Asymmetrical Information

I found CNN's coverage particularly amusing. When Bush was talking about faith-based charity funding, their pullquote was:

FAITH BASED CHARITIES "DESERVE" FEDERAL FUNDS

Partisanship at its best.

Also, did anyone else notice that Cheney and Hastert were dressed exactly alike?

First, a question, and not a deep one: Was the opening statement really supposed to be, "...distinguished citizens and fellow citizens..."? It was awkward wording in an address that otherwise was beautifully written and delivered. (OK, the sensible bit about showing "some spending discipline in Washington" didn't quite jibe with the list of new spending programs. But I suppose that if he had to toss the lefties some bones, he chose some interesting ones to toss.)

By the way, folks, the speech is available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

I don't think that "It's the economy, stupid" was from a Clinton speech. My recollection was that it was a slogan that Carville put up on the wall in the war room to keep the campaign workers and spokespeople focused in the '92 election.

I did notice that Cheney and Hastert must have coordinated their wardrobes. But with all that up and down, I was worried that they would also have matching heart attacks. Hey guys, there is a food group beyond "Cheeseburger."

It wasn't a bad speech. The Dems' looked like whiney losers who REEEEAALLY wanted to make faces at what Bush was saying. I want to hear the next Iraq speech, the one he delivers from the Oval Office about the 5th or 6th.

Bob

“They've got nothing to take to the public in 2004. And you could see on their faces that they knew it.”

The Democrats must pray for a disaster to have any chance in 2004. Nothing less will be sufficient in getting back the White House and the two houses of Congress. My imagination is running wild. I can almost cynically see Nancy Pelosi imploring God to allow America’s economy to drop to the point of a major depression. Heck, she might even desire for San Francisco to be bombed off the face of the Earth if that might help the Democrat Party.

Upon reading your assessment, I can only conclude "Janey's got a boyfriend!" Is there no end to this breathless stuff? Krugman (yeah, I know, but judge his criticism on its merits) points out a few little, um, disconnects from the first Baby Bush effort at a State of the Union Address. If the Address is anything more than grubbing for votes, then it ought to tell us something about what the President intends to accomplish. We'll see if this one does better.

Your comparison with Clinton was missing some necessary "in my personal opinion" business. Clinton, the weak public speaker with political instincts certainly no better, perhaps worse, than Bush's, managed to stave of tax cuts for quite some time with "save Social Secrity first", kept his polls in good order right through the 2nd terms despite an impeachment and walked up to the mike without a text and without fear. Bush is coddled by his handlers to see to it that he doesn't put his foot in his mount, has yet to make it through round 2 elections, of his second year legislative agenda for that matter. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

I also noticed the Cheney-Hastert coordination, but come on, be fair, it's not like there's a lot of choice in dignified men's wardrobes.

The thing that made it stand out is that they have matching hair and bodies.

Cheney's tie had some little bitty white flecks on it, while Hastert's was more solid.

The Dem's have become the 'party of pessimism', unfortunately, pessimism is not a quality of leadership.

Once upon a time democratic party could be counted on to look forward to the future ( "happy days are here again..." ) today they give the image of an oversized 'smother-mother' standing at the door and telling you to put on a sweater and wear your galoshes even when its not raining or cold.

Once upon a time, Democrats were for liberty and against tyrants, todays democrats find themselves arguing for the opposite. When did the democratic party find it better to argue for the continuation of the status quo than to argue that we should make the world a better place?

I think to remain a strong republic we need a good oppostion party. I just dont think the current democratic party is viable any longer, and that makes me very sad indeed. We need strong reasoned oppostion to keep us honest, but these jokers arent up to it.

K. Harris, I have to agree with you that I was shocked, shocked I tell ya. Megan actually stated her opinion in an article that started off as "So what does Jane Galt think of the SOTU" on her own personal web site.

"Heck, she might even desire for San Francisco to be bombed off the face of the Earth if that might help the Democrat Party." -- David Thomson

Well hopefully whatever hits San Francisco doesn't fall on Berkely, 'cause, you know they banned weapons (including ABM) in the overflight space directly above the city limits.

http://www.peaceinspace.com/61744.html

Clinton, the weak public speaker with political instincts certainly no better, perhaps worse, than Bush's, managed to stave of tax cuts for quite some time with "save Social Secrity first"

In an unnaturally strong economy that generated large amounts of prosperity, making people somehat less antagonistic to parting with tax money? No way...

kept his polls in good order right through the 2nd terms despite an impeachment

Because the impeachment was generated by a witch hunt, not by any matters that actually merited Congressional attention (and arguably would have raised popular discontent had that instead been the case).

and walked up to the mike without a text and without fear.

Don't fear the person who is apt to stumble in his words, fear the silver tongue that can make you believe anything. The silver tongue may even be generally honest, but pay careful attention anyway.

