Posted on 07/10/2003 6:17:24 AM PDT by Int
|
Conservatives' core duty on WMD
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.
|
Point well taken, my mistake, and I retract the statement.
I guess I can understand why you're not, RJ. But yes, I am.
It's nice knowing I can believe in certain folks without them having to validate themselves to me all the time, and vice versa.
Regardless of that, I hope this is all cleared up for you, and everybody else in the near future.
Although something tells me that the Left will do their very best to prevent it, or at the least, obscure it.
Only as a step in the right direction, toward TRUE free trade. As you have previously been informed.
Illegal immigrants continue to pour in while real wages decline.
Nafta causes illegal immigration? Hmmm, if they have jobs at home making sneakers to our detriment, why do they need to come here?
That was my point from the beginning, the organization is losing credibility among many conservatives over their positions.
You don't speak for conservatives as I have pointed out. And the Cato Institute isn't concerned with credibilty among any particular group. They seek to convince people in and out of government to adopt public policy which will further freedom and free markets as a means to return to a path which will lead to harmony and abundance at as high a level as possible.
Where did I say NAFTA caused illegal immigration? All I said was it's done nothing to stem it like Phil Gramm and others promised it would. What NAFTA has done though is lower real wages by the fact so many manufacturing jobs are moving out leaving us with only the low-paying service ones. When you combine that with explosive illegal immigration, it is a recipe for disaster.
You don't speak for conservatives as I have pointed out.
Well thank God you're here to point it all out for us. Again, where was it said I spoke for conservatives? I'm going by what I'm reading and hearing and very few of them support mass immigration, amnesties, guest worker programs, and free trade deals that are putting so many American out of work. I certainly don't go along with those policies and will support those candidates who agree with me. And there are a growing number in Congress who do, and not democrats either.
Most illegal immigrants are coming from Mexico, not Asia, though quite a few are from China. If Vietnam were on our border and the workers were making .20 an hour assembling sneakers they'd be crossing the border by the thousands instead.
They must be high paying low paying jobs because US citizens make more than almost anyone else in the world. The low paying service jobs nonsense is right out of the liberal Democrat talking points handbook.
And again, illegal immigration is not advocated by the Cato Institute any more than they advocate open borders as you earlier stated.
The idea that free trade deals are the cause of "so many Americans" being out of jobs is a myth. There are many causes for lost jobs, blaming them on freer trade (than previously) is nonsense.
And when you say lower "real" wages, what are you referring to? The artifically phony high wages for menial work you advocate? Those aren't real. The workers in other countries BTW have experienced real wage growth. But I guess they don't count for some reason.
As far as protectionists growing in congress, I think you are dreaming if you think the country will return to repeat the mistakes of the past. Populists and other power seekers will always try to convince people that they have the answer, but they are wrong. And thankfully we will not be returning to the economics of tyranny and the dark ages any time soon.
The people who come across our borders come for many reasons, but free trade policies have nothing to do with it. It is a different question entirely.
Virgil Goode just sponsored a bill in Congress to repeal NAFTA. I don't expect it to go anywhere this year, it's going to take a few years yet when millions more have lost their jobs to outsourcing and unfair competition from third world countries. Americans have traditionally voted their pocketbooks and the future will be no different.
It's very easy to google this you know, unless the free traders are in denial and would rather not:
It's just none of your business what I pay my workers or where I shop or what I buy or what I pay or what I earn or anything else as long as I don't violate any of your rights. You have no right or legitimate power to interfere with my arrangements. I owe you nothing and any use of force by you or your agents (govt) to make your situation better at my expense is immoral.
Any contention to the contrary is liberal at best. You ain't no conservative.
You're right, it isn't, and I could care less. But if you're going take your company overseas, pay workers $1.00 putting Americans out of work by flooding the market with those products then it becomes all of our business.
Again, as I pointed out to you free trade with third world countries is recent policy, begun in the nineties. Prior to that protectionism ruled the day, and for Americans it worked very well. And I predict whether you like it or not eventually we will go back to it in some form. Politicians, preferably parties prefer to get re-elected, and they'll do what they have to when enough Americans have had enough of "free trade".
Good, Nafta is an abomination. As are all government control managed trade agreements between governements. You, BTW, actually love these agreements in theory, you just hate the current terms. If they did what you wanted you would fess up to loving them. They are corporate welfare.
The agreement is essentially one of countries taxing each other. They should agree on one rate of plunder and leave people otherwise alone.
If Americans fall for this nonsense as you predict they deserve the chains they allow thugs to put on them.
You have put words in my mouth so many times on this thread I don't know if it's worth continuing with you. Show me one post where I said all countries besides Vietnam were paying workers .20 an hour. Never did.
In China and Mexico it's more like $1.00 to $2.00, but still it's far below the going rate of the average American. They cannot compete with those slave labor wages, it's why there's so much outsourcing going on today. And it's why, as we speak Congress is holding hearings on the problem. Even they have begun to realize if there are no workers, who's going to buy the products and pay taxes? Free trade has its limits, and there will be some regulation eventually.
The next statement puts lie to that claim.
But if you're going take your company overseas, pay workers $1.00 putting Americans out of work by flooding the market with those products then it becomes all of our business.
Wrongo. Whatever I do is none of your business, or anyone elses. You talk like a collectivist. I don't owe anyone a job. I have no obligation to hire people from one ethnic or nationality group or geographic region. And it's NO one's business if I don't violate anyones rights. No one has a "right" to not have a flooded market, or a certain price commodity or anything else.
I notice you just gave the poor workers of the world a huge raise!!!! LOL
As long as those agreements are with countries on economic par with us no I don't have a problem with them. American companies are competing on a more level playing field and can afford to stay in the states and employ Americans. That's the way it was done in the past and worked out very well for most of our history. I would very much like for us go back to that.
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.