A Massive Breakdown in Intel?
by JohnHuang2
President Bush, affirming he wants to know how "we can do better in this war against terror," announced Monday he would appoint an outside commission to probe pre-war intelligence on Iraq, specifically, why no biological or chemical weapons have been found, and to assess the quality of U.S. intelligence generally. The panel will be styled after the Warren Commission. (Was Bush the lone gunman in Iraq, as Democrats charge? Or were there allies like Britain and Australia behind the grassy knoll?)
Democrats had been pushing for a full Iraq probe on WMD (wait, isn't that what we're doing there now?), demanding a probe of information used for attacking Iraq. (While we're at it, how about a Blue-Ribbon Commission probe of information used for attacking Bush?) They want to know the tragic intel failures tragically leading up to U.S. victory in Iraq last April (these questions aren't frivolous -- this war nearly claimed the life of Saddam! -- see angry Democrats).
What gaps in C.I.A. intelligence led Saddam to think he had Weapons of Mass Destruction? David Kay, former U.S. weapons chief in Iraq, says a massive breakdown in U.S. intelligence was the problem. This massive intelligence breakdown was so massive, it caused all of Saddam's top scientists to massively dupe Saddam into thinking he had unconventional weapons. Kay, who quit his post last Friday, says these top scientists feared Saddam intensely. That's why they intensely duped him and intensely stole from him. They pocketed the money Saddam paid them to cook up WMD, laughing all the way to the bank. Chemical Alli? Dr. Germ? Mrs. Anthrax? Ha! Guilty of no more than petty theft. No chemicals, no germs, no anthrax here. Building on this incredibly compelling theory, Kay notes Saddam's top scientists, now in U.S. custody (thanks to Bush's failed post-war planning), are, shockingly, unwilling to confess involvement in WMD programs -- i.e., unwilling to *out* themselves as war criminals -- which proves there were no war criminals in Iraq and Saddam had no WMD. Kay says the hunt for WMD wasn't even finished when he quit, which is why his report is so reliable, and there's no better time than now to leap to conclusions, to this final verdict: There were no WMD. Sen. John F. Kerry says the War on Terror should be waged on law enforcement grounds (so perhaps if Bush had obtain proper search warrants he'd have found WMD).
Clearly, gaps in intelligence led C.I.A. to file spurious reports on innocent dictators (that's just so wrong! There must be a better system to safeguard dictators) and Bush to make half-cocked statements like the following: "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...(Saddam) presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere...if we had delayed for even a matter of days from (the U.N. report), we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons (of mass destruction)."
Oh, wait, that was Clinton in '98, ordering military action.
With this new commission, to be set up by Executive Order shortly, Democrats accuse Bush of launching a full-court press to scapegoat the C.I.A., which Democrats charge provided faulty intelligence, by claiming the C.I.A. provided faulty intelligence. Democrats are convinced Saddam was wrongly accused -- that he was not armed with WMD, rendering the invasion unjustified. Democrats also accuse Reagan and Rumsfeld of arming Saddam with WMD, rendering the invasion unjustified. (We gave Saddam those weapons -- and he didn't have them, too! The gassing of Kurds was just a case of not having your WMD and using it, too.)
Democrats, coming undone like Janet Jackson's outfit during halftime, complain that a report won't be filed until after the elections -- that Bush is trying to delay things. Hmmm, I'm not too sure I buy that. If Bush were trying to delay things, he'd call for a U.N. mandate and 12 years to comply. Another charge is that Bush, who accused Saddam of hiding WMD pre-invasion, is trying to hide something himself. Hmmm, again not too sure about that either. Knowing what we know now, if Bush were trying to hide something -- indeed, keep it from ever being uncovered -- wouldn't he appoint David Kay to find it? Kay, who couldn't detect a hooker at a brothel, would be appointed Commission Chairman. Long before the probe is complete, Kay quits his post and declares, 'We were all wrong' about Bush hyping intelligence. End of story.
Bush's move to seek an inquiry on why no weapons were found has prompted ally Britain to seek an inquiry on why no weapons were found. Australia is mulling an inquiry on why no weapons were found. (After the Janet Jackson 'costume reveal' Sunday, CBS wants an inquiry on why a 'weapon' WAS FOUND and shown on live TV).