[Pelosi]'s now part of the national face of the party

You mean they can't voluntarily close their eyes, either? :-)

Lieberman even congratulated the President after the speech

Did anyone else catch Bush walking right past Daschle? And how about when Daschle realized this and attempted to madly swim against the current for a photo-op? I almost felt sorry for the guy.

[K Harris]: Krugman (yeah, I know, but judge his criticism on its merits) points out a few little, um, disconnects from the first Baby Bush effort at a State of the Union Address

I found Paul Krugman's objective column right beside the commentary by a hooker advocating celibacy. Under Thursday's forecast of snow for Hell.

I am even cynical enough to suggest that the selection of Gary “Who in hell is that?” Locke was due to the fact that the better known Democrats were too timid to take on the responsibility. They prefer to position themselves to look good regardless of the outcome of the Iraq crisis (and yes, we should take for granted that the invasion is right around the corner). Locke has already been forgotten by the American public. This would not be the case if Susan Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Dick Gephardt gave the response.

I am even cynical enough to suggest that the selection of Gary “Who in hell is that?” Locke was due to the fact that the better known Democrats were too timid to take on the responsibility.

No need to consider yourself cynical. Democrats are unbelievably fratricidal. Remember the cannibalization of Al Gore directly following the shutdown of the Florida Supremes? Or how Al Sharpton is openly gawked at now that he's announced a candidacy? Or how they've loudly tried to keep-out-where-necessary/bus-in-where-necessary noneother than Bill Clinton?

Locke jumped onto the fence and took the barbed wire like a good party man.

For goodness' sakes, if the Democrats wanted a rising star, they could have at least thought of someone like Harold Ford, Jr. Or Pelosi, really, since I'd assume much of the Washington press corps hasn't seen her on her own. She's usually tucked in the middle of a day's report.

“Well hopefully whatever hits San Francisco doesn't fall on Berkeley, 'cause, you know they banned weapons (including ABM) in the overflight space directly above the city limits.”

The sad thing is that while we laugh at such childish naiveté---the utopian Liberals in their heart of hearts---actually believe that they can accomplish world peace by passing such silly resolutions. War is not even a last resort, it is an option that should never be entertained. Saddam Hussein merely needs to be encouraged to get in touch with his feelings. After all, It’s most assuredly the fault of the evil colonialist West that the tyrant of Baghdad possesses such feelings of inferiority and low self esteem. Saddam would be a very nice guy if only the United States hadn’t made things so bad in his part of the world.

Some people reading my above comments might be persuaded to believe than I’m indulging in hyperbole. Alas, nothing could be further from the truth. I am dead serious.

Was it just me or was it refreshing not to hear Hail to the Chief or to see a gratuitous shout out to someone in the presidential booth?

Didn't listen to it.

I hardly ever do.

I find most such speeches a bit useless.

And I'll skip the obligatory comparisons to Clinton. There's nothing to be gained by it since the views are always tainted by political preferences.

As for 2004 a lot will depend on the economy. Bush's numbers continue to fall and, contrary to what Dowd and other GOP pollsters expected, there is no new 'floor' for Bush as a result of 9/11. In fact, in some polls Bush's negatives are higher than they have ever been.

Even if the economy grows that won't be sufficient. It must grow fast enough to reduce unemployment (remember 1992?).

I don't know what will happen but the downside is looking much more likely right now.

My prediction? If unemployment is close to 7% by this time next year Bush is toast no matter what happens with Iraq or the war on terrorism (save for another 9/11 type attack).

It's always interesting how different people can see the same thing and reach such different conclusions. Although, after the forced, uncomfortable beginning, when he was required to speak on domestic issues, he did talk purty when came to his favorite topic: wrecking destruction and death about the planet. He is horrible off the cuff because the fact he has absolutely no substance comes through on those occasions.

I suppose we will have to wait until February 5 for the more competent Powell to present the US case; but it is extremely discouraging that bush would have to lie, twice, in order to persue his dreams of American hegamony through military adventurism (although bush lying seems to be accepted, and those that point it out are merely left coast, morally unclear elitists). Those aluminum tubes have shown to not be the type that is used in nuclear reactors; and Al Qaeda, despite the desperate attempts by the intellegence arms of this administration, have NEVER been linked to Iraq. Of course none of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi either, but that fact pales next to the meaningless inflammitory talk of "What if...they had a crate...."

His AIDS plan will never be funded; I love his hydrogen plan, but question the funding; we can all agree on the ambiguous benefits of his prescription drug plan; I think more people would be upset about faith based initiatives if they understood the vehemence that some of them are going about turning this country into a theocracy; but can a dividend cut really be the centerpiece of economic recovery?

