-
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
hillary (oops!) talks
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
Posted on 09/28/2003 3:59:13 AM PDT by Mia T
The Pro-War Argument [from a leftist]
There are two questions, I think, that all of us have been pondering. The first one is why is the Bush Administration proposing to launch this war? The second question is, should this war be launched? They're not the same question. Sometimes somebody that one admires does something that one cannot support. Sometimes someone that one does not admire does something that one can support. I'd like to separate, at the outset, the question of the Bush Administration from the question of the merits of this war that they propose to fight in Iraq.
I'm not here to defend the Bush Administration; I want to be perfectly clear about that. In most of its policies, I find it somewhere between offensive and odious. I have no enthusiasm for the heartlessness of its economic policy, for its indifference to the environment, for its non-democratic feelings about the transparency of government, for its religiosity, for its bloodlust in capital punishment executions. None of this arouses any enthusiasm in me. However, I cannot allow my analysis of what I believe to be a serious threat emanating from Saddam Hussein to be shut down by my opposition to the Bush Administration on other grounds. It is possible for sophisticated people in a democracy to support certain things and oppose other things. In any event, we only have one president at a time.
I was a great supporter of American intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s, as was Mark; we were co-conspirators in this. I think that Bill Clinton will go to hell for taking two and a half years to get into Bosnia after not doing anything at all about Rwanda. I greatly admired Republican friends who despised Clinton, as much as some of us despise Bush, who were able to support the democratic intervention in the Balkans because they thought it was the right thing.
The reason I support the war in Iraq is essentially this, and I'll have to speak briefly and therefore crudely. I believe that there is such a thing as an international emergency that requires the international community ñ whatever on earth that is. We'll have to deal with that at some point tonight: to act, to rise up and stop acts of such criminality, acts of violence against innocent men, women and children that simply constitute a fundamental violation, not only of the peace, but of the standards of a civilized international life.
I do not believe that tyranny is one of those international emergencies; tyranny is as old as the hills, and it has to be fought indigenously. A true democracy needs indigenous roots, so force can sometimes help it along, as we discovered in Germany, Japan, Austria and other places. Nor do I believe that war itself constitutes such an international emergency, but there are two crimes, there are two heinous categories of acts, that I believe require, obligate, every civilized individual to oppose them, into doing something about them. They are genocide and the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The remarkable thing about Saddam Hussein (he 's very distinguished in the field of evil) is that he has actually perpetrated both these international emergencies. He has used chemical weapons against soldiers; he has used chemical weapons against civilians. He started a war that lasted seven years that cost 1 million lives, at the end of which the border had not even changed. He invaded Kuwait. We now know, this is not speculation, that there are thousands, I repeat, thousands of tons of chemical agents in Iraq that are unaccounted for. We know, this is not speculation, that there are thousands of loiters of anthrax in Iraq that are unaccounted for.
The United Nations ñ that is to say, the international community -- quite correctly, 12 years ago, and then again in [U.N. Resolution] 1441 recently, demanded that he disarm. We sent inspectors and he turned the inspections into a scavenger hunt. The inspections were not supposed to be a scavenger hunt; what the international community required of this man was that he make a strategic decision to disarm. This is a decision that, not only has he consistently refused to make, but that his refusal to make has enabled him to actually use his weapons, either actually, or for the purpose of the threat of terrorizing various opposition groups and ethnic groups in other states and so on. Saddam Hussein is the only figure in the discussion of the weapons of mass destruction, about whom all the chilling theories of deterrence and all the ominous scenarios of game theory do not apply, because he has already used them. He has already used them; he is the only figure in contemporary history of whom that can be said. This is not a small thing.
There are those who point out that the old scenarios of deterrence apply because he has never used them against people by whom he could be deterred. I will confess that that is attributing a little too much rationality after genocide, for my taste. In any event, even if Saddam Hussein is the rational actor that certain people who are opposed to the war think he is, he happens to have been a colossally, stupidly dangerous rational actor, who has committed two of the most extraordinary strategic miscalculations in modern history. The first one having to do with starting that ugly and unbelievable was with Iran, the second one having to do with the war with Kuwait.
Let me say a word about terrorism. I do not believe this war is about terrorism; I do not believe there is any direct link that has been demonstrated between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. But I will tell you this. Everything we know about this man, about what he has done in the past and about what he is capable of doing in the future, does not lead me to believe that there is some part of his conscience that would make it impossible for him to cooperate with terrorist groups of all kinds. He has already cooperated with a variety of terrorist groups, and there are thousands of tons of chemical agents that are unaccounted for.
A word about democratization: I do not believe, in the words of a famous folk singer in the 1960s, that we are the cops of the world. I do not think that democratization alone is a sufficient reason for the United States to launch a major war against a tyranny in the Middle East. But I do believe that the only real solution to the problem of proliferation is political development. That is to say, Saddam Hussein, I believe, for the sake of hundreds of thousands of innocent, not even necessarily American ones, because we are not the United States of America because we believe only in the welfare of ourselves. This is not just about the security of people who have an American passport; this is about the role that any large power, that claims to be a decent power and have a conscience, must play.
Leon Wieseltier
Literary Editor, The New Republic
NOTE: Leon Wieseltier is apparently that rare breed of leftist:
honest, rational, patriotic, courageous;
willing to articulate the evil that is clinton....
|
That led to the MAD doctrine. But recent developments in weaponry have focused like a laser on--weapons which are focused like a laser. Bombs made of concrete to disable individual tanks by direct impact with slight risk of collateral damage constitute a new class of WMD: Weapons of Minimum Destruction.
This was caricatured back in the Gulf War by showing a smart missile asking directions to Saddam Hussain's position. The limiting case would, I suppose, be a bio weapon which would kill or otherwise control a single individual of known DNA and be otherwise harmless--or a weapon which would completely but temporarily incapacitate, but not permanently injure, people in a strictly circumscribed position.
