Conservatives' core duty on WMD

CS Monitor ^ | July 08, 2003 edition | Doug Bandow

[Int]

Conservatives' core duty on WMD

By Doug Bandow

WASHINGTON

There was a time when conservatives fought passionately to preserve America as a limited constitutional republic. That was, in fact, the essence of conservatism. It's one reason Franklin Roosevelt's vast expansion of government through the New Deal aroused such bitter opposition on the right.

But many conservative activists seem to have lost that philosophical commitment. They now advocate autocratic executive rule, largely unconstrained by constitutional procedures or popular opinions.

This curious attitude is evident in the conservative response to the gnawing question: Where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? A surprising number of conservatives respond: So what? He must have had them; maybe he gave them away. And, anyway, Hussein was a bad guy. In their view, even to ask the question is to mount a partisan attack on President Bush, and that's downright unpatriotic.It always seemed likely that Baghdad possessed WMD. Not only did Iraq once maintain a WMD program, but how else to explain the regime's obstructionist behavior during the inspections process?

Yet it made equal sense to assume that a desperate Hussein would use any WMD to defend his regime - and that serious elements of Baghdad's arsenal would be quickly found.

There may be a logical explanation for the fact that WMD were not used and have not been located; significant WMD stockpiles might eventually turn up.

Moreover, it's hard to imagine the administration simply concocting its WMD claims. The president, though a practiced politician, isn't the type to lie so blatantly. Whatever the faults of his lieutenants, none seems likely to advance a falsehood that would be so hard to maintain.

But the longer we go without any discoveries, the more questionable the prewar claims appear to have been. The allies have checked all of the sites originally targeted for inspection, arrested leading Baath Party members, and offered substantial rewards for information. Even in Hussein's centralized regime, more than a few people must have known where any WMD stocks were hidden or transferred and would be able to help now.

Which means it is entirely fair to ask the administration, where are the WMD? The answer matters for the simplest practical reasons. Possible intelligence failures need to be corrected. Washington's loss of credibility should be addressed; saying "trust me" will be much harder for this president in the future or a future president.

Stonewalling poses an even greater threat to our principles of government. It matters whether the president lied to the American people. Political fibs are common, not just about with whom presidents have had sex, but also to advance foreign-policy goals. Remember the Tonkin Gulf incident, inaccurate claims of Iraqi troop movements against Saudi Arabia before the first Gulf war, and repetition of false atrocity claims from ethnic Albanian guerrillas during the Kosovo war.

Perhaps the administration manipulated the evidence, choosing information that backed its view, turning assumptions into certainties, and hyping equivocal materials. That, too, would hardly be unusual. But no president should take the US into war under false pretenses. There is no more important decision: The American people deserve to hear official doubts as well as certitudes.

The point is not that the administration is necessarily guilty of misbehavior, but that it should be forced to defend its decisionmaking process.

Pointing to substitute justifications for the war just won't do. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notes that the alleged Al Qaeda connection divided the administration internally, and humanitarian concerns did not warrant risking American lives. Only fear over Iraqi possession of WMD unified the administration, won the support of allies, particularly Britain, and served as the centerpiece of the administration's case. If the WMD didn't exist, or were ineffective, Washington's professed case for war collapses.

Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking. Republicans - think President Eisenhower, for instance - once took seriously the requirement that Congress declare war. These days, however, Republican presidents and legislators, backed by conservative intellectuals, routinely argue that the chief executive can unilaterally take America into war.

Thus, in their view, once someone is elected president, he or she faces no legal or political constraint. The president doesn't need congressional authority; Washington doesn't need UN authority. Allied support is irrelevant. The president needn't offer the public a justification for going to war that holds up after the conflict ends. The president may not even be questioned about the legitimacy of his professed justification. Accept his word and let him do whatever he wants, irrespective of circumstances.

This is not the government created by the Founders. This is not the government that any believer in liberty should favor.

It is foolish to turn the Iraq war, a prudential political question, into a philosophical test for conservatism. It is even worse to demand unthinking support for Bush. He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives. Fidelity to the Constitution and republican government demands no less.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The CATO Institute has little credibility anymore for people on the right. Their wacky positions on open borders and economic theories makes them about as conservative as Donald Duck.

[Support Free Republic]

Lighten Up, Francis!

Fundraising posts only happen quarterly, and are gone as soon as we meet the goal. Help make it happen.

[jla]

Conservatives' lack of interest in the WMD question takes an even more ominous turn when combined with general support for presidential warmaking.

Wrong, Bandow.
Conservatives, at least the real one's, don't "lack interest", we just believe our President. And our President is not capable of lying.

Belief & faith: Surprised these didn't rub off on Doug when he had the opportunity to work around RR.

[JohnGalt]

Excellent article from one of the few Beltway institutions that can at least claim some hold to paleo-libertarian thought. With Steve Forbes and Rupert Murdoch on the board, I doubted they would be able to waiver much from neoconservative convictions-- which is funny when you consider the poster who dismisses the Cato Institute based on their open borders position.

The open borders comes from the 'neoconservative' influence, not the paleo-libertarian influence of Cato's co-founder, Murray Rothbard who saw 'open borders' as recruitment for the welfare state.

[JohnGalt]

Trust but verify, or had you forgotten?

I cannot believe that the President lied, but I care too much about the reelection to let him be manipulated by those who wish to hang on to power (err--Rummy and the Defense Policy Board) that they will recklessly jeopardize this President simply to protect their own careers.