It is hard to fathom how, after eight years of peace and posterity, the democrats can be continually accused of not having any plans. Present democratic leaders are definitly on the defensive as the pendulum swings hard right, but the ideas are there, and Pelosi will articulate them perfectly (ImHO, her gagging at bush's misrepresentations was fairly articulate).
The economy: mild tax increases on the wealthy and reign in spending (this must include military givaways and not just on social programs); the deficit would reduce, investor's would have confidence, jobs would be created and it may create the incredibly robust economy of the Clinton years. Ever heard of that democratic plan that was introduced in the 1994 budget and reversed the Reagan/bush pere economic disasters that bush 2 is pushing?

Foreign policy: engagement in Palestine, containment in Iraq, and negotiation with N. Korea (just as bush has come around to after a disasterous two years of insults that has created a crisis on the Asian Penninsula).

The contents of bush's SOTU lacked any pretense of being real policies, and his delivery was unsophisticated, glib and condescending...but, yeah, he can well speak other's words. People can disagree on the democratic policies as implemented by Clinton, but they are democratic policies and they have excellent proven results.

If unemployment is close to 7% by this time next year Bush is toast no matter what happens with Iraq or the war on terrorism (save for another 9/11 type attack).

Disagree. H.W. Bush lost because he raised taxes - plain and simple. He was suckered into indelibly staining credibility he'd built up in office; his contradiction was summarily (and effectively) used as artillery against him by the very people who pushed through the bipartisan agreement.

Support for both the president and Iraq's liberation remains high, if only not astronomical. But in two years, the tax cuts freeing up money for all, including the big spenders and investors, will have had time to cultivate; and Saddam's defeat and the gradual retreat of Middle East autocracy will have bolstered confidence in the markets. Besides - the only way in which the Democrats have won the presidency over the past twenty years has been to doll up their candidate as a moderate. No frontrunners can even plausibly lie their way into the mainstream; and Lieberman is of rather scarce charisma. America just doesn't elect conspicuous liberals to the presidency. Even if Bush's situation in 2004 is less advantageous than wished, his opponent will be lucky to win his home state.

H.W. Bush lost because he raised taxes - plain and simple.

Disagree. Exit polls showed clearly the economy was the main concern. In fact economic conditions remain the single best predictor of an incumbent's re-election chances.

As for the impact of the tax cuts on the economy, we'll see.

Tony B,

If there's no link between terror and Iraq, then how did Ramzi Yousef obtain false documentation from the Kuwait Interior Ministry that are timestamped during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait?

If there's no link between terror and Iraq, why did Ramzi Yousef's co-conspirator flee to Bagdahd where he remains today?

If there's no link between terror and Iraq, why did several members of Al Qaeda flee Afghanistan into Iraq where they were given safe harbor?

Can you answer these questions? No. You can't.

"In fact economic conditions remain the single best predictor of an incumbent's re-election chances."

Yep, and that's why Al Gore is now the President of the United States!

Careful, David!!!! Prepare for the "George Bush was installed by a runaway Supreme Court" crowd to show up any minute now!

The Democratic leadership also senses that the Iraqi invasion will be successful. This inevitably will bring about lower oil prices resulting in a stronger economy. Bush’s chances of being reelected therefore greatly improve. Bad news for Democrats.

Exit polls showed clearly the economy was the main concern.

Perhaps - that is, of course, the three-syllable word that is tossed about in elections all the time. My pet-peeve.

But because Clinton wasn't even close to a majority win, and a sizable number of 1988 Republican-won states shifted to Clinton (Colorado, New Hampshire, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio), I'd argue that Republicans drifted from Bush to Perot, disenchanted less by the downturn but instead by the ideology rallied to ease it.

Er, four syllables. "My mistake" is three.

David,

Please read carefully the qualifiers.

They are there for a reason.

Or were they not explicit enough?

Another great predictor of a president's reelection chances is the right direction/wrong track question, probably the bext proxy for the public's views on the economy (and other things as well).

Here too Bush is faltering and, if unemployment rises, will probably become even worse.

There were basically three parts to speech:

The first part was domestic policy, the economy. taxes, etc. This part was horrible. Lots of stumbling and smirking. Of course I don't agree with anything he said in that part, so perhaps I'm biased.

The second part was a Clintonian list of liberal programs: more spending on AIDS, hydrogen cars, etc. This was all great, except for the fact that anyone who knows W's record and understands the budget situation would wonder if he's actually follow through on any this. I hope he does.

The third part was Iraq. Like in his speech after 9/11, he spoke well and with conviction. But much like that speech, it was geared to much to the domestic audience (who will eventually rally round the flag and end up supporting him anyway), and not enough toward the international audience, many of whom actually fear Bush more than they fear Saddam.

many of whom actually fear Bush more than they fear Saddam

Some of the same ones, no doubt, who have as much as admitted that a military intervention lead by Clinton would have been acceptable. Connection: Old Europe = Left, Clinton = Left.

