Are you including the United Nations among the totally gullible Usual Suspects? The UN wants to investigate this site. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_816736,00.html
“Congratulations!”
:beams maternally: Thank you.
Well elucidator, I’ll leave the task of defending le Chirac against Francophobia to your able hands.
But on this matter of what we have lost the moral highground to, let me suggest an example a bit closer to home. How about losing the moral highground to our own history?
The case that particularly comes to mind is JFK’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis in a way that defended US interests, averted nuclear war, and won the support of the world. (And yes, this followed on the embarrassing Bay of Pigs fiasco, and yes he did not keep us out of Vietnam.)
Although I’m not quite old enough to have seen Adlai Stevenson at the UN, I know enough about it to vastly prefer such a moment to Rummy’s inept dissing of “Old Europe,” or even Powell’s more politic but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to insist on war now when a compromise was clearly in order.
In JFK’s day, the French couldn’t get enough of Jackie, and the president of the US was ready to tell the Germans that he was proud to be “ein Berliner” (so what if he inadvertently called himself a hot dog?). Although Kennedy was far from perfect, he had a Wilsonian vision of extending human rights in which international cooperation was a chief strategy, and war (however imperfectly) a last resort.
In addressing the Cold War, in the peaceful cessation of which he played a prominent role, he said these famous words:
“For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal? But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together”.
To me, however imperfect, that was a highground to be proud of. And the preemptive doctrine seems like a precipitous and terrible fall.
Note: no question mark after “mortal” in that quotation: just some weird cut-and-paste fluke.
Good point Mandelstam, good point. Ultimately, what is good diplomacy in the final analysis? In my book, it’s the peaceful application of “skilled manipulation” to achieve a goal which otherwise might be achieved through violence.
Part of President Kennedy’s aura nowadays is built upon his charismatic ways - the ability to be both a very naughty lad AND a great statesman. And charisma will nail such a thing for you - no doubt.
And yet, concurrently, his extra-marital exploits would have never have survived the modern era’s intrusive press scrutiny - nor his somewhat embarassing links to various mobsters etc through just being too few steps removed etc…
Hence, the modern era’s incredibly intrusive analytical scrutiny results in men who have to appear to be beyond “sqeaky clean” - and ultimately, I’m not sure if this is wise trend. After all, of all the things I like to see in a great leader - no matter what the country - it’s charisma and humanity.
I would cautiously suggest that the appearance of President Bush on the modern political landscape is as much a function of the surreal electoral and scrutiny process as anything else. I’m not sure a JFK could get elected these days - and he almost didn’t if I remember. His win over Nixon was pretty close.
Elucidator,
Thanks for the reseach on Bill Gertz. I noticed the Washington Times source on the first link but I wasn’t sure about the second link. I thought it might be an article orginally printed in some decent American paper so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I am guessing from the TWT at the bottom that it’s also from the Washington Times. It’s remarkable isn’t it how these officials never seem to be able to get quality newspapers to print their allegations?
I think JFK’s reputation as a womanizer is wildly exaggerated, and I suspect it was a rumor that was slyly cultivated to give him a “one of the guys” kind of angle that would otherwise be out of the reach of an rich, elitist Easterner. Plus, he was really much too sick most of the time to do much studding around.
And his reputation as a liberal, as a staunch proponent of civil rights, is wildly exaggerated. He wasn’t as much a racist as Lyndon Johnson. But he didn’t think he was a racist, and he was, while Lyndon knew he as a racist, and did the right thing anyway. LBJ did the heavy lifting, JFK just flirted with civil rights.
But I agree that Cuba showed he was made of stern stuff, but he had a couple advantages: he knew what we didn’t know, which was that the Soviet Unions ICBM’s were weak. Plus, he knew that Kruschev knew that as well. In a nuclear exchange, we would get hurt, but Russia would get creamed. He gambled and won. (I was living on an Air Force base at the time, and I remember every moment.)
The more interesting story is how Curtis LeMay tried to start WWIII by provoking the Russians.
Your first instinct was correct, your last statement wasn’t. The Washington Times story follows up on and relates the substance of an editorial by William Safire of the New York Times. The editorial is called The French Connection. There is a sequel.
and what dramatic moments those were luc. Brutal dictators with WMD confronted with real evidence by Adlai Stevenson.
These days it is an American Sec’y of State using a 10 year Master’s thesis and clumsily forged documents at the Security Council.
Mandelstam, my apologies, ma’am.
And congratulations to you and your progeny. To you, for the joyous occassion, to your baby, for getting a him/herself a heck of a smart Mom.
And to you, elucidator, Diogenes, and the many others that have the patience to try to engage the vassals of Big Brother Dubya with common sense, my hat’s off to all of you. But I doubt you’ll make a dent – it’s like talking to automatons.
