August 19, 2005
UN-doing the U.N. - Why America Must Act Alone
Every once in a when I'm doing research, I'll discover a commentary that expresses a view and condenses arguments so well that it is worth sharing, even if it is a few weeks old. This happened yesterday when I found a recent analysis on the United Nations, in which the author pulled no punches about the problems of the U.N. and states that the United States must set its own course without U.N. approval.
Bruce S. Thornton wrote this paper on the U.N. that I found on the site of Victor Hanson. To get the full thrust of the author's position, be sure to read the entire article titled "Lo, the U.N. By What Name Do We Call Thee? Failed, useless, dubious, impotent, pernicious, morally exhausted. . ." Just to give you a glimpse, here are some of the things he had to say...along with my comments, of course.
....the United Nations has outlived whatever use it may have had as an institution for defusing crises and managing conflict.The U.N.'s failures just in the last twenty years are legion  in Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, and currently in Sudan, hundreds of thousands have been brutalized, mutilated, raped, and slaughtered, often right under the noses of U.N. forces and observers.
Yes, he left off Iraq, but he's getting there.
Like its earlier incarnation, the League of Nations, the U.N. was the fruit of an old Enlightenment dream: that negotiation, diplomacy, and rational discussion could manage crises and avoid the use of force in settling conflict....But that dream is itself based on a questionable assumption: that rational negotiation, discussion, and appeals to self-interest and material benefits can trump force. In fact, rational discussion and negotiation work only when everybody at the table respects them, bargains in good faith, and sincerely desires peaceful coexistence. ...(N)egotiated settlements and resolutions are only as good as the credible threat of force backing them
Demands with no teeth or not demands...they are weak appeals, and appeals don't work with tyrants. (I think we're getting close to Iraq, now.)
The U.N.'s failure as a force for order and justice in the world was clearly manifest in its indulgence of Saddam Hussein and its paralysis in dealing with his obvious ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. For more than a decade, Hussein violated UN resolution after U.N. resolution, sixteen in all. He demonstrated his scorn and contempt for the U.N. and its ideals, booting out the weapons inspectors after years of harassing and deceiving them. And he corrupted the U.N.'s Food-for-Oil program, which attempted to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people caused by Hussein's intransigence and brutal disregard for his own people, whom he watched suffer and starve as he spent billions on vulgar palaces, gaudy mosques, weapons, and bribes to U.N. officials.
See. I told you. Yet, you'll hear the left cry that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that Bush only gave the U.N. just three months to deal with Saddam Hussein, and the United States had no business invading Iraq and putting Hussein out of business. They ignore facts, but Thornton just gave us the facts--not opinions. Well, the U.S. put some teeth behind the resolutions, and what happened?
You would think, then, that the U.N. would have been eager and grateful for action that would show its resolutions really mean something and are to be ignored only at great cost, particularly since the United States would be carrying most of the military and financial load. Instead, the U.N. worked against such a demonstration, even though its own credibility was at stake. The U.N.'s alternative? Pass yet another toothless resolution.....The U.N., in short, did everything in its power to help Hussein create a face-saving illusion of 'compliance.' ...The President's tortuous attempts to work through the U.N. accomplished nothing except to give Hussein several months in which to destroy or transport to other countries his WMD's and facilities before the war began in March 2003
Okayyyy. So, why do people put up with useless resolutions and other nonsense from the U.N.?
One answer can be found in the assumption frequently lurking beneath such demands: that the United States and its power are untrustworthy and prone to abuse, that America's record of racist, colonialist, and imperialist interventions and adventures abroad demands that it be carefully watched by international monitors and limited by various international agreements and protocols.
Shocked? If you are, then you don't know America's enemies over whom the left becomes duped and joins their chorus. We even have a former president that buys into this.