As soon as people allow a president's political affiliation to color their support for an action that can be justified independent of that political affiliation, you have your surest evidence that the flopposition has gone completely, and totally, crackers.

Tony B.: Your
"Foreign policy: engagement in Palestine, containment in Iraq, and negotiation with N. Korea (just as bush has come around to after a disasterous two years of insults that has created a crisis on the Asian Penninsula)."

Has at least two errors.
1. The Clinton policy on Iraq was regime change after the inspectors left in 1998. The no fly zones were enforced strictly, and Iraqi ground targets were struck repeatedly throughout his administration. This is not a policy of containment, but rather controlled aggression which was hoped to lead to regime change. If you have something to contradict this characterization, I'd like to see a specific citation.

2. The US isn't negotiating with the DPRK presently, so your depiction that we are is mistaken. We have given them an ultimatum that if they destroy their nuclear assets, then we would consider negotiation and material aid. As Bush remarked last night, the US is relying on other interested parties to indicate to the DPRK how a regional equilibrium might be found. But the US is not negotiating directly by any means, and the US diplomatic relationship with the current ROK administration precludes our directing them on how to run their foreign affairs. The latter is a big change from prior administrations of all kinds in both nations.

Hydrogen Cars? Excellent.

Let's start building the nuclear reactors to split that hydrogen *right now*. The electric power won't go to waste in any case, even if we never need to free the hydrogen from its filthy bondage to oxygen.

TonyB --
North Korea did not suddenly relaunch its nuclear program two years ago. The only question was, when intelligence sources discovered that they had kept their program operating after 1994, whether we'd ignore it or confront them. Either way, they'd have a nuke today. Clinton's NK policy utterly failed.

Now, maybe we could have kept them from going public by quietly telling them that we knew they were building a bomb and we weren't going to confront them if they kept it secret. In that case, Clinton's policy would look like a success because the public wouldn't know it failed. But NK would still have the bomb, and we still would have been sending them free fuel oil for eight years with no return.

Matt, in this context, there is a distinction between terror and Al Qaeda, of which I will stand by my assertion that there is no connection.

Because terror seems to be all around us, priorities must be made as to what order we attack our many enemies. Previously accomplished and still real threats place Al Qaeda as first in line. Bush wants to invade Iraq because of actual threats either of WMD's (questionable according to the UN, and further, incapable of being launched against American soil as opposed to both N Korea and Pakistan); or because of their ties to Al Qaeda. Without the Al Qaeda connection, that justification fails. Please provide links to your claim that Iraq harbored Al Qaeda operatives. As to Yousef, he perpetrated and was subsequently incarcerated for the WTC attack of 1993. He was in the US on an Iraqi passport and I will agree he has ties to Saddam. But the question at hand is, does that justify the high priority Bush placed on the Iraqi invasion. Please answer that question keeping in mind that VP Chaney, as CEO of Haliburton, found nothing unethical, immoral nor dangerous in providing Saddam with loans and infrastructure AFTER the Yousef connection was known.

Furthermore, as to the SOTU speach, every citizen should be afraid when, in order to persecute a war, a president will attempt to manufacture evidence of the connection, and failing that still misrepresent that information as fact. America deserves better.

“Furthermore, as to the SOTU speach, every citizen should be afraid when, in order to persecute a war, a president will attempt to manufacture evidence of the connection, and failing that still misrepresent that information as fact. America deserves better.”

Where is Oliver Stone when you need him? Many well meaning people have been conned by the Liberals who insist that they merely demand more evidence concerning Saddam Hussein’s WMDs. The reality is that they will increasing raise the bar on their evidence requirements. Nothing will ever satisfy these folks.

Tom, obviously a three line foreign policy would miss some particulars, but your points are well taken, and I suppose it is incumbant upon me to initiate the evidence. After the attacks in '98 that I believe you are referring to, Clinton, according to a U.S. Department of Defense spokesman, "deemed the operation well planned and
executed. He pointed out, however, that even though the
strikes have ceased, the conflict with Iraq is not over. As
long as Hussein is in power, the president said, he remains
a threat to the world. Therefore, the United States will
continue it's strategy of containing Hussein and
constraining his military capabilities."

This would indicate to me that, while Clinton wanted Saddam out of there, containment with muscle was still the plan of action.

"Either way, they'd have a nuke today. Clinton's NK policy utterly failed."

Tom and WL; NK, what a nightmare--which is precisely what Clinton found out and now Bush has also. Is there really a solution? My point here is that Bush thought Clinton was an appeaser and that tough rhetoric would resolve the situation in our favor, yet that plan has failed miserably. Furthermore, Bush now seems to be following the Clinton plan. Bush now has offered US assistance in return for nuclear disarmament--the exact thing Clinton offered, maybe Clinton had the best remedy after all. To call that offer of assistance anything but negotiation just because the parties are not directly face to face, is a distinction that is lost on me.

