Saddam’s Nuclear Program: CIA vs. The U.N.

Oct 11, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

...Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday.

Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

While some military goods that disappeared from Iraq after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, including missile engines, later turned up in scrap yards in the Middle East and Europe, none of the equipment or material known to the IAEA as potentially useful in making nuclear bombs has turned up yet, ElBaradei said. The equipment -- including high-precision milling and turning machines and electron-beam welders -- and materials -- such as high-strength aluminum -- were tagged by the IAEA years ago, as part of the watchdog agency's shutdown of Iraq's nuclear program. U.N. inspectors then monitored the sites until their evacuation from Iraq just before the war. The United States barred the inspectors' return after the war, preventing the IAEA from keeping tabs on the equipment and materials up to the present day. Under anti-proliferation agreements, the U.S. occupation authorities who administered Iraq until June, and then the Iraqi interim government that took power at the end of June, would have to inform the IAEA if they moved or exported any of that material or equipment. But no such reports have been received since the invasion, officials of the watchdog agency said... ...A new CIA report last week by chief U.S. weapons investigator Charles Duelfer made clear, however, that Saddam had all but given up on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991. ElBaradei, whose agency dismantled Iraq's nuclear arms program over a decade ago, drew similar conclusions to the Duelfer report well before the March 2003 invasion.

The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness

Oct 11, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

[Americans] enjoy their luxuries and aren't shy about having them. They're mobile, changing jobs and cities as circumstances suit them. They move to warm sunny places. Some are adaptable in their goals and some are not, but the vast majority are sure that they control the course of their own lives. In America, every man can be his own king, a successful, independent, happy king. That's the American Dream. Because it's all around, we often don't stop to notice. Outside America, however, it is noticed. ...There is no where else on earth that quite has the 'feel' of America. The idea that it is okay to make money and to go out and get what you want -- the acceptance of egoism -- runs deeper here than anywhere on earth. The consequence -- a feeling shared by a majority of people that life is open to them, that anything is possible, and that they're in the middle of getting where they want to go -- is unique to America. This feeling -- an emotion some people call 'freedom,' but is actually happiness -- has captured the imagination of the rest of the world. Because they can see that there is a way to reach it, people throughout the world want to have it, too. ["The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness", TIA Daily, Oct 11, 2004]

Trust Me I Have a Plan…

Oct 10, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Probably the most passionate comment from presidential candidate Senator John Kerry came during the first debate

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

Morally equating America's possession of nuclear weapons with that of the dictatorships of Iran and North Korea was disgusting enough. But Kerry's announcement to the world -- including our enemies -- that he would act on that belief by disarming America is beyond the pale.

Bill Hobbs commented on the issue just after the debate: Kerry Opposes Another Vital Weapons System. As did Hugh Hewitt. From the latter:

Notice Kerry's dismissiveness of the prospect of even using nuclear bunker busters.  Does he prefer that a president of the future not have that option when confronted with a rogue nation threatening us or an ally but whose command and control facilities are buried deep in mountains or below a mile of concrete?  Kerry states simply that seriousness about containing nuclear proliferation begins with "shutting down" American weapons development. This is profoundly at odds with mainstream American defense thinking. It is a radical position, and Kerry is a radical candidate.  Kerry expresses amazement that anyone can believe that America can say nukes for us but not for others, but America has been saying that since the dawn of the nuclear era, and must continue to say so.  Follow Kerry's logic, and it is the iron logic of unilateral disarmament.

Kerry even mentioned the nuclear-bunker-busters in the second debate.

And the president is moving to the creation of our own bunker- busting nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one. I'm going to lead the world in the greatest counterproliferation effort. And if we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough.

"Get tough" using what? U.N. resolutions?

Strange Bird

Oct 10, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Coalition of the Bribed: Saddam’s Sugar Daddies

Oct 9, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

The Republican Answer to the Nihilism of the Left: Religion and the Platonism Leo Strauss

Oct 8, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Strauss purports to be a rational alternative to nihilism. This is a higher realm of pure thought, which is the source of ideas, principles and values. This is where conservatives who do not want to be publicly religious go. Straussians are famous for rejecting religion privately, while actively encouraging it in their students.

This follows their world-view, which sees the philosophers in touch with higher truths, which must be communicated in ways that the masses will accept.

If you support Bush because you think he shares your values, this is what you are sanctioning. A second Bush term will more solidly implant the Straussians into all levels of government. See my op-ed Opposing Platonic Conservatism: A Matter of Values. For an overview of Strauss's philosophy see this article by a Strauss admirer.

