguable that the shuttle’s famous recoverable and reusable booster rockets have not been a success, and while environmentally PC, are not economical to continue. Sadly, one report on the foam insulator that flaked away from the shuttle’s fuel tank and apparently damaged the shuttle’s left wing indicates that a CFC-free foam was substituted from a more robust foam originally used in order to comply with a NASA goal to use more environmentally safe products. Surely the levels of pollution produced are miniscule compared to the dangers to the crew and spacecraft. Here’s more on the controversy:

NASA’s budget has decreased over the past decade when expressed in constant dollars. Continuing to spend the money in the same way without reexamining the goals of the program and the risks involved invite more disasters in the future, not to mention limiting the returns from diverse approaches and missions. Fourteen of the brightest, bravest humans the world has ever produced have been lost on this spacecraft. We owe their colleagues to provide the safest purpose-built system for manned missions to space we can build. We owe ourselves, and future generations, returns for our investment in space research and exploration that pay dividends for humanity, not just for a select group of contractors.

Hmmm...perhaps this is related to this interesting development. How many casual supporters of the environmental movement would support restricting the military's ability to train and prepare properly for the conflicts that face us around the world? I hope this story gets plenty of attention, and that readers understand the dangers such potential training restrictions are to the safety of the men and women in our ared forces.

Gov. George Ryan of Illinois commuted all of the death sentences of inmates in the state currently serving death sentences on Saturday. As one report termed it, his act “…spared the lives of 163 men and four women who have served a collective 2,000 years for the murders of more than 250 people.”

I understand that the Governor is concerned about the flaws in his state’s criminal justice system and the possibility of error leading to the death of an innocent person, or at least the death of someone who should not be judged guilty of crimes meriting that level of punishment.

I have no problem with people who oppose the death penalty. I certainly do not want the criminal justice system to put anyone to death who is not guilty of the crime that they stand convicted of.

Our system provides for the right of appeal, especially in capital cases. However, the people of Illinois established a set of laws that provide for the death penalty if the system—the jury, the judge, the appellate courts—agree on the application of that penalty for the crime. Dismissal of those judgments should not be left solely to one man, no matter how well intended--or how guilty--his actions may be.

If Governor Ryan felt that the death penalty was wrong, he should have found a way for Illinois’ voters to affirm or reject his argument. He did not run for reelection as Governor. Apparently, his conduct while serving as Secretary of State might not sit right with the voters. He may be found guilty and serve time in prision himself.

Governor Ryan could have taken one or more of the following actions:
- approve a sum of money to review the DNA and other available evidence for each death row inmate to ensure that no effort to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals was spared. The vote of the legislature, or a vote of the people on an initiative, would have supported his position.
- propose a law or an initiative to ban the death penalty, and to make it retroactive to all those serving on death row at the time the initiative or law came up for a vote.
- sue the state government to declare the state’s death penalty law unconstitutional.
- he could have run for a second term on a “no death penalty” platform to allow the voters to express their will.

Governor Ryan may feel that his conscience is clean. The family and friends of the victims of the murderers whose sentences were commuted must feel rage beyond words. The voters must feel cheated of their chance to express their opinions on one of the most important issues of the day.

For what it's worth, I wrote letters to the editors of both the Seattle P-I and the Tacoma News Tribune in response to articles that ran in each paper last week decrying the use of depleted uranium in military munitions. Now the great Instapundit has heard of the P-I story.

Here's my letter, sent last Friday:

To the Editor,

I agree with the article's implication that contamination of the ocean with radioactive material would alarm fishermen and consumers alike. However, I hope you will take the time to do further research on the actual level of danger to the public.

The article correctly states that depleted uranium remains radioactive for approximately 4.5 billion years. Basically, the time period you refer to is the radioactive half-life of the material. The half-life for a given radioisotope is the time for half the radioactive nuclei in any sample to undergo radioactive decay. After two half-lives, there will be one fourth the original sample, after three half-lives one eighth the original sample, and so on.

For example, Plutonium is one of the most highly radioactive materials on earth--so much so that it is not normally found in nature, but is created by man through atomic fission. Plutonium's half-life is approximately 24,000 years (Knapp, Brian, Nuclear Physics, 1996). The end of the decay process results in a material that is stable, like lead.

In fact, depleted uranium's long half life makes it useful for radiation shielding! Some DU applications include use in medical isotope casks, radioactive source shields, tank armor, and ammunition for the CIWS (AKA Phalanx) and the A-10 aircraft used by the Air Force and National Guard.

The real "danger" of DU is not radioactivity, but toxicity. Uranium is a heavy metal, like arsenic, cadmium, barium, zinc, lead and mercury. Given the small number of rounds fired during the tests you reported, the level of toxic exposure in a given area of the sea is virtually statistically insignificant. Ironically, the lead weights that fishermen use to hold down their baited hooks and nets are much more commonly deposited in the ocean environment than DU. Perhaps your next story can sensationalize that danger?