Maybe Bush recognizes the same thing that Clinton presumably recognized:

1. Dealings with N.K. are highly sensitive with S.K. and Japan, both of which maintain democratic governments, and against which we have no quarrel.

2. N.K. periodicallly reciprocates diplomatic initiatives to S.K., which is the preferred option for resolution.

3. N.K. is starved for resources -- literally -- and cannot go on a rampage whereby it takes over the entire region at any cost of blood.

...every citizen should be afraid when, in order to persecute a war, a president will attempt to manufacture evidence of the connection...

That's a ridiculous charge, especially before the administration intends to present such evidence for the confidence of the world.

The sources you cite as rebutting the administration's claim are either led by France, which has admitted to the existence of Baghdad's nuclear weapons program in an apparent blaze of brazen hypocrisy while attempting to block the United States in enforcing Resolution 1441, and holds strong oil ties to and economic interests with Ba'athist Iraq; or the CIA, which is correctly described in the article you provided as maintaining a preference for appeasement and realpolitik in regards to Iraq, possessing political motives which could affect the its ability to gather and interpret data at such a critical juncture.

The Bush Doctrine and the war on terror involves terrorists of all kinds; so beyond the fact that your claim to an absence of evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda links is presumptious, it is irrelevant to the nominal justification required to target a foreign regime.

But if you simply must have al Qaeda based on currently declassified information, it is there. Ramsei Yousef is undeniable. Abu Nidal, an ally of Iraq for decades, was reportedly murdered for his refusal to aid al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Al Qaeda are currently in Iraq as well.

Iraq has certainly been proven beyond a reasonable doubt of having absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda; what approaches is a decision to either believe the Bush administration or the Ba'athists. But how much can possibly be unearthed with Baghdad still held by Saddam? He is not only a clever man but a master of cut-outs and deception. As with his weapons programs, the world will be witness to the length and breadth of his terrorist connections only after the insides of palaces and troves of documentation can be discovered, salvaged, analyzed and presented.

that tough rhetoric would resolve the situation in our favor, yet that plan has failed miserably.

Tony, you've shown this habit of adding events where none have occurred. Nothing has been settled with the North Koreans; only if and when negotiations occur towards a stated objective can a decision of the administration's methods be judged. I would consider them currently stalling in order to settle the deposition of Saddam, after which they will be in a superb position to dictate terms to Kim Jong-Il, if not bind him with the same condemnation and disarmament settlement as with Saddam.

anony-mouse, precisely, he has. But it came about after two years of personally insulting Kim, causing the situation there to deteriorate into one of extreme danger for the US and the Asian penninsula; as well as some gratuitous Clinton bashing.

"Where is Oliver Stone when you need him? Many well meaning people have been conned by the Liberals who insist that they merely demand more evidence concerning Saddam Hussein’s WMDs. The reality is that they will increasing raise the bar on their evidence requirements. Nothing will ever satisfy these people."

Sheesh, any chance you could get more obtuse; or, alternatively, please read what I write more carefully. As was fairly clear, I was referring to the all important Al Qaeda connection which Bush asserted in his SOTU speach, not the presence of WMD's, which is a different topic. Read the link and tell me Bush hasn't tried to manufacture evidence to that effect, failed, and then brazenly tried to pass off the falsehood as fact. Honesty comes in many forms, those that risk lives using deliberate misinformation are not worthy of the US presidency.

Clinton, the weak public speaker with political instincts certainly no better, perhaps worse, than Bush's, managed to stave of tax cuts for quite some time with "save Social Secrity first".

I think this is the first time I've ever heard Clinton's political instincts or speaking skills soft-pedaled. Wow.

I'd argue that Republicans drifted from Bush to Perot, disenchanted less by the downturn but instead by the ideology rallied to ease it.

Exit polls showed Perot voters evenly split on their second choice, actually.

North Korea was well on the way to a nuke long before Bush came into office. It was stupid to agree to put the new nuke plants in the North - they could have been constructed in South Korea and transmission lines extended to the North.
I will never know whether Jimmy Carter was just plain stupid or whether someone had some videotapes of Jimmy doing some lusting in the flesh. Carter did irrepairable damage to the United States.

Nothing here has disproven my assertion that Bush knows there is no Al Qaeda/Iraq connection and lied about it. Mike, you diminish my evidence as having been supplied by the conflicted French. The article I linked to also mentions the British, German and Czech governments; furthermore, as for your own evidence you provide information supplied by the equally conflicted Iraqi opposition forces. The only references I can find to Al Qaeda all state that they are in Norhtern Iraq, a Kurdish stronghold that is the enemy of Saddam.