Okay, that wasn't nice. I deeply regret my crass remark which occurred in the prior paragraph during this essay halftime. My remark was unrehearsed, unplanned and completely unintentional. (I hate when that happens!) That remark did not conform to "JohnHuang2" standards, and I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended.
Oh, incidentally, while we're on the subject of apologies, if Democrats are waiting for some 'We were all wrong' apology from Bush on Iraq, forget it. For ridding the world of Saddam's regime and making America safer, Bush has nothing to apologize for.
Happy Birthday, President Reagan!
by JohnHuang2
February 6, 2002
Ronald Reagan is the reason I became interested in politics in the first place.
I didn't know much about 'issues' back then, beyond what I knew from high school; monetary policy, the Laffer curve, M1 -- none of that stuff particularly interested me. Yet.
Back in those days, I shared a typical cynicism for politics in general.
'They're all crooks', my dad would tell me. 'Every last one of them'.
Ronald Reagan changed all that.
There's something so utterly different about him. Something so honest, so genuine, so real. Intuitively, you know you could trust him. Believing in him comes so naturally.
It's hard to believe more than twenty years have slipped by since that grand and glorious night of triumph. The former governor of California -- written off by the media as a Hollywood joke and a loser-- had swept the nation in a landslide, crushing incumbent President Jimmy Carter, 51%-40%. In electoral votes, Reagan's victory was truly colossal: 489-49.
The Reagan revolution was born -- and America never looked back.
Candidate Reagan promised a renaissance; President Reagan delivered.
The 'Laffer curve' burst onto the scene -- and into the lexicon. The presstitutes derided the idea with burlesque contempt. To the pompous elite set, who clung to Keynesianism like some pagan religion, the notion of lowering taxes was itself anathema. But the Laffer curve went beyond that, promising, if implemented, to revive the economy, kill inflation while raising revenues.
'Sheer lunacy! Unvarnished buffoonery!', the liberals scoffed.
They mockingly dubbed it "Reaganomics".
Eight years later, guess who had the last laugh?
Not only did Reagan put the kabosh on the Carter recession, he sparked the longest peace-time expansion in American history. Revenues, contrary to the naysayers, exploded as lower taxes restored incentives to work, save and invest. Inflation? Ha! Are you kidding? A little dose of "Reaganonics" and poof! It was gone. Interest rates -- as high as 22% under Carter -- followed suit, plummeting back into single digits.
The "experts" had egg on their faces.
But Reagan's Presidency was more than just about economics. A lover of liberty, Reagan hated communism, and all the evil it represented. He spoke out against it at every opportunity, loudly, clearly, fervently -- even against the counsel of his closest advisors. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls!", Reagan thundered before a cheering crowd at the Brandenburg Gate. Bureaucrats from Foggy Bottom weren't too happy -- they kept trying to scratch out that line from his speech! They just didn't get it.
President Reagan loved freedom, passionately, fervidly, fiercely. His Presidency was a tribute to it. It's why he called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, rightfully condemning its appalling record on human rights. The shilly-shally "establishment" had a conniption fit.
But President Reagan was also the quintessential optimist. He knew communism's days were numbered, turning the cherished policy of containment on its head.
At a Notre Dame commencement address in 1981, President Reagan, in these immortal words, confidently predicted communism's eventual demise:
"The years ahead will be great ones for our country, for the cause of freedom, and for the spread of civilization. The west will not contain communism, it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it; we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written."
In less than a decade, those words were vindicated. The west went on to win the Cold War, with President Reagan leading the way. The critics, yet again, were wrong.
Small wonder why an overwhelming majority of Americans remember the Gipper so fondly.
President Reagan's poise and grace -- even under the most excruciating circumstances -- is the stuff of legends. Barely two months into his Presidency, an attempt was made on his life.
As the nation anxiously waited for word on the Gipper, his famous wit and charm was unflinching.
Reagan had just regained consciousness in the emergency ward at George Washington University Hospital, when he jokingly said to a nurse who was holding his hand: "Does Nancy know about us?"
"Honey, I forgot to duck", he told Nancy Reagan moments later.
He uttered his most memorable quip that day as he laid on the operating table just before surgery. Gazing up at his surgeons, he said: "Please tell me you're all Republicans".
Yep, that's the Gipper we all know and love.
Happy Birthday, President Reagan!
|
|
My two cents.. "JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