What all this behavior demonstrates is that the U.N. does not function on principle but rather on politics and the interests of the members. This truth renders even more disgusting the assumption that America needs some international body to watch over US behavior, as though foreigners are more principled than Americans. But America does not need to be monitored by unelected European functionaries or United Nations bureaucrats. The greatest danger to the world today does not come from American power.... In actual fact, America's power represents the best hope the world has for creating stable political, social, and economic orders that will benefit the greatest number of people and liberate them from oppression by thugs and gangs disguised as governments.
Our power, made possible by our people and systems, offers hope for the world--but, one that doesn't appreciate the help and interferes with our efforts. So-called leaders of other nations choose politics and corruption over the hopes of freedom and progress for their people. Looking at ourselves, do we have hope from the U.N.? Do you have to ask? If not from there, where do we get our hope for the future and for our freedoms?
So instead of seeking the approval and sanction of a weak and morally exhausted U.N., we should be confident that our own political virtues and institutions will rightly guide America in the pursuit of our principles, security, and interests.What makes America unique is...is America's political principles and institutions.... These and the good sense of America's citizens will provide the best restraint on the arrogance and abuse of power, certainly one better than the self-interested machinations of unelected U.N. delegates....
So, there it is. The U.S. can only count on itself. Fortunately, we have what it takes and do what it takes when others ignore us or wish us harm.
To extend this, these comments don't even begin to address the financial waste at the United Nations and whether it is worth the cost to U.S. taxpayers, who bear a disproportionate share of the dues and costs of military operations. Many people want the costs of the U.N. spread fairly to other nations. Going further, many in the U.S. fear the U.N.'s efforts to apply international laws and taxes to our citizens--becoming supreme over our consitution and laws. Others complain about its ineffectiveness in foreign disputes. You hear cries to get the U.N. out of the U.S. period. And, yet others say that the U.N. should be abolished all together. Where do we go?
As a starting point, I would be glad if the United Nations simply recognized the financial and human sacrifices of the United States to serve the best interests and needs of the world. Those interests include the end of tyranny and the growth of freedom. After recognition, the U.N. can do what is right by supporting our efforts. A responsible U.N. would have many more countries joining us. So, when can we start?
Until then, I'm proud of this nation and our leaders, and we will succeed even if we have to do it without them.
Posted by GM Roper at August 19, 2005 12:20 PM | TrackBackThis, by old friend Reg (and posted elsewhere), is where Woody and I differ, regarding pride in our leader:
I don't want to debate the war with you, because there's really nothing left to debate except how to avoid a disaster of our creation. Little or nothing put forward to justify the war that was controversial has proven out in the course of the war itself. No real plan existed for the occupation - to the extent that CPA consultant Larry Diamond from the Hoover Institute, no less, has called the administration criminally negligent in this regard.
Invading a country as a matter of insuring our own national security isn't a humanitarian enterprise. That was what the war was supposed to be about. It was the only politically feasible rationale. Assuming there is the possibility - or in the case of Saddam, very high probability - of achieving some humanitarian goals as a by-product of one's overt disarmament mission, the invading force would put a premium on stabilizing the situation, not allowing the country to devolve into chaos and to become "flypaper" for the region's most unhinged terrorists. Treating a people like convenient "flypaper" - or a glib "better there than here" - aren't the hallmarks of humanitarianism. If it turns out the the disarmament mission was a false premise, "humanitarian potential" is a pretty dubious fig leaf for a military occupation, especially when a country is cracking up into slow-motion civil war. Calling an invasion "regime change" doesn't change the dynamics of war and occupation. (We didn't go into Germany or Japan to effect "regime change" - we went in to bring an enemy to its knees and impose our will on them.) "Better than Saddam" is a pretty damned low bar in judging political outcomes, so I'm sure we can claim some kind of "humanitarian victory". But will it have been worth the price or bear any relationship to what we were sold as the purpose of the mission and the likely benefits, politically and militarily. Obviously not. Especially when the semi-abandomnent of an unfinished (and also poorly executed) Afghan mission against the terrorists who actually attacked us was a requisite of full scale war against the near-arbitrary target of choice, Iraq.