The article on the manufacturing of evidence link states that, because Bush is not happy with the information the CIA is providing, he has opened an intelligence office with the specific function of proving the connection. As yet, it has failed to do so, and yet he presented it as fact. We can equivicate whether that could be characterized as "manufactured evidence," but it is certainly not objectively procured.

"Tony, you've shown this habit of adding events where none have occurred."

What, no links? I, of course, cannot reply to every time I must have done that. Because it is a habit, I don't know I do it. However, here, this is what you are referring to: "that tough rhetoric would resolve the situation in our favor, yet that plan has failed miserably."
And your contention is that it is not over in NK. So, Mike, do you think Bush will go back to harsh rhetoric as the preferred plan of action; or did that plan fail miserably?

The article I linked to also mentions the British, German and Czech governments

That article literally scraped the barrel to put together sentences indicating doubt among allies. The British have endorsed a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Blair, too. The Czechs continue to assert a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

As the BBC article concludes: "we don't know." And the Bush administration has promised to "explain."

The Germans? They're are allied with the French; their ulterior motives to nullify the consequences of a material breach and the very consistency of international law undermine their credibility; I hope to goodness that is not lost on this debate.

As for northern Iraq, the Kurds are fighting al Ansar, not protecting them.

do you think Bush will go back to harsh rhetoric as the preferred plan of action; or did that plan fail miserably?

Again, no imperatives from the Bush administration have gone forward. North Korea has removed itself from the various treaties it has since danced upon, and the United States has remained firm in its stance to negotiate with North Korea only after its nuclear program is dismantled. Quite different from the 1994 agreement, which relied on North Korean honesty. What more has transpired, Tony? It's a delay, and you should expect to see full attention turned to North Korea when Saddam Hussein is no more.

I find it silly to see people believing that Bush would go out of his way to enflame the madmen of North Korea by indicting them in the Axis of Evil with no intention of following through. Almost as silly I find the expectation that an administration wishes to fight nation-to-nation, military-intensive conflicts simultaneously. North Korea will have its turn, rest assured.

Exit polls showed Perot voters evenly split on their second choice, actually.

Not true. State-to-state, the splits were different.

And before this gets out of hand: since when are exit polls scientific, guys? Returns can tell the story. Perot claimed large enough percentages in states that were carried, often by significant amounts, by Bush in 1988 - that, in turn, were carried by Clinton in 1992, often by rather narrow margins. That's reason to suggest a Republican drift to Perot.

Tony B.: Good response on the WJC policy WRT Iraq post 1998, but what I was referring to was more poignant that DoD policy spokesmen, from:

http://www.usis.it/pdf/other/RL31339.pdf

"...the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA, H.R. 4655, P.L. 105-338, signed into law October 31, 1998). The ILA gave the President authority to provide up to $97 million in defense articles (and $2 million in broadcasting funds) to opposition organizations to be designated by the Administration. The Act’s passage was widely interpreted as an expression of congressional support for the concept, advocated by INC chairman Ahmad Chalabi and some U.S. experts, such as General Wayne Downing, to promote an insurgency by using U.S. air-power to protect opposition-controlled enclaves. President Clinton
signed the legislation despite reported widespread doubts within the Clinton Administration about the chances of success in promoting an insurgency inside Iraq. A provision of the ILA states that it should be the policy of the United States to “support efforts” to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. In mid-November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime change was a component of U.S. policy toward Iraq."

I could probably track down citations of the act and Clinton's address, but this seemed a pretty good summary of both executive and apparently overwhelming legislative intent.

Tony B.: With respect to the two administration's policies towards DPRK nuclear arms:

"Bush now has offered US assistance in return for nuclear disarmament--the exact thing Clinton offered, ..."

has matters exactly backwards, as my original response noted. Clinton asked for disarmament and gave aid. Bush cancelled fuel oil and the new reactors and demanded nuclear disarmament before negotiations. You should try to have your cake and eat it also in trying to make different policies the same.

sorry, "should not try" rather than "should try"

Finally, Tony B., I couldn't resist this one:
"[Bush] personally insulting Kim"

It is not an insult if it is true. What is ironic is that the converse is true also. Flattery is not a compliment if it is a lie, which is referant to such appellations as "Great Leader", etc.

check out rantburg for info on ansar al islam... they be very bad boys, linked to al queada, and very much supported by soddom hussy, seeing as how they don't like the current government of kurdistan...

The 1994 Agreed Framework was predicated, in part, on the assumption that North Korea was telling the truth, even when we knew they were not.

How can one make such a bold statement? Simple. The two nuclear reactors that were being built were light-water reactors (LWR), intended for power generation. They were agreed upon, because the North Koreans claimed that their nuclear reactors which were being shut down were NOT intended for creating plutonium (for weapons) but for power.

EXCEPT that they had no power generating equipment, nor power lines connecting them to the NK power grid. Indeed, that absence was pointed out in news reports at the time (and were one giveaway about what their actual use was intended for).

