Current Comments
Mohammed Saeed Sahhahahaha can't get arrested April 30, 2003
(This item is quoted from OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web, Apr. 29)
There may be a TV gig in Mohammed Saeed "Comical Ali" al-Sahaf's future. Reuters reports the head of a Dubai-based satellite station says Sahaf, Iraq's hugely entertaining former "information minister," is "welcome to join the network immediately as a commentator and analyst." Reuters also picks up a report on Sahaf's whereabouts:
A London-based Arabic newspaper reported . . . [he] was now holed up with his aunt in Baghdad and wanted the Americans to arrest and protect him.
The report said Sahaf had left the northern city of Mosul four days ago and was staying at his aunt's house in the capital's Palestine Street.
It quoted a representative of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) who said that U.S. troops had refused to take Sahaf into custody because he did not figure on the American most-wanted list, but that negotiations were continuing.
It's somehow fitting that this would-be TV star can't even get himself arrested.
Inspectors stumbled? April 23, 2003
I found Hans Blix's wording interesting when he remarked yesterday that the Coalition had not yet "stumbled onto" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He must have been thinking of what his team was doing. The Coalition team is not "stumbling around" as Blix did; it is doing a thorough search, and while it hasn't turned up a "smoking gun" yet, it sounds as though it's getting close. Based on recent reports, it is also getting substantial information from interviews with Iraqis formerly involved with Iraq's WMD programs, and the interviews, as one official put it, "are not voluntary this time."
Mohammed Saeed Sahhahahaha April 9, 2003
Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf must be one of the sorriest players in the Iraq war. It's too bad in a way he's gone; he was getting funnier by the day. Cartoonists should have a field day with this guy.
Human shills March 3, 2003
I see the "human shields" have decided to come home before the shooting starts. It doesn't make sense, for one thing because Saddam's move to disperse his military assets into civilian areas would have maximized their "shielding" effect. I guess that wasn't the point, after all. As one said: "We got a lot of publicity."
Questions for the French March 2, 2003
Saddam Hussein is acting out the gambit he's been using ever since inspections began 12 years ago: tossing out a few crumbs of compliance whenever the pressure becomes too great, only to relax when the pressure deflates, as it always has. Who can blame him? It has worked perfectly, and if the French and Germans get their way, it will this time, too.
The pressure on Saddam right now is greater than ever before because of the massed U.S. troops on his borders, and anyone who doesn't recognize that his degree of compliance, such as it is, is driven entirely by the military threat has been asleep all this time. Nevertheless, the French fasten on each crumb as evidence that "inspections are working" and insist that inspections should continue.
The 800-pound gorilla in the parlor room that they're doggedly ignoring is how to keep the pressure up under their plan. I have yet to see any diplomat or reporter confront them with this gross flaw in their plan. What I'm longing to hear one of them ask is:
1. Do you not agree that the so-called progress in inspections is driven almost entirely by the threat of invasion posed by the United States?
This question would no doubt be responded to with a great deal of evasion and fluff, but if pressed they surely would have to agree.
2. Under your plan of continued inspections, do you expect the United States to maintain its military presence in the region?
How could they answer this? "Yes," in addition to being unrealistic, would be too near an endorsement of the U.S. position, and "no" would force them to face the fact that withdrawal of U.S. troops would result in immediate hardening of Saddam's resistance.
The futility - futility, that is, in the supposed objective of forcing Iraq to disarm - of the French/German plan is so obvious that one can only conclude that their objective is something else. Whatever that something else is, it clearly includes leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
How to settle this 'short of war' February 27, 2003
Charles Krauthammer not long ago said that conservatives think liberals are stupid (meant, he said, in the nicest way), and liberals think conservatives are evil.
Sad to say, San Diego Union-Tribune columnist James O. Goldsborough illustrates both parts.
For the second part, how else can one interpret the following from his column of February 27: "When Bush's advisers hatched the Iraq plot last summer&?
As to the first part, consider Goldsboroughs reasoning in his opposition to a war with Iraq, the foundation of which is his contention that there are ways to settle the dispute short of war.
OK, fair enough, but here comes the stupid part. His way of settling the dispute is: Diplomacy private, secret contacts of the kind used in other times with China, Russia and Vietnam could reach an accord under which Iraq gave up its banned weapons in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to attack.
Lets look at that. Putting aside the contradiction that Goldsborough has no way of knowing that such "secret contacts have not been undertaken, has not that offer effectively been made, openly and repeatedly, and just as repeatedly refused by Iraq? Is it not blazingly obvious that the whole crisis would deflate overnight if Saddam Hussein changed his spots, owned up and destroyed the weapons even Goldsborough agrees Iraq clearly has?
In other words, Goldsboroughs approach to settling the dispute short of war, presumably his best shot, is utterly fallacious and (I dont know how to say this nicely) stupid.