___________________________________________
So, pride in our leaders? Sorry, but I've watched the actions of Bush over the last few years, and to me (and increasingly, most Americans) as a perversion of our ideals as a great nation. Bush has done nothing to earn our trust, and everything to lose us...in the process, making us a weaker nation.
Posted by jim hitchcock at August 19, 2005 08:33 PM
Thanks, G.M., but I just put down what someone else wrote and added a minor amount. The U.N. brings up a lot of opinions and feelings. Thornton just touched on one part. We could write a major book if we discussed the waste, corruption, costs, intrusions, goals, and the need of the U.N.
I can save the countries of the world a lot of money. If they will close down the U.N., then I will pass the same meaningless and unenforceable resolutions that the U.N.does--but, here's the kicker, I will do it for only 10% of the U.N.'s annual budget! That's quite a bargain, but it will be a boost to my household budget.
Plus, without any more cost, I will tour countries of the world and will discuss what needs to be done but not actually do anything--like the U.N. I would start with Italy and the Greek islands and work my way to Tahiti and any warm resort in South America. The other places can take care of themselves.
We have some real possibilities here. Let's get started!
Posted by Woody at August 19, 2005 08:33 PM
Sorry, Woody...first stop is Tunisia...
Posted by jim hitchcock at August 19, 2005 08:55 PM
Jim, just caught your post above. First, I am dubious that the comment is from reg, as I didn't detect four letter words. However, assuming this was written in a calmer moment by him, let me briefly comment.
Before I start, I want you to know that I sincerely respect reg's intellect but not his information or reasoning. He is right brained and I'm left brained. He has biases and I don't (just kidding.) What I mean is that my biases are formed opinions based upon facts, and I'm willing to change my opinons if someones gives me honest and full information about a situation that is different. Most people on the left, not all, are totally unyielding on any point. As I told a difficult person on the left recently, if I said the sky was blue then he would argue that it is red in the evening and black at night. That is arguing, not seeking truth.
Now, I see the U.N. more on trial than President Bush. They did nothing for a decade and the situation got worse. President Bush gave warning and surprised every one because he did what he said he was going to do--unlike the U.N. and most politicians. Where would we be if the U.N. were still running that show and still passing resolutions?
Also, reg paints a one-side and negative view of the situation--which is expected. I don't want to paint a one-sided and strictly positive view, but I think that the truth of the situation is more positive than negative.
reg, also covers the purposes and conduct of the war.
Purposes have been bantered about, but does anyone dispute that a tyrant and mass murderer has been stripped of power? Don't forget that he also ordered an assassination attempt aganst the first President Bush. The people have a new democracy and have voted. The left said that would never happen. Women are getting new rights. Hussein is no longer using chemical weapons against his own people. That, to me, translates into humanitarian achievements. More stability exists, even with the terrorists. People have hope. Rather than looking at stated or perceived purposes, look at the results and translate those to purposes.
Regarding the planning and conduct of the war, I have friends who have been involved in military planning, and they told me that once the shooting starts that you throw out the plans. I'm sure that we have had plenty of surprises, but every war does. We've made necessary adjustments and will continue to do so as required. War is never easy.
reg would never agree with anything that I said, because that wouldn't be like him. I don't expect you to change your mind, either. However, try to look at our challenges in a more positive light--because it does exist, and try to allow enough time for the process to be complete--because the final chapter will be more positive than the trials of getting there.
Regarding Bush and our country...I am proud of us for doing what others had neither the nerve nor integrity to do--stand up to Hussein and force terrorists into defensive modes. If a president says that he is going to do something, especially this president, then countries in the future are going to believe him. There is nothing cheaper and more useless than talk and idle threats without the will to enforce what you say.
Nothing is perfect. Everything could be better. But, it could be worse... and it's not as bad as many on the left want others to believe.
I respect your opinion and you're a fair person. Do you completely agree with reg or do you think that the story is bigger than that narrow interpretation and believe that adding positive elements would bring us closer to the true situation as it exists and as it will play out?
Thanks for offering that view.