Live Event: Columbus Day Without Guilt

Oct 7, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Black Wash

Oct 7, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

FoxNews reports:

"I've led our country with principle and resolve and that's how I'll lead our nation for four more years," Bush said to enthusiastic applause. [...] Bush's remarks Wednesday constituted the most extensive and direct attack he's made on Kerry. He said his rival has "a strategy of defeat" for Iraq [...] The president defended his prosecution of the war against Saddam Hussein and the bigger fight against terrorists. "There will be good days and bad days in the War on Terror ... we will stay in the fight until the fight is won," he said.

Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's vice presidential running mate, shot back Wednesday, saying that Bush was "completely out of touch with reality" about the Iraq war and the economy.

"He won't acknowledge the mess in Iraq. All you have to do is turn your television on," Edwards said at a rally in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Free Enterprise in Space

Oct 6, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

IRVINE, CA--On Monday SpaceShipOne made its winning flight, destroying forever the myth that space exploration can be done only by the government.

Space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to face the vast universe directly. By placing the space program under government funding, we necessarily insert the corrupting barrier of bureaucratic whim between the reasoning mind and the facts of reality. The results are obvious: the space program is a political animal, mired in shifting, inconsistent, arbitrary and ill-defined goals.

SpaceShipOne has now taken the first free-market steps toward the stars. If the government, exercising its proper function, established a system of private property rights in space, free industry would have ample incentive to reach and exploit stellar bodies. Ahead of these bold space entrepreneurs lie enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best minds--as only the free market can do.

Campaign Fodder

Oct 5, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Excerpt from the Vice Presidential debate, after Senator Edwards disputed Vice President Cheney's rebuttal about the cost of the war:

EDWARDS: [...] Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration. IFILL: Mr. Vice President?

CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...

CHENEY: ... as beyond...

EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...

CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...

EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...

CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future. We'll win when they take on responsibility for governance, which they're doing, and when they take on responsibility for their own security, which they increasingly are doing.

UPDATE: From CNN: Car bomb kills Iraqi national guard members.

FarenHype 9/11

Oct 4, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

This is the second of three new Michael Moore cartoons that we created for a companion book to the new DVD, FahrenHYPE 9/11. The DVD and book debut tomorrow, Oct. 5th, the same day that Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 appears on DVD. A trailer for FahrenHYPE 9/11 can be viewed on the Web site.

Like our most recent Moore cartoon, this one is based on my observations about Fahrenheit 9/11. In the film, Moore assaults the viewer with graphic images of maimed Iraqi children, dead Iraqi babies, wounded and dead American soldiers, and American soldiers killing Iraqi combatants. Yet Moore did not show a single image of the 9/11 attacks. No airplanes striking the WTC. No explosions. No jumping victims. Nothing but the sound of the attacks, some reaction shots and a few aftermath images. Such editing choices speak volumes about Moore's motives and lack of objectivity.

SpaceShipOne

Oct 4, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Guantánamo Bay Recidivists

Oct 4, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

...There's been a hue and cry about releasing the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so this is now taking place. But two recent developments concerning former inmates should prompt the U.S. government to rethink this incautious policy:

• Abdul Ghaffar, an Afghan, returned to Afghanistan and rejoined the Taliban as a commander. He was killed in a raid by Afghan security forces on Sept. 25 in Uruzgan.
• Slimane Hadj Abderahmane, a Dane, 31, announced on Danish television on Sept. 29 that he plans to hide from the Danish authorities until he can get to Chechnya where he will fight the Russians in the jihad there. As for the agreement he signed with the U.S. authorities promising not to engage in terrorist activity, he said, "This document is toilet paper for the Americans if they want it."

The Draft = Slavery

Oct 4, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

IRVINE, CA--Once again a proposal to reinstate the draft is being floated by various politicians. "This would be one of the worst violations of individual rights since slavery," says Dr. Andrew Bernstein, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, "because in fact involuntary conscription is a form of slavery."

In the current proposal, the draftee could opt for community service instead of military service. "This choice exposes the truly hideous premise of the drafters: your life belongs to them, to the state, to the community--to anybody but you. Whether the government forces you to fight and die in Iraq or lets you "volunteer" to clean sewers doesn't really matter to them--as long as you accept that your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are theirs for the taking."

How is it possible, asks Dr. Bernstein, "228 years after the Declaration of Independence that the politicians of this country still have not understood or accepted the idea of inalienable individual rights? Those who propose to reinstate the draft do not deserve to be elected or re-elected to any office."       

Spoliers

Oct 3, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

FoxNews reports: U.S., Iraqi Forces Mop Up Samarra.

U.S. commanders have praised the performance of Iraqi security forces in the offensive in Samarra, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, calling the assault a successful first step in a major push to wrest key areas from insurgents before January elections.