[Captain Kirk]

Rothbard supported open borders but was against welfare.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The open borders comes from the 'neoconservative' influence, not the paleo-libertarian influence of Cato's co-founder...

Wherever it comes from, open borders is their official position is it not?

There isn't anything more destructive to conservatism than opening up the borders for anyone to walk in and settle down. They can claim to support that position as long as welfare is done away with, but's that's never going to happen. The media would show starving children everyday due to such "mean-spirited" policies. If people want socialism, open up the borders and that's what they'll get.

[af_vet_rr]

Agreed, always "trust but verify". He may not lie, but he's had various officials under him do some shady things, and in the end, he is responsible for their conduct.

[joybelle]

It isn't just republicans that go to war without congressional approval. We are still in the Balkans and no exit date in sight. We had no stragesic interest there, and where were the supposed mass graves? Wasn't it Tom Clancy who wrote of executing all those who knew where he hid the weapons?
We know they were there in 1998. The question we should be asking is WHERE ARE THEY if not in Iraq??? Clinton said they were there. This is the horrifying question the WHOLE WORLD should be asking. He could not have easily destroyed all of them.

[JohnGalt]

Rothbard was to the Right of Reagan on immigration.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods7.html
Hoppe argues that the traditional libertarian position on immigration – that is, completely open borders – is fundamentally wrongheaded, even from a libertarian point of view. Here Hoppe builds upon the late Murray Rothbard’s overhaul of the libertarian position in the early 1990s. (Rothbard, as some readers are doubtless aware, was the culturally conservative libertarian theorist who made many enemies – and at least as many new friends – when he supported Pat Buchanan in 1992.) "I began to rethink my views on immigration," Rothbard explained, "when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples." After serious reflection, he realized that "the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

[VOA]

He should be pressed on the issue of WMD - by conservatives.

And my amateur suggestion is that Dubya should include the scenarios presented
by (believe it or not) Clinton Administration official Kenneth Pollack.

My simple summary of Pollack's take is that Saddam kept a "capability-based" WMD program...
new pharmceutical plants that could be rapidly re-configured to produce chem/bio
weapons and quickly loaded in artillery shells and moved to the front.

And that having a bomb dropped on his head in the opening of the campaign disrupted
any chance for Saddam to issue the order to get on with the making/distribution of these weapons.

And the US/Coalition moved so fast that the Iraqis wouldn't have time to carry out the plan.

I'm not saying this was actually what happened. But I think Pollack does make a
reasonable case for portraying the way in which Saddam had a WMD program....
but it couldn't be found -- until it would have been used.

[JohnGalt]

No, it is not, (see post 11) so long as you are not confusing Old Right libertarians with the Libertarian Party platform.

Most Old Right libertarians of the Rothbard, Austrian school, Southern Jeffersonian liberal.. are closed borders, pro-life, state rightists, and have little in common with the left-libertarians who support interventions abroad and a strong central state to over-ride local laws (the Texas sodomy ruling two weeks ago was an excellent example of the split.)

[JohnGalt]

He is responsible, of course, but the last time a sitting President challenged the influence of the foreign policy establishment was what, 40 years ago? And how did that story end?

I will settle for Rummy and Powell 'resigning to spend more time with their families.'

The job of President in this day and age is simply too big, so I sympathize with Bush being misled by his underlings. In the same breath I respect your position to with hold support on a noble principal.

[Captain Kirk]

I notice that no details were provided on the exact details of Rothbard's position. Basically, Hoppe (and then Rothbard) subscribed to a rather odd position under which held that immigrants should only be allowed if they were "invited" by property owners including road owners. They tried to spin this as anti-immigration but, if literally followed, it would install an open borders policy, albeit without welfare and with the permission of road owners, etc.

[joybelle]

The administration said just before the war that we were in contact with high Iraqui officials. Supposedly, it was one of these officials that refused to have WMD used thus making our invasion so rapid. Also after giving them six months dilly dallying with the UN, they had sufficient to hide them anywhere or move them elsewhere. They are most likely in the Bakka (sp?) Valley in Leabon.
This is probably why Dick Cheney wanted to go in earlier.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

No, it is not, (see post 11) so long as you are not confusing Old Right libertarians with the Libertarian Party platform.

"The problem is not that we are letting too many people into the United States," writes Griswold, "but that the government is not keeping out the wrong people. An analogy to trade might be helpful: We can pursue a policy of open trade, with all its economic benefits, yet still exclude goods harmful to public health and safety, such as diseased meat and fruits, explosives, child pornography, and other contraband materials. In the same way, we should keep our borders open to the free flow of people, but at the same time strengthen our ability to keep out those few who would menace the public."

Looks like they support open borders to me. And they're also peddling guest worker programs and amnesties. They are totally out of sync with conservatives on this issue.

[JohnGalt]

In fairness, it's an exert from an article trying to demonstrate a point.

I think the key is that there is an evolving 'fusionist' position between Old Right libertarians and paleo-conservatism of the Vdare/Chronicles variety.

You might be interested, I'll see if I can find a link, where Hoppe recently wrote an article against the H1B visas 'as tax payer subsidy for business.'

[JohnGalt]

Who is this 'they' you are referring to?

Cato?

Cato is funded by neoconservatives (Steve Forbes, Rupert Murdoch amongst others) who hold open borders as an article of faith.

[Blzbba]

"And our President is not capable of lying."


Since he is a fallible human being, he IS capable of lying. The man isn't God, Jesus, or a superhero.

I don't believe he HAS lied...but he certainly possesses the same capability for fault as you & I.