Posted by Woody at August 19, 2005 09:08 PM
I asked for Reg's permission to repost a couple of paragraphs from a post over a Marc's, and he gave it :)
I'd say I agree for the most part with Reg's take. And I do know that Bush was fundementally dishonest in his pretext for war. We knew the case for WMD's was trumped up. See Scott Ritter. We knew that the very idea of Saddam being a threat to us was unvarnished hyperbole (nuclear clouds over America). We knew that Saddam did not have links to Al Qaeda. Both the Pentagon and the CIA put that to rest. We knew that the claims of `Saddam commited genocide against his own people' referred to the result of our urging the Kurds and the Shiites to revolt againt Saddam in '92, and then failing to support them.
We also knew that invading Iraq was diverting rescources away from a very real and worthy objective...chasing down and exterminating OBL.
And I would fundamentally disagree that more stability now exists in Iraq. Where there were no terrorists before, you now have a huge training ground for terrorists. This is not the fault of the military, it is the fault of an Admininstration who set off on this adventure without thinking it through. We're now asking our armed forces to act as a police force, without giving them the sufficient forces to do so.
And we're stuck there for the long haul. If we we're to leave, the country would desolve into civil war. For now, we have a country with a 50% unemployment rate, highly erratic water and electricity delivery,and a place where one DOES NOT GO OUT after dark if they value their lives.
As it is, we have a country that is going to wind up as the ME's newest theocracy, once likely to be more beholden to Iran than to the U.S. Tell me again about women's rights under those conditions.
The idealistic side of me salutes the idea of spreading democracy through the ME. The pragmatic side of me
tells me that the very idea of exporting a style of government to a region that has no history of that form of government (and in reality, may not even desire it) is a pipe dream. And the extremely cynical side of me tells me that Bush saw expanding the war to Iraq (and the us against them mentality that generates) as his only real chance to be reelected.
I really feel that democracy is something a people has to earn for themselves...it can't be forced upon them. We'll see if the Iraqis are up to the task.
Posted by jim hitchcock at August 19, 2005 11:30 PM
Jim, I understand why you would agree with reg (and, why G.M. might agree with me). However, I believe reg's position is easier to accept if you assume facts not proven and ignore some facts that are. A full and fair hearing of the issues--free from media bias and politics--could be the only way to determine the facts and make judgements. Let's look at some facts in question.
You know that Bush was dishonest? He and Congress shared the same information, and Hillary and John Kerry voted for the military action based on that. If Bush is a liar, then so are most of the Democrats (well, they are even if Bush isn't). Lying vs. making decisons on bad CIA data are different.
If there were no WMDs, then what killed the Kurds? Was it mustard gas or hitting them with thousands of bottles of Frenchs Mustard? The weapons existed. It makes no difference why he did killed them, or if the U.S. influenced him, because there was no justification--period.
Delays and deceptions to and by the U.N. clearly allowed time for Hussein to move WMDs to another country. We don't know where they are, but they existed. Even the U.N. that issued 16 resolutions about them knew they existed. Hussein sure was stupid to block the inspections and kick out the inspectors if he was innocent. Do you think that he acted like an innocent person? Well, only if you believe his information minister, which you don't.
I don't have confidence in Scott Ridder. It is a big stretch to say that I haven't seen WMDs versus saying that there are none. If I do an audit and have to observe inventory, then that inventory better be sitting still. If it's moving around, if I'm prohibited from going into certain buildings, if I'm having to give them advance warning them when I'm coming, etc., etc., then I have no confidence in the counts and I'm issuing a disclaimed opinion--not a clean one. Ritter issued a clean opinion based on bad data. Like a lot of people, I think that he was charmed with the adoration of the left and the media, so he gave them what they wanted. Do you really believe that he was absolutely, 100% sure that he saw every possible place for the WMDs? No way.
Hussein didn't have links to terrorists? Well, he gave thousands of dollars to families of terrorists who blew themselves up in killing others. That's support.
I agree that we should have concentrated more on OBL. I also feel that Bill Clinton should have taken him when Sudan offered and before he went to Afganistan. Two failures there.