Yet, the Clinton Administration not only agreed to help fund the building of the two LWRs, but ALSO agreed to provide the 500,000 tons of fuel oil in the interim "to replace the lost power." Which was never lost, because the plants were never connected to the grid.

Tony B,

With regards to your comments to me earlier, I have a few things to say to you. First, that was an interesting, but irrelevant article on Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton. Keep in mind the Post never substantiated Cheney's involvement and admits that his knowledge of the deals is hearsay at best. Regardless, I find it oddly disturbing that you take more offense at Halliburton's role in a legal operation under UN regulations than with Saddam Huessein.

Additionally, I also find it strange that while you seem to have a keen sense for picking out details in Bush's speech (such as the aluminum tubes) you have a hard time assembling the facts in such a way as to resemble the slightest bit of reality. By the way, Mohamed ElBaradei came out today and admitted that the UN inspectors believe the tubes were destined for nuclear weapons development, and that Iraq had the ability to modify the tubes for weapons production. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77041,00.html)

Getting back to reality and your problem with it, I'd like to draw your attention to a 1998 US Federal Grand Jury indictment against Osama bin Laden in which it states, "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html)

I would like to introduce a December 12th Washington Post report in which the Post describes a chemical weapons transfer from Iraq to Al-Qaeda. The Post writes, "The Bush administration has received a credible report that Islamic extremists affiliated with al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October, according to two officials with firsthand knowledge of the report and its source. They said government analysts suspect that the transaction involved the nerve agent VX and that a courier managed to smuggle it overland through Turkey." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42876-2002Dec11¬Found=true)

Furthermore, the same article cites a Clinton Administration assertion that "Iraq provided technical assistance in the construction of a VX production facility in Sudan, undertaken jointly with al Qaeda."

Further, there is a Christian Science Monitor report, detailing comments made by, Rafed Ibrahim Fatah, a 20 year veteran of Iraqi Intelligence. The report states, "new information is emerging that ties the organization to both Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Al Qaeda contacts allegedly stretch back to 1989, and include regular recruiting visits by bin Laden cadres to Kurdish refugee camps in Iran and to northern Iraq, as well as a journey by senior Ansar leaders to meet Al Qaeda chiefs in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the summer of 2000." (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html)

And finally, from one of your own sources (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/29102002161249.asp) you state that President Bush is manufacturing false information in order to prosecute the war. The main headline of the article you cite is "U.S.: Bush Administration, CIA Seen As Disagreeing On Iraqi Threat."

Yet, if you read further into the article, former CIA Director James Woosley says that the press is making too much of the supposed rift between the CIA and the White House. Woosley goes on to state, "The only way I can make sense out of the letter at all is if what they're doing is talking -- in the front half of the letter -- about attacks which Iraq directs and controls, and in the second half of the letter, they're talking about terrorist attacks which may be supported, with equipment, training, or bacteria, or gas, or whatever, in some fashion by Iraq, and which Iraq doesn't try to control exactly how and when it's used,"

Tony, I think the heated passion with which you have communicated today reveals quite a lot about your own inability to rationally and calmly examine the evidence against Iraq. You are a skilled debator and I have no doubt that you can produce more articles for me to read. Nonetheless, the simple fact remains that Saddam Huessein is your enemy not the President of the United States.

“...the simple fact remains that Saddam Huessein is your enemy not the President of the United States. “

This very last point deserves special emphasis. I am utterly convinced that subconsciously, if not even consciously, the Liberals perceive President Bush as their foremost enemy. Why is this? Thomas Byrne Edsal’s “Blue Movie” article on The Atlantic website may offer at least a partial explanatiol:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/edsall.htm

Well, that was fun, but my boss is starting to wonder what I'm doing.

I think it time for myself and my detractors to agree to disagree. These issues will again be raised from different angles, and we can have another go at it.

“...the simple fact remains that Saddam Huessein is your enemy not the President of the United States. “

This, I cannot let pass. It is a thinly veiled "America love it or leave it" argument. Bush is an intellectually deficient, self absorbed frat boy who has never accomplished anything on his own in his life. He is not engaged enough in international strategy to use anything but the US military as the first option to resolve situations. This does not make him my enemy, this does even make him wrong. Many posters here seem to share his position, and have given the thought that war deserves; I love democracy and am willing to abide by the will of the majority. This differs from the memebers of this society who will go to war based on the say so of the above described individual. This apathy is the enemy; and my weapons are to challenge every assumption given my own meager intellectual skills.

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."

Benjamin Franklin

Bush is an intellectually deficient, self absorbed frat boy who has never accomplished anything on his own in his life.

I think we've found the substance of your arguments, Tony. Give him more credit than that or you'll be unduly surprised over the next few years!

Where to begin, where to begin.

Ooooh, I know! North Korea!

