Posted on 10/26/2006 9:08:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
You ask, in your recent "60 Minutes" commentary, for the president to finally flat-out "explain" why we have troops in Iraq. While busy preparing your commentaries, you perhaps failed to hear the president explain this -- over and over and over again.
Allow me to try.
-- The world changed for many -- apparently not you -- after 9/11.
-- Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam's military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.
-- The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" -- the highest certainty allowed -- that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. All 16 intelligence agencies contributing to the NIE unanimously agreed on the chemical and biological weapons assumptions, with disagreement only on how far along Saddam was toward acquiring nukes.
-- Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.
-- Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
-- Meanwhile, neighboring Iran defiantly pursues nuclear weapons. Bush reasoned that a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq would destabilize Iran, accomplishing regime change without military force. This would encourage the rest of the Arab world to direct their grievances toward their own leaders, rather than against the "infidels."
-- We remain in Iraq because, as former Secretary of State James Baker put it, "[I]f we picked up and left right now . . . you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."
-- Former Secretary of State and informal Bush adviser Henry Kissinger -- who knows something about the consequences of cutting and running -- wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."
-- The political aim of our Islamofascist enemies is a worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic world. Renowned Islam expert Bernard Lewis recently reiterated his support for the war: "The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise [to bin Laden and his followers]. They were expecting more of the same -- bleating and apologies -- instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. . . . [T]he effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us."
True, 2,800 of our best have died. Any figure above zero is a tragedy. But America -- on both sides of the Civil War -- lost more than 600,000 soldiers, or 2 percent of the country's population of 31 million. Of our country's 132 million, we lost more than 400,000 in World War II, or .3 percent of our population. In the Korean War, we lost 37,000, and the Vietnam War saw 58,000 dead.
Many people say that after failing to find stockpiles of WMD, Bush "switched" rationale for the war. Consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial about a speech Bush gave weeks before the coalition entered Iraq:
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Still confused? Please write back, and I'll try again.
Sincerely yours, Larry Elder
Larry Elder is an accomplished attorney, radio personality, syndicated columnist, host of daytime television's The Larry Elder Show, and author of Showdown : Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests That Divide America .
He is also on XM radio, right after Hannity. He is one of the best
He's a screeching leftist hack, just like everyone at CBS.
Offtopic but a funny interview of Andy Rooney by Ali G.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglSPl7g14Q
Ditto that, VERY well said.
Yes. Thanks for that reminder.
Neoliberalism is a mental disorder, and it appears that reasoning with the afflicted is not humanly possible.
I agree that Rooney is out to lunch politically, but I disagree with your point that only those currently fighting can be taken seriously on this issue. (Besides Rooney was in WW2.)
Rooney's problem is not that he is or isn't currently dodging mortar rounds in the Sand Box, it's that his ideas and reasoning are stupid, whether he ever put on a military uniform or not.
"If that's the case, then it isn't even a war at all under any formal definition."
The US constitution, Article II, section 8, gives the Congress broad powers to define and declare "war" in a number of ways:
"...To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..."
Defining and punishing offences against the law of nations is the Congress' right according to my read. I'm no scholar, but it seems to me that what the Congress did in 1990 and 2003 is well within their constitutional powers.
Technically, you are correct that were no declarations of war, but I'm not sure the Congress has an either/or mandate under the law.
It is, but that bears no relation to this issue. Congress defined those "offences against the law of nations" in that specific clause because the term applies to military action in response to "offences" that occur outside the jurisdiction of a single nation. The intent here was to cover U.S. interests in international waters back then, and would likely be extended to include places like Antarctica, the earth's orbit, and outer space today.
Under no circumstances should this be clause of the U.S. Constitution be construed to mean that the U.S. government has any obligation -- or even the legitimate authority -- to use military resources in foreign countries to enforce resolutions passed by international organizations like the United Nations that have no place in U.S. law.
Andy Rooney participated in WWII but must have forgotten a lot since then. WWII began in 1939. It was touch and go for a very long time. At one point, it was only the bravery of our sailors and merchant marines that kept the United Kingdom in the war.
The allies lost many of the first battles in WWII. In the Pacific and North Africa. If we had the left back then as we have now, and if the main stream media was attacking President Roosevelt the way they are attacking President Bush, the United States would not have been able to come together eventually win against the Japanese and the Germans.
Andy Rooney is old, he is not likely to live to see the results if we should simply pack up and come home. This is not like Viet Nam. Today's enemy will follow us home, and begin killing us here if we leave the battlefield.
It is Andy Rooney's grandchildren (along with the rest of us)that will pay the price for his myopic view of the world.
Whats the matter Andy, you do not love your grandchildren? You would rather see them become the victim of terrorist then support a Republican President? Because that is all it is. If a Democrat was in office right now, doing the exact same thing, you would support him.
That is perhaps a major difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. A Democrat will oppose a Republican regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the action, while a Republican will support a Democrat when they are doing the right thing.
Just because Rooney was in WW2 does not suddenly make him an expert on the military. In my opinion, none of these folks have a right to publically denounce troops and/or their commanders over the airwaves. Things like that are demoralizing for everyone. The military can deal with their own problems and they don't need an irresponsible foghorn like Rooney, spouting off just so he can hear himself talk...
That's my point. The fact that someone was or wasn't in uniform at some point is irrelevant to the quality of their argument. (Case in point, Gen. Wesley Clark.) Either Rooney's arguments hold water or they don't -- and I agree with you that they don't.
I also agree with you that in a saner time, comments like those made by Rooney would have been considered traitorous or at least seditious. We've had a dumbing down of the meaning of treason and sedition, which has in the last 3 years been "redefined" as "dissent".
"Under no circumstances should this be clause of the U.S. Constitution be construed to mean that the U.S. government has any obligation -- or even the legitimate authority -- to use military resources in foreign countries to enforce resolutions passed by international organizations like the United Nations that have no place in U.S. law."
I agree with you in the sense that the constitution supercedes treaty law and no international body can usurp that. That's not the point that I'm trying to make (badly, I'm sure).
What I'm trying to point out is that a "declaration of war" is whatever the Congress decides it is. The constitution does not lay out verbiage nor limitations on what the war-making bill should look like or say. The resolutions passed by Congress ahead of both Gulf Wars ordered the president to use the military at his descretion to enforce UN resolutions. It was not the other way around.
We see examples of this going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the conflict with the Bey of Tripoli.
Congress enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "...and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify" But no formal declaration of war was passed.
We see such things again during the Civil War.
Bottom line is that such questions on Congress' war-making powers are not as settled as some like to state. The question goes right back to the beginnings of the Republic and has yet to be decided once and for all by the Supreme Court.
Anyway, nice talking, gotta' run for now.
or any other person who is not actually doing any fighting for our country, to be taken seriously.
You mean like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice?
"or any other person who is not actually doing any fighting for our country, to be taken seriously.
You mean like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice?"
If you would take the time to read and seriously evaluate my posts then you would realize how silly your words are. You know very well I was only referring to comments that are on the verge of being treasonous. So, it is utterly ridiculous to throw comments like the above into the mix...
Then you should make your point clearer.
I disagree wholeheartedly, my dear Mr. Valin. YOU should not be so quick to jump all over somebody else's words thereby accusing them of some nonexistent thing. Not a good way to make friends and influence people.
BTW; you have posted to me before and your posts seemed reasonable to me. However, I now have my doubts. If you choose to deal with it all this way, that is your business. But, in my opinion, it is not a good plan...
bfl
a neverdem bump
also see this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1727692/posts?page=86#86
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.