You blame Bush for terrorism training? How about blaming the terrorists? They were training and attacking when we were doing nothing to them. Terrorism is going to occur until it's wiped out. You're just seeing a concentration of it. It would still be there if the invasion never happened, but it would be somewhere else--maybe here.
Well, I'm not stupid enough to think that we don't have a mess over there, but I'm encouraged by the reports of the soldiers who are on the ground there and who are very positive about the progress that they see. It's like that soldier who was interviewed by Matt Lauer the other day. When Lauer asked him if he was depressed about the situation over there, the soldier said that if he read the newspapers that he would be depressed. But, he's not because he sees the real progress. (Lauer fumed in silence.)
I don't know if democracy will work over there. I suppose it works in Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, India and other places over there. (I'm no expert on their political matters.) If it can work in some places, it can work in others--and, freedom and democracy are part of the human soul no matter where you are. Our Declaration of Independence says as much.
You are right about the Iraqis needing to make democracy work. It was like someone asking what form of government the founders had given us, and the reply was "a republic if you can keep it." The have a democracy if they can keep it.
Hey, it's very late and I have to go. Sorry for the long and unedited post.
Think about it and be open minded. Don't assume that Bush is a liar. Look at the facts that everyone assumed before you make that judgement. Also, consider where we might be if he had never taken action. I can't answer that question, but I don't think that I would like the answer any more than the answer that we have now.
One other thing...I don't know any more about this than you or anyone. I have opinions and I process information. But, what I would like to think is that if you and I sat down and discussed the same data (like in 12 Angry Men), then we would reach an agreement, not a compromise, about the truth. Honest people can do that.
I may be away this weekend, so G.M. may have to carry the ball.
Ciao
Posted by Woody at August 20, 2005 01:36 AM
I'm typing this for the second time; was almost finished, and lost everything. What a drag.
Show me where I've let the Dems off the hook for failing to stand up to the march for war that started the first day Bush was in office, and I'll eat your Brave's hat. Their lack of voice in questioning the bad information Bush was feeding us was deplorable. In no way does that get Bush off the hook.
The very idea of Saddam shipping off WMD's to another country is laughable, as is nothing more than an attempt by conservative thinkers to provide Bush with an out. Saddam was a megalomaniac, a man whose sole objective was to guarantee the survival of his reign. Shipping WMD's off where he couldn't get his hands on them to insure that aim? Ludicrous.
Giving money to families of suicide bombers? Strictly a case of thumbing his nose at Israel and the U.S.; And as a PR move to they rest of the ME. Another eample of the man's megalomania...but sorry, that's not `supporting terrorism'.
Suggest you might want to do some more reading on Scott Ritter. Start with the interview published in book form before the invasion. Liberal darling? Well, maybe now, but you'll find out that the guy was a lifelong Republican whose reputation was trashed by the administration because his findings didn't fit the story the administration was feeding us. You also will find just how complete the search for WMD's was, as well as the technologies used in the search (the sniffers,for instance, are particularly intruiging). There was a lot more involved than simply `counting inventory'.
Also be sure to read about Cheney's Office of Special Plans again. Blaming the actions of Bush on `bad CIA data is a not starter'. The OSP was specifically set up to be in competition with the CIA, and their record of manufacturing data to support Bush's claims are well known and public. Don't like Seymour Hersch? Try reading the writings of Lt. Col. Karen Kliatowski. She writes for Military Week now, and an in depth interview with her is available in the LA Weekly archives. She worked for the OSP. She knows what shes talking about.
I didn't blame Bush for terrorism training, I blamed him for his abject failure in planning beyond the invasion. The claim was that the Iraqi people would be throwing flowers in our path, and any attempts by intelligence analysts to paint a more realistic scenario was soundly discredited. As a result of that lack of planning, we now have a country infested with terrorists where none were before. And there is simply no denying that Iraq is the single biggest recruiting tool that Al Qaeda has. Which, of course is exactly as OBL intended. In that regard Bush has acted as OBL's proxy. Bush claims his mission is to make the world safe from terrorism. He has failed quite dismally in that regard, as the growth of Al Qaeda has mushroomed exponentially since the invasion of Iraq, because of Iraq.