Education Renaissance

Oct 2, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Schools today commit flagrant violations of hierarchy. At a high school in my area, the freshman social studies program begins with a study of the nature and value of the U.N. (before the students have even a rudimentary knowledge of history); the science curriculum begins with DNA replication (before students know about Mendel and Darwin and basic genetic theory); English classes begin with subtleties of literary style (before students have a basic understanding of plot and theme). Education needs to be totally reconceived with the principle of hierarchy in mind.

In my opinion, what is offered to students in today's schools bears little resemblance to education. If education is a study of the core subjects with the goal of providing students with that abstract knowledge which is essential to a mature mind, then education was abandoned by the schools long ago. The integrated, essentialized study of history, with its sweeping generalizations about man, has been rejected in favor of the disintegrated, concrete-bound subject of "social studies." The classics of literature, with their timeless themes and penetrating insights into man and the nature of the universe, have been replaced by whatever contemporary works happen to be in political favor. The world is in desperate need of an educational renaissance. 

You can read the entire interview here. 

Armed and Disingenuous

Oct 2, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

The "Global Test" cartoon has an update that touches on America's right to use preemptive force. This cartoon and post elaborate the issue further.

In the past, Senator Kerry has condemned the Iraq invasion as a "war of choice," saying that President Bush's use of preemptive force was wrong because there was no imminent threat from Iraq. In the debate, he emphasized this by pointing out that Iraq had not attacked America on 9/11, Osama bin Laden had.

Kerry acknowledged America's right to use preemptive force (*see below), and that's consistent with his previously stated imminent-threat threshold. But unlike Bush, Kerry didn't make it clear that he would ever choose to use preemptive force to prevent a growing threat. An imminent attack obviously demands an immediate response by its very nature. Only a pacifist would advocate sitting still in the face of an impending attack. And there's no reason to doubt that Kerry would, as he declared at the Democrat convention, meet an attack "with a swift and certain response."

However, the question of using preemptive force is one of preventing attacks before they are imminent, as in Iraq. Nothing I've heard from Kerry indicates he would do so. Worse still, he seems to have purposefully obfuscated the issue while at the same time making it a central argument against the invasion of Iraq.

(Another cartoon on the topic: "Detour of Duty".)

*Kerry from the presidential debate transcript:

The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike.  That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War.  And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. 

But if and when you do it, ... you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. [...]

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done [in Iraq], in that way?  So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world.  And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet.

Global Test

Oct 1, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

In the last night's presidential debate, Senator Kerry criticized President Bush's decision to invade Iraq for not passing a "global test." Kerry stressed the need for more international assistance in Iraq, stating repeatedly that we're suffering 90% of the casualties and shouldering 90% financial burden. However, Charles Johnson quoted a relevant Financial Times article from earlier this week: No French or German turn on Iraq:

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2. Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview. [...]

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later."

In the debate, Bush responded appropriately to Kerry's "global test" comment:

"I'm not exactly sure what you mean, 'passes the global test,' you take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."

From AP: Bush: Kerry would let France control US military. (Via Little Green Footballs)

"The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France," Bush told supporters a day after Kerry said the United States ought to pass a "global test" before launching a preemptive war. Kerry spokesman David Wade accused the president of taking Kerry's words out of context and brushed off the attack as a desperate ploy, saying: "They want to run against a straw man. Instead, they have to run against John Kerry."

"Out of context"? In the context of his "pass the global test" comment, Kerry said that in using the preemptive strike option, a president not only has to make sure his countrymen understand why, but he also has to "prove to the world that [he] did it for legitimate reasons." The obvious implication of this is that if a president can't satisfactorily "prove to the world that [he] did it for legitimate reasons," then he doesn't have a right to use preemptive force. Kerry's use of "legitimate reasons" is very broad and, I think, intentionally vague, but it's clear that he considers our sovereign right to launch a war of self-defense somehow subject to whether or not "the world" (whatever that means) approves of our evidence, motives and goals. If that's not making the use of troops to defend America "subject to a veto by countries like France," I don't know what is.

Speaking of France, reader Barry Rab directed us to this New York Post op-ed by Amire Taheri, in which he writes:

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies." In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies -- the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others -- but on the side of the "insurgents."

UPDATE October 6: From The Washington Times: Kerry says Franco-German troops unlikely.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president. The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.

The real Global Test? The Washington Times reports: U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike. (Via Little Green Footballs)

Members of an international panel studying United Nations' operations say the group hopes to lay down clear rules declaring when it is legal for a nation to use pre-emptive military force in its own defense. The issue grows out of the international controversy over the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq without a final U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war, said panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia.

"I expect the panel to be giving close consideration to what those rules are and how they should be applied and whether an effort should be made to identify generally agreed criteria for the legitimate use of force, whatever the context," Mr. Evans said during a recent appearance at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

He made his remarks before last week's presidential debate in which Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry's call for a "global test" on when pre-emptive action is justified became a campaign issue.