"Peace in our time" February 21, 2003
OpinionJournal.com's Tuesday Best of the Web column points to a Reuters photo showing a group of anti-war protesters in London's Hyde Park with a large sign saying "PEACE IN OUR TIME." While I don't contend that all current peaceniks are so ignorant that they don't know that this is the symbol of the disastrous attempt to appease Hitler by Neville Chamberlain in 1938, it is one example at least of their naivete.
Here's what I believe:
1. Iraq does have large stocks of chemical and biological weapons and probably a program to develop nuclear weapons. Possession of these weapons is an intolerable threat to the peace of the world. These weapons were known to have existed when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq in 1998, and Iraq has not provided any evidence that they have disposed of them. Indeed, their non-cooperation with the current inspectors is clear evidence of their perfidy on this question, if any were needed.
2. If, as most agree including France, that Iraq must disarm, then only a credible threat of the use of force, or the actual use of force, will suffice. The truth of this statement is unarguable: Since a very credible threat has been operative for the last few months and Iraq continues to defy the U.N., then lessening that threat can only cause Saddam to harden his resistance.
3. The actions of the anti-war protestors and the nations opposing the American policy of carrying out its threat to use force if necessary has the effect of increasing the likelihood that it will beome necessary. The main effect of the anti-war nations and protestors is the diminution of the credibility of the threat of invasion and to encourage Saddam Hussein to hold out. If the world were united in its determination to force Saddam out, the peaceful resolution where he steps down and leaves Iraq would be more likely. I heard a report today that Iraq is hardening their stance, no doubt as a result of the encouragement they derive from the anti-war protests of last weekend.
4. The argument that the United States must have explicit sanction of the U.N. before invading Iraq is spurious. The question of going to war to disarm Iraq is viewed predominately on both sides as a moral question. What the U.N., a quintessential political body, does or doesn't do has almost nothing to do with right and wrong. I can't believe that those who oppose the war will change their spots if the United States succeeds in getting the U.N. to pass a resolution in its favor.
5. The argument that the administration is inconsistent in its policy toward North Korea is also spurious. Should the U.S. treat Iraq and North Korea the same? Of course not, and to argue this way is nothing more than partisan posturing.
6. The argument that "the inspections are working" is grossly disingenuous if not an outright lie. Iraq's strategy in the current inspection exercise is the same as what it's been all along: Delay and obstruct and make inconsequential concessions in form only and then only under extreme pressure. Can anyone believe that Iraq will ever cooperate if the pressure is reduced? Iraq has had twelve years to refine its skill in hiding its weapons, and no amount of inspecting will overcome them. Hans Blix and his team are on a fool's errand.
7. The argument that we should back off because attacking Iraq will increase the likelihood of terrorists attacks at home is simply a proposal to surrender. If we back away out of fear of the terrorists, where does it end?
The best case for resolution of the current crisis is for Saddam Hussein to step down and leave the country. A credible threat of the use of force is the only way to make that happen. Watering down the threat by protesting or blabbing about interminable inspections only makes peaceful resolution less likely.
The end of Polish jokes? February 17, 2003
In his column on Friday, Wall Street Jounal writer Daniel Henninger said, "Polish-Americans probably thought they wouldn't live long enough to hear the end of Polish jokes, but France has liberated Poland from the grip of mockery."
Well, I heard a couple of examples today.
On Fox News: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Ans.: Unknown, it's never been tried."
Another on Fox: "For sale: French rifle, never been fired, dropped only once."
And this one from the Washington Post attributed to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay:
"I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day," he told reporters, "and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off." |
Did the French edit Hans Blix's report? February 15, 2003
In his report to the Security Council on January 27, Hans Blix stated quite directly that although Iraq was cooperating on form, it was not cooperating on substance. In the report he gave yesterday, he referred to his earlier statement but didn't say if there was any change in the Iraqi attitude on substance, which is, after all, the key point.
After a rather long preamble on the minutiae of the inspectors' activities, Blix said this:
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly on prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has, so far, been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences. In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional, and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. |
At this point, listeners are surely waiting to hear whether Iraq's attitude on cooperating on substance had changed. But no, he went on about a delegation from South Africa "there to explain" how to disarm, blah, blah, blah. It was as if he read up to the last page of a mystery novel and then slammed it shut:
In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. While we were in Baghdad, we meet a delegation from the government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons program by a wholehearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I have just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks. |
One can almost see his draft with a sentence lined out, as if he'd passed it by the French to edit.
More time for whom? January 27, 2003
The French and German ambassadors to the UN say the inspectors "should have more time to do their job" and (paraphrasing) that "Iraq must now cooperate fully."
First, of course, it is Iraq that will be given "more time."
Second, why would Iraq change their strategy of delay and deception when it's working so well? There will be not the slightest incentive for them to change. Indeed, they will see the squishyness of the UN as an opening to harden their stance, and their level of cooperation will only get worse.