Well, that's the second time I've typed this all in, and I'm tuckered out. Enjoy your weekend, Woody...if the Braves don't do better against the Padres tomorrow, I'm coming to get you :)
Posted by jim hitchcock at August 20, 2005 03:12 AM
Woody, alsp suggest you watch the current CNN Reports on how the information on WMD's was fixed...and please, try to avoid the `if it's not on FOX, I can't trust it' mindset. The report lets David McKay, former CIA Deputy Dir. John McLaughlin, and others tell the story in their own words. Big surprise that George Tenet, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell declined requests for interviews.
Particularly interesting is the story of the aluminum tubes which Cheney, the President and Rice used as `inconvertible proof' that Saddam was reviving the his nuclear program, based on the analysis of ONE inexperienced analysis, even though the mainstream intelligence community, the Department of Energy, and the State Dept. refuted those findings, insisting that the tubes were of the size used in rocket parts, not nuclear centrifuges.
Later inspections, of course, proved that to be the case.
Posted by jim hitchcock at August 21, 2005 07:59 PM
Jim, as I said before, if we both had the full truth and could sit down with the facts, I'm sure that we could reach an agreement as to who and what was correct. It's never simple.
I still hear people say that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen as an excuse to get us into WWII. But, facts are tough to come by so we resort to similar biased speculation including assumptions based on people's psychological profiles, which we really don't know. For instance, with Hussein, he's crazy (a technical term) but he wasn't stupid. So, why did he fail to obey the U.N. resolutions for full and unimpeded inspections and why did he toss out the inspectors if he had nothing to hide? It seems to me that those actions are not ones of someone with nothing to hide.
We can do a he-said, she-said type of thing, but most of that doesn't matter now except for historical lessons for future decisions. Now, we have to think about how to get out with things better than we found them and with such an improvement that the investment proves worthwhile.
I believe in the integrity of Bush while you do not. Bush has been more attacked than any president since Nixon, and most of that unjustly. I suspect the shear volume of attacks might influence you, as they have others. However, the proven substance of the attacks is very weak, hence my support for the president.
Therefore, I am satisfied to let him continue along his path. I think it's best that all Americans do that, too. Political attacks can encourage the enemy, but united support by us will weaken their resolve. Let's not let the new Kerrys and Fondas weaken our resolve.
Posted by Woody at August 21, 2005 08:29 PM
P.S. One thing that has been strikingly missing from these discussions is the main point of the article--why we can't trust the U.N. and have to go it alone. If the U.N. had been successful over a full decade, then Bush never would have done what he thought was necessary.
Here's something that seems important to me: Who do you trust more--the U.N. or the U.S.? Look back at this from the entry:
"So, why do people put up with useless resolutions and other nonsense from the U.N.?
"One answer can be found in the assumption frequently lurking beneath such demands: that the United States and its power are untrustworthy and prone to abuse, that America's record...demands that it be carefully watched by international monitors and limited by various international agreements and protocols."
Does the left buy into this? Does the left really believe that other countries have moral authority over us? Should more trust be given to the people of the U.N. who voted to block and delay the U.S. while they stole money in the food-for-oil deal? Shouldn't the record of the U.N. be the subject of discussion rather than just that of Bush?
If I have to pick, I'll trust the U.S. Its record and its values are far superior to those of an international organization consumed with corruption and self-interests.
Posted by Woody at August 21, 2005 08:43 PM
"Bush has been more attacked than any president since Nixon, and most of that unjustly."
Not sure where you get that, Woody. Remember Clinton?
To say Bush has been unjustly attacked over his insistence to take America to war with Iraq when all the reasons he used to justify have proven, as has been said all along, to be false, is hooey.
"I suspect the shear volume of attacks might influence you, as they have others. However, the proven substance of the attacks is very weak, hence my support for the president."