One of the best articles on the risks of exposure to DU is a recent study by the British Royal Society--the summary is all you need to read.

I happened to see a portion of Sean Penn's appearance on Larry King Weekend tonight--you can read the transcript if you like. Sean and Larry were talking about Sean's recent trip to Iraq. They discussed his reasons for going on the trip, how he came to be invited to go in the first place, his feelings on war, his feelings on News Corp.'s media properties, whether actors should speak out on political issues, and his future as an actor and a director. I came away with several impressions of Sean, and I have a few suggestions for things he should consider as he moves forward as a "political celebrity".
- He feels guilty about his success in what is a frivolous occupation, and wishes he could make a greater contribution to the world.
- He spends lots of time talking with journalists and other lefty friends who he trusts to provide "stubborn facts" for his consideration.
- He has thin skin. Bill O'Reilly's show and News Corp.'s media have really gotten to him.
- He has more than a passing acquaintance with the drug culture. His fractured syntax and thought jumps show some fried synaptic connections are in his brain case. He thinks the drug war was and is a failure, of course.
- Our leadership of the coalition that defeated Iraq in 1991 means that we are responsible for the terrible burden that sanctions have placed on the Iraqi people.
- Our motives for going to war are suspect, and war may create a new generation of people who hate America. His children may grow up to face that generation at some future day, if mankind doesn't erase itself from the earth in this generation.
- We need to provide more data on the threat to our country. We have the technology--sort of like that "CSI" show--to find his hidden weapons like needles in a haystack.

I think that it would be worth Sean's time to consider these points so that he can feel he's dealt with the issue in a "fair and balanced" way.
- Iraq's citizens suffer under the yoke of a brutal madman who has destroyed their country's economy and world standing. They starve in part because UN sanctions limit trade, and in part because the state treasure that is earned goes to build grand palaces for Saddam--as well as monuments, mosques, and entertainment--as well as to purchase dual use materials and technologies to reconstruct his weapons programs.
- South Africa lived under sanctions for a time, and was embraced as a noble member of the world community when it finally acted to comply with the sanctions placed against it. Iraq could have provided food, shelter, and better education for its people for years had it done the same. It is interesting that there was no outcry by the left against the conditions forced upon South Africans by sanctions. Perhaps that was because that country's leadership was not so evil as to oppress its people while denying itself nothing under the terms of the sanctions, as Saddam's thuggish government does.
- If Saddam is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, will he be more, or less, likely to intimidate his neighbors and threaten Israel with destruction while daring the US and its allies to act? Will his children be safer if we do nothing?
- If decisive steps had been taken in the 90s to stop North Korea--destroying or forcing the destruction of its reactors and nuclear facilities while providing funds to build replacement power generation systems--would we be facing the threat to our interests and our allies in the Far East today? Some might call this the "pay me now, or pay me later" decision.
- I agree with Jerry Pournelle, who says that we should build some "monuments" in the Middle East that show the extent of our power to act as a reminder of our willingness to meet force--whether by armies or terrorists--with overwhelming force. Those monuments should contain a statement that we have no designs on territory and that we are willing to leave them alone as long as they do not export their war to our shores, to our citizens living abroad, and/or to the borders of our allies.
- Unfortunately, despite the paranoia of druggies everywhere, "the man" doesn't have spies everywhere. Our human intelligence assets were depleted in the 70s and further drained under Clinton. Finding Iraq's buried weapons requires feet on the street as well as electronic snooping. But one thing is already apparent: the inspectors aren't able to find the items they found--artillery shells filled with gas agents, manufacturing equipment, etc.--that they found prior to 1998. That's the "baseline" issue that Blix referred to in his full comments that were aired last week by news agencies that reported more than the "money quote". Is the gun beginning to smoke a bit, Sean?
- Scott Ritter is a punk, and a disgrace to the Marine Corps. He took money from an Iraqi stooge to fund his lecture tour. His absence from the airwaves is an indication that even the press find his conversion from hawk to dove spurious.
- If Iraq is polluting the Tigris with 500,000 gallons of sewage a day and can't afford to repair its infrastructure to provide safe water for its people, please ask Saddam about the money he's using for the purposes mentioned in my first point above. Of course, Saddam has already shown his environmental credentials back when he had the Kuwaiti oil wells blown up. Quite a clean up project that was, run by mostly American firms. Made a nice IMAX movie that would be worth your time to watch. Maybe we'll help the people of Iraq rebuild after the war as we helped the Germans and Japanese after WWII, the war my father fought in. What was your comment in the interview? "Probably would have fought in -- would aspire to be able to say I would have fought in World War II. ".

Hoo-rah.