But the point is that expensive but minimally destructive weapons would make little sense to a Stalin or a Saddam, and make perfect sense to a POTUS. MAD makes little sense to anyone who respects the life of a peon in Russia (or Iraq) irrespective of the government under which he perforce lives. It was therefore inevitable that the need to transcend MAD would animate a Ronald Reagan.
To speak of the end of US military hegemony is to speak of a return to the moral bankruptcy of MAD. It is remarkable how many do not recognize that.
The Pro-War Argument [from a leftist] |
Film Noir in the White House Leni Riefenstahl, the film genius who outmaneuvered propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels to chronicle Hitler's 1934 Nuremberg rallies in perhaps the most notorious documentary ever filmed, Triumph of the Will, symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils -- NAZI-pantalooned then, NAZI-pantless--and pantsuited--now . . . After the war, Riefenstahl excused her effort as pure documentary -- watch for Streisand, Spielberg, Geffen et al. to do the same one day -- yet she compiled one section, Hitler's motorcade to Munich, from several different events and shot the closeups of Nazi leaders at the podium in a staged studio sequence. As Riefenstahl told it, editing-to-perfection was crucial. She insisted that the finished quality of Triumph of Will came from her editing, not from any imposition of "posed shots" or choreography on her part. With her innovative editing techniques, Riefenstahl deliberately and selectively aestheticized Hitler and the Congress' proceedings. By editing out a shot of Hitler wiping his nose and including instead "more interesting expressions," by eliminating the human, Riefenstahl eliminated the inhuman. The only difference today, in this era of ubiquitous cameras, continuous news and the shameless auteur-tyrant, is that the useful-idiot Washington Press Corps, spun by and on the Hollywood-Arkansas Axis, edits out the clintons' inhumanity -- and ineptitude -- in real time. . . By editing out clinton's culpability for 9/11, Hollywood edits out its own culpability for 9/11 Columbia Pictures' "Black Hawk Down," the holiday action adventure movie about the 1993 Somalia debacle that cost 18 U.S. soldiers their lives, was set to explicity blame ex-President Clinton for the 9/11 terrorist attacks before the film's director and producers decided to soft-peddle the connection. In mid-November, before the decision to tone down the Clinton angle, the film was previewed for a handful journalists. Before its final edit "Black Hawk's" closing crawl highlighted a series of events following the Somalia mission, including Clinton's humiliating troop withdrawal from the country, the humanitarian disasters in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo and, finally, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. "With what happened in Mogadishu, with the way that all came down, you end up with the terrorism we see today," the film's producer Joe Roth told the New York Times on Wednesday. "It's so obvious now, eight years later." Roth said his partner Jerry Bruckheimer and "Black Hawk's" director Ridley Scott agreed with him that "we would be remiss in not making this connection to the general audience." But ultimately the filmakers, along with Mark Bowden, author of the best-selling book upon which the movie is based, decided that blaming Clinton explicitly would be "unnecessary and too distracting." Dead Hero's Father Tears into Clinton It was the moment President Bill Clinton wanted to restore his tattered He had just presented posthumous Congressional Medals of Honour, America's To his astonishment the handshake was declined. ''You are not fit to be The president reeled and the unprecedented onslaught continued for some Shughart and his colleague, both sergeants, were killed trying to rescue Although the president has tried to escape the blame, he is largely credited ''The medal doesn't help anything, other than that we are grateful that by Mia T
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)
by Mia T
LENGTH: 486 words
HEADLINE: Dead hero's father tears into Clinton
BYLINE: James Adams
reputation with the military before his departure for the D-Day celebrations
in Europe this week, James Adams reports.
highest military decoration, to the widows of two soldiers for valour in
Somalia. After inviting the families for a moment of quiet reflection in the
Oval Office, the president approached Herbert Shughart, the father of one of
the two soldiers, and offered his hand.
president of the United States,'' said Shughart Senior. ''The blame for my
son' s death rests with the White House and with you. You are not fit to
command.''
minutes. According to witnesses it was a ''highly charged emotional moment''
which resulted in Clinton trying to explain to Shughart,Sr. why the events
of that day last October were not his fault.
fellow rangers from a vicious fire-fight in which 18 died and 75 were
wounded. A later Pentagon investigation revealed that the troops had been
refused the ri ght equipment and there was no political or military plan to
justify the Americ an presence in Somalia.
with the failure of the whole American effort to bring peace to Somalia.
According to witnesses to the Oval Office scene, the Shughart family
remained unconvinced by the president's arguments.
Randy will be remembered in such an honourable way,'' said Lois Shughart,
the soldier's mother.
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)
UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
Q ERTY6ping
5.56mm
MAD obviously requires an absence of madness. But you are arguing, I believe, that it also requires an absence of humanity, i.e., the enemy needs to know that we will, in fact, retaliate.
One could argue that quite the opposite is the case -- that it is precisely humanity--and courage--that retaliation requires--(unless one of the actors is a Hitler or a Saddam.--or, I would add,--a clinton (think "Aspirin factory"))
Not unlike Bush's 'preemption' doctrine... It is actually an extension (an inversion?) of MAD, I think.
Q ERTY8BUMP |
||||||||||||||
Okay, maybe the administration's critics should go ask this guy for the details on saddam's WMD. LOL!
Those who hate America will vote for the Clintons. If you hate the country that gives you freedom and opportunity, then you really are not in your right mind.
Saddam Hussein is the only figure in the discussion of the weapons of mass destruction, about whom all the chilling theories of deterrence and all the ominous scenarios of game theory do not apply, because he has already used them. He has already used them; he is the only figure in contemporary history of whom that can be said. This is not a small thing.
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.