Also not true. The evidence against Bush has been there since long before the invasion. That more evidence has come out as time goes by, opening the eyes of millions of Americans that were willing to be more trusting of him, causing the questioning of the core truth of the man's clains to rise, has reinforced my view of the man, but certainly doesn't direct it.
And saying that the substance of the attacks on Bush is weak is, well, weak. You're labeling of any information contrary to what Bush (and Fox) has been feeding you as `attacks' on Bush, promulgated by the `leftist' MSM is not what I would call being open minded. Blind trust leads to blindness. Ask yourself what kind of government we would have without the fourth estate.
O.K., doen preaching now.
Posted by jim hitchcock at August 21, 2005 09:09 PM
"We knew that Saddam did not have links to Al Qaeda."
What about Salmon Pak then Jim? It's thought that it's where the hijackers practiced taking over airliners....I don't suppose you actually believe that a terrorist group could train in this manner WITHOUT Saddams approval?!?
According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:
• Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.
Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.
• Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.
• Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.
In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.
• Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.
• Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.
In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.
After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.
By all accounts he's at least the nominal leader of the "insurgency" in Iraq today.
So to say that "we now have a country infested with terrorists where none were before." is patently untrue. I don't believe that the soldiers in the takeover believed that they would be greeted with flowers...I know my nephew didn't, and he was 20 Kilometers ahead of the front lines from the start;up to and after the taking of Baghdad, but there ARE a number of Iraqis that do welcome the chance they have been given to achieve self determination. here's one...responding to Cindy Sheehan, no less.
"The very idea of Saddam shipping off WMD's to another country is laughable"
"Scrap" missile motors and body parts were found to be radioactively contaminated in a recycling storage area in the Netherlands...that scrap came from Iraq, and the contamination was determined to have come from contact with yellowcake uranium...seems Valerie's husband may have not been that thourough in his investigation in Nigeria after all? If items could be shipped to Europe, why not transported to Syria, Jordan, or Iran?
Remember those arms bunkers that the Left were screaming about (why didn't we protect them)? The ones that were EMPTY when our troops arrived? It's been estimated that it would take twelve truck loads a day for a week to empty them; and none of the contents have been found as yet. They HAD to have been transported pre-invasion; there wasn't enough time to do it successfully afterwards.
They found a lab containing over 1500 gal of VX precursors just a couple of days ago....it would have been extremely difficult to smuggle/transport/store that amount of highly dangerous chemicals...so you might just say that they were the first wmd componants find in large amounts, and I believe far from the last.
YOU may think that Saddam providing funds to pay suicide murderers families in "Palestine" is just a minor matter, Jim; I doubt that the families of the Israeli women and children murdered by them sure don't.
Sorry for the length GM...I just couldn't let Jim go by unanswered.
Posted by delftsman3 at August 22, 2005 02:44 AM
Delftsman, you need not ever apologize for the length of any response. This site is for the free exchange of ideas and polite responses from any source, any point of view are welcome.
Posted by GM Roper at August 22, 2005 07:20 AM
Jim, Bush was ruthlessly attacked by the left before he took office. It turned out by any counting method that he won Florida and the election, but the left never forgave him for winning and have never let up. The right never poured it on Clinton the way the left does Bush, and the press gave Clinton numerous "passes" that Bush would never have received.
I'll skip our other opinions on Bush and answer the last question: I can't say what kind of government we would have without the press, but I know that our government is more accountable becasue of it, which shows the wisdom in the Bill of Rights from our founding fathers who are put down so readily in academics.
I will add that a liberal press has made this country worse by moving us closer and closer to their ideal of socialism. One sided reporting is not as bad as censored reporting, but it, in itself, is self-imposed censorship and not good either. Say what you want about FOX, but it represents a healthier form of reporting because both sides are given--not just the traditional liberal side taught in journalism schools.
Did you decide if you trusted the U.N. more than the U.S.?
Posted by Woody at August 22, 2005 09:51 AM