Beagle,
William Safire’s columns are hardly very credible either. He spent months trying to push a story about a meeting between Atta and Iraqi officials in the Czech republic before that story fizzled out.
By “printed in some decent American newspapers” I meant it its reports not its op-ed pages. Clearly the latter don’t have the same standards when it comes factual accuracy especially from someone as unreliable as Safire.
Is anybody here worried some secret US “dirty ops” commando might plant some anthrax somewhere in the desert?
I mean, the pressure on the US Govt and military is inmense !
Finding just a trace of anthrax would relieve a lot of that pressure. ( Not in my eyes, but well…)
On the other hand, is invading a country and killing thousands of innocent men, women and children a valid means of finding out if Saddam has a few barrels of mustard gas !!??
If the US says it is, end of story.
That’s Amerikkkan democracy for you.
Actually the fact that these stories are only being pushed by the right-wing usual suspects is an indication that they are probably not widely believed even within the government. If they were, they would be appearing in the front pages of the Washington Post and NY Times. These stories are probably being pushed by the neo-cons who can’t persuade independent reporters and have to make do with right-wing cheerleaders like Safire.
I might add, appart from killing thousands of innocent civilians…
- the lives of hundreds of american and british troops
- the lives of thousands of iraqi soldiers
- hundreds of billions of dollars for military deployment
- a few billion for “reconstruction” (occupation)
- destruction of arquitectural cultural heritage
People do throw around too many absolutes around here.
As it relates to the OP, it can probably be agreed on that Saddam was not welcoming to weapons inspectors, and it can be assumed he had WMD’s to hide.
This chemical plant was well-hidden and never shown to the weapons inspectors. It seems unlikely to me that the Iraqi’s would have gone through the trouble if it were an innocent plant. Stranger things have happened, though, so it wouldn’t shock me to death if this was misleading.
I agree with AZCowboy on the legality of this war. The “legal system” (UN) could not or would not enforce it’s laws over the past decade, so why shouldn’t the US refute it’s laws too when the cause seems just to them?
I disagree that the UN should stay afloat no matter the cost. It doesn’t have enough successes to justify that statement.
-k
Uh, Kempis, you’ve misunderstood my position (or purposely misrepresented it, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). The fact that the UN or the ICJ won’t enforce international law does not justify the actions of this administration.
And if you don’t think the UN has had enough successes, what body/organization/country has a better track record? Which has a greater potential?
[sub]OK, December, what’s your point? JP started this mess, and this article doesn’t even mention chemical weapons.[/sub]
My point is to update the news. Yes, the JP had the earliest report on this item. In fact, this same reporter, Carolyn Glick, also wrote the earlier article. So what? Apparently she has a source in the US military.
Your point that the article doesn’t mention chemical weapons is a good pickup. Still, the possibility of chemical weapons seems to be implied by the words, “suspected chemical site” and “the sensitive status of the site.”
Kempis:
“I disagree that the UN should stay afloat no matter the cost. It doesn’t have enough successes to justify that statement.”
I promise you will change your tune when the bill for reconstruction comes back.
The UN may have stumbled at times in security issues, but there has been no organization with anything even close to its success rate at rebuilding.
The US is presently more isolated than at any time in the past century. Does the US also want to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction? Even Bush, after giving the UN the finger, has only asked congress for $75b, which covers NONE of the reconstruction costs – the assumption being that others will help pay for it.
But back to the topic. From today:
"The U.S. and British accusations that Baghdad was hiding chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs were the reason most commonly cited by Washington for attacking Iraq. The credibility of those claims was undercut, however, by disclosures of forgery and misrepresentation underlying some of them, and by the failure of U.S. intelligence reports to lead U.N. inspectors to any important finds.
"If U.S. units now quickly report uncovering concealed arms programs, critics may question the authenticity of the reports or suggest that intelligence had been kept from the U.N. inspectors — and ask why.
“If few such weapons are found, the war’s very premise will come under question.”
Well, I was quoting Diogenes, who is a very active poster, so I thought this would be difficult. However, I did quickly come across this thread started by him that argues Saddam doesn’t have WMD’s.
Is it clear now? Your apology will be accepted graciously.
But, if it does turn out to contain chemical weapons then it doesn’t matter, right? Or would you then be for the war?
Well, this war has 75% of the American people in favor of it. The last gulf war had 80% in favor of it. How do you explain this if your reasons provided in bold above are why people are against this war?
None of these reasons apply to the first war, yet nearly the same amount of people were against it.
My guess is that about 5% of people are believers in the reasons you stated. The other 20%, of which Diogenes is a member, would be against any war regardless of the circumstances. Just like they are against the first gulf war, they are against the second.