TonyB, uhm, when did the missiles and B-2s start flying towards North Korea? After all, military force is Dubya's first choice, right? I mean, that IS what you said, right?

I'd like to then ask the follow-on question: When did the bombers and paratroopers start dropping on Iraq? I mean, does going to the UN, getting UNSCR 1441, all of that count as military force-as-first option?

Finally, I'm just curious. With the trade differences we have with Canada (logging), as an example, did the XVIIIth Airborne Corps get committed in an action that Defense News forgot to report on? That might also apply to the EP-3 incident with the Chinese (man, those mushroom clouds over Shanghai and Beijing were a sight to see!), our frustration with the lack of Japanese banking reform (Hiroshima II, the naming of a B-2 "Enola Gay" for that mission was a nice touch), and our differences with Europe (although the American death squads rolling through Western Europe and the CNN-live-broadcast of the executions of Schroeder and Chirac really WERE ratings grabbers)---all of that, undoubtedly, is evidence of exactly what use-of-force-as-first-choice?

Additionally, I also find it strange that while you seem to have a keen sense for picking out details in Bush's speech (such as the aluminum tubes) you have a hard time assembling the facts in such a way as to resemble the slightest bit of reality. By the way, Mohamed ElBaradei came out today and admitted that the UN inspectors believe the tubes were destined for nuclear weapons development, and that Iraq had the ability to modify the tubes for weapons production. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77041,00.html)

Wrong. From the first paragraph:

"We believe the tubes were destined for the conventional rocket program," Mohamed ElBaradei told The Associated Press in an interview. "They could be used for enrichment but they need substantial modification before they could be used."

ElBaradei told the Security Council in a report Monday that he had found no evidence Iraq had revived its nuclear program. The comments, coupled with his determination that the tubes were for rockets, put him at odds with the Bush administration which has insisted the tubes were meant for enriching uranium.

Hint: making shit up doesn't convince people.

Jason,

From ElBaradei's report itself, is the statement that, regardless of WHAT purpose Iraq had for seeking those tubes:

It is clear, however, that the attempt to acquire such tubes is prohibited under Security Council Resolution 687.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76725,00.html

On balance: Iraq imported tubes that may or may not have direct use for nuclear weapons development, but which were absolutely prohibited. Those same tubes, if further machined (on which we have no evidence), might also be useful for nuclear weapons, but at a minimum, were useful for rocket development that was prohibited.

Doesn't exactly sound like exoneration, to me at least.

What el Baradei didn't mention is that the "short range rockets" which the tubes supposedly were being made into are themselves potential chemical and biological warhead delivery systems. "I didn't use the gun to murder the man, just to shoot him in the leg so he'd know I'm serious!"

Jason,

You are correct. I simply misread the inspector's statement. Ironic that I should make a mistake in the same paragraph in which I was trying to make a point about proper assembly of facts.

My own misteps aside, I believe Ari Fleischer made the case about the aluminum tubes clearer today:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030130-34.html

Q Ari, the President mentioned something that was mentioned earlier, the aluminum tubes as part of the list of evidence that the U.S. thinks that Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction. But the IAEA and other world officials -- Mohammed ElBaradei, actually, specifically said that it's just not there, that is not what that it's intended to be used for in Iraq, that it's really just conventional. Isn't there a concern that when the President and the White House make statements like that it's going to undermine your overall argument of this Mt. Everest of evidence that you say exists?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. And I'll give you three reasons why, in the President's judgment. Number one, Mohammed ElBaradei and the IAEA said that the importations of these tubes is illegal and violates the policies that Iraq committed itself to, regardless of what the IAEA has so far judged them to be. They said Iraq's actions in importing them are, in and of themselves, a violation. That should be a cause for concern, number one, about whether Iraq is disarming.

Number two, on the tubes, the IAEA has said that their investigation remains open. They have not reached final conclusions about this. On that point, therefore, to point three, there are continuing discussions with the IAEA in which information is being shared about this information. The preponderance of evidence is that Iraq attempted to procure high-strength aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment. We stand by that statement.

Our technical analysis at the extremely tight manufacturing tolerances and high-strength materials indicates the tubes far exceed any specifications required for non-nuclear capabilities. Iraq attempted to procure the tubes covertly. The cost of the tubes is far greater than what one would pay for if the tubes were just to be used for artillery. Iraq has devoted substantial efforts to concealing its nuclear program in the past. It's not surprising that it would attempt to mislead the inspectors on this issue and the inspectors have left it open because they want to continue to hear from us and to work on this before final conclusions are reached. The President stands by every word he said.

Heh, ok. Sorry, but lately I've developed a really low tolerance about misrepresentations related to the war; yes, I favor invading, but does Bush really need to keep making up "Iraq has ties to Al-Queda"? They just won't settle for playing the hand they've got.....

Comments are Closed.