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.
|
Well that explains in a nutshell why the Cato Institute is so laughable. Countries most certainly do have a right to control what products are allowed in, or whether or not there's tariffs placed on them. We can debate till the cows come home what the policy should be, but to deny a country's right to regulate commerce is hilarious.
You're right, I did, referring to Vietnam and Nike, not every country on the planet.
At least you finally admitted it. The deals aren't the problem for you despite your earlier rants about them.
American companies are competing on a more level playing field and can afford to stay in the states and employ Americans.
None of your business. And employing Americans isn't a high aspiration.
That's the way it was done in the past and worked out very well for most of our history.
Wrong, as I pointed out, we did relatively well in spite of the mistake, not because of it.
I would very much like for us go back to that.
No doubt. But tyranny is dead for the time being despite your control obsession.
Free markets for free men. Command and control for authoriarians and other thugs.
BTW, your beloved government has made so many regulations and maintains such high taxes that businesses have to flee. It has much, much less to do with wages and more to do with the rest of the Bullsh-t.
I can recommend some easy to read economics books to you if you want to learn how to become a real American. Or there is always the Democratic Union talking points to stick to if you want to remain in the dark.
Damn it's easy to have fun allowing Republicans to defend liberal and socialistic policies while pretending to be conservative!
I can't wait to run into you on other threads so I can see which other liberal policies you support. Are you a union member? A government employee? A public school teacher?
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address; March 4, 1801
Again putting words in my mouth. Go back and read the posts and you will see that my opposition to free trade is against third world countries, not those on economic par with us.
Are you a union member? A government employee? A public school teacher?
Nope, none of the above. I'm a Ronald Reagan supporter who agreed with his policies of protectionism when it came to American jobs. He did not hesitate to slap tariffs on dumpers, including their cars, computer parts, and steel. But I suppose you think he was closet commie too for not agreeing with you that free trade should be 100% uninhibited, no matter the consequences to the country?
You cannot sweep history under the rug, no matter how hard you try. Protectionism worked, it made the US prosperous. On the other hand, free trade of this nature is putting us out of work all so Protagoras can fool himself into believing he's getting those great bargains at Wal-Mart. Better hurry, you'll miss the blue light special. Or is that K-Mart?
You cannot sweep history under the rug, no matter how hard you try. Protectionism worked, it made the US prosperous.
You cannot make a falsehood true, no matter how hard you try.
And I care not a wit for Wal-mart, I care about freedom. It's the difference between liberals and people like me. The "consequences" of free trade are abundance and harmony.
Control freaks and power seekers love to tell others what they can and cannot do at the point of a gun. They say it's for the "country". Kinda like they do on other subjects with the "children". It's for the children. LOL
Free trade in the sense of what we have now is not about freedom, not for Americans. It's about corporations moving to cheap labor countries, then dumping their products in the US, unfairly competing with businesses trying to make a living here and putting people out of work. Government's job is to protect the interests of its citizens, not a select few CEOs.
Yeah and Ronald Reagan and all those Republicans who supported protectionism before him were commies too. Oooh, such a dirty word hah?
bzzzt, Wrongo. Governments job is to defend everyones rights. Not to protect "interests". You seem confused as a pretend conservative. Just come out of the closet and admit your liberal big government leanings, it's a cleansing thing.
You do it because you are a "useful idiot" on the subject. You actually believe the government should control private arrangements for the benefit of some. That individuals should be forced to give up rights so some "greater good" (which really isn't) can be served.
And Republicans are just power seekers, like Democrats. Best not to fall in love with them either.
Then what's that line in the Constitution about promoting the general welfare? That's not socialism in the democratic sense, but taking into account the interests of the citizens. The Forefathers certainly understood that.
You really must stop trying to deny history, no one will believe anything you say otherwise.
LOL, wish I'd said that.
The only hero worshipping I see going on is with you, who worships at the altar of failed free trade policies all so he can delude himself into believing he's free. Sorry, not biting, and neither are the majority of conservatives who find the Cato Institute to be a joke. Most of us are not lemmings, but nice try anyway.
You really should do your homework on that to find out what they meant. Hint, it ain't what you think. All big government people, mostly Democrats use that line to justify every single usurpation of rights and every govt. program.
That's not socialism in the democratic sense, but taking into account the interests of the citizens. The Forefathers certainly understood that.
The way they wanted to promote the genearal welfare was by having a free society with free trade and all the blessings that come with it. All the citizens are better off if all the citizens are free.
You really must stop trying to deny history, no one will believe anything you say otherwise.
I never deny history, I disabuse people like you of erronous notions about it.
Now that's what I call twisting history to suit an agenda. The "general welfare" line was more just than the Bill of Rights, but pertained to the functioning of society overall so it wouldn't become unglued. Yes government's role is to protect our rights, but also our interests. That's why we have a national defense, or a Federal Reserve. But I suppose you think those are anti-freedom policies too right?
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.