If the UN temporizes further, as it appears it will, and unless the U.S. goes ahead to liberate Iraq, we will face many months of inspectors blundering around Iraq, maybe occasionally discovering bits and pieces but no breakthroughs. Iraq can play this game interminably, meanwhile getting ready to present the world with the kind of threats that are coming from North Korea, threats of armageddon if they don't get their way.
The UN is following the course set by the likes of Hans Blix and Kofi Anan. But what, pray, will be their advice when the world is confronted by an Iraq bristling with chemical and nuclear weapons and threatening to use them?
What then, Mr. Blix? What then, Mr. Anan?
To temporize, no doubt, with "more time."
Another "last chance" January 27, 2003
The UN seems poised to give Saddam yet another "last chance." In truth, it is the UN's last chance to show that it is relevant to anything serious in the world.
One of the tragedies of the current situation is that Hans Blix went along with the hide-and-seek game that Iraq has been engaging in since the beginning 10 years ago. Blix and the UN should simply have refused to proceed with inspections in the face of Iraq's refusal to admit to possessing any weapons of mass destruction. From that moment it should have been clear to all that inspections were useless.
Instead, Blix proceeded on Saddam's terms where Iraq hides its anthrax, etc., and Blix and his team try to find them. It is reported that Blix in his report to the UN today will give Iraq a "passing grade" for cooperation, but the starting point for cooperation should have been Iraq's disclosure as required by UN Resolution 1441. The massive lies in Iraq's "disclosure" set the stage for the present farce where the inspectors stumble around with almost no chance at all of finding anything.
Hussein has made a grand fool of the inspectors and the UN again. Let us hope President Bush doesn't "go wobbly," to use a phrase coined by Margaret Thatcher, and give in to the French and Germans who want to give Saddam more time. It is time to act.
Gov. Davis' epiphany December 20, 2002
The projected $35B deficit in California's state budget has brought about a fact that even Governor Gray Davis has had to admit: a soak-the-rich tax strategy has the serious drawback that tax revenues are drastically affected by the state of the economy. This is especially true for capital gains tax revenues when the stock market is stagnant, as it has been for over two years now.
The lesson should impress politicians at the national level also. The dismal record of projections of government deficits or surpluses are no doubt accounted for in large degree by the unreliability of revenue predictions from "the rich."
I am under no illusion that liberals will change their spots and agree to eliminate or even reduce capital gains taxes, but at least they should be made to admit the drawbacks of depending on them for revenue.
The magnification of revenue ups and downs with the state of the stock market has bearing on the debate about Social Security reform also. Democrats are fond of arguing that allowing workers to invest part of their SS taxes in the stock market is too risky. What they're missing is that the federal government, by depending so strongly on taxes on the "rich," is effectively speculating on the stock market with government funds, including Social Security revenues, itself. That's speculation big time.
Success of the Social Security program in the long run is inextricably tied to the success of the economy, whether workers are given partial vesting or not. The unstated assumption of the liberal position of continuing to tie the Social Security program entirely to promises of government revenue is that taxes can be raised to meet any requirement. If you believe that, then you have to believe that what the county needs right now is higher taxes. Imagine what that would do to our anemic recovery.
If workers were aware that their Social Security depends on the stock market in any case, they might decide they'd just as soon steer their own boats.
Racial politics December 20, 2002
Democrats are no doubt disappointed that Republican senators took prompt action to force Trent Lott to step down as Majority Leader, but they will nevertheless exploit the episode of Lott's gaffe for all it's worth. A good example is what Hillary Clinton said today (reported by Fox News): "If anyone thinks that one person stepping down from a leadership position cleanses the Republican Party of their constant exploitation of race, then I think you're naive."
It is perhaps a good time to define what the race issue really is. James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, put it concisely on December 17 as follows:
There are two basic positions on race in America today. The "liberal" position holds that remedying past discrimination requires race-conscious policies such as racial gerrymandering, laws treating "hate crimes" differently from ordinary crimes, and preferences in hiring, government contracting and university admission. The "conservative" position holds that such measures offend the principle of racial equality and exacerbate racial differences by treating black Americans as a separate class. |
The conservative position is hard to sell because it pits conservatives against the liberals' paternalistic "reforms." As Shelby Steele put it recently, "Conservatism (or classic liberalism) has wanted to correct for the paternalistic and racialist social engineering of 1960s-style reform without seeming to be against reform itself. How do you say, I'm against policies designed to help you, but I'm not against you?"
The conservative position is, in a word, colorblindness, what Charles Krauthammer referred to as "the bedrock idea enshrined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
Liberals, instead of arguing on the merits, exploit this dichotomy by painting conservatives as morally defective for opposing their "reforms," hence Hillary's accusation of Republicans' "constant exploitation of race."
The dismal intellectual level of "debate," if you can call it that, among politicians on most subjects and especially race is a source of constant disappointment. Statements such as Senator Clinton's push it even lower.