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.
|
You hit the nail on the head. From the beginning of this year, I believed the actual Iraqi WMD were hidden in another country. I believe the administration knows they are in Syria or somewhere else as well.
Whew! Now I know what I am. lol
I didn't know if I was a small 'l' libertarian, a conservative libertarian, a republitarian or a liberpublican.
Cato also does not advocate government "free trade" deals over unfettered free trade by individuals. They do advocate "freer" trade than we currently have. If that means saying a free trade agreement is better than the old government command and control tarrifs and trade restrictions on the way to true free trade, they do it.
Then we'll be stuck with the democrats for another 40 years.
No difference as far as I can tell. The slide into oblivion has been even faster under these people.
Only because it seems strange that an organization who isn't conservative is telling those who are what they should they think and do. It's no different than the DNC doing it to me.
That isn't the goal. Do you even know what a Libertarian is? Or a libertarian?
Contributor....."Hey, don't you guys believe in my pet issue? (fill in the blank) It naturally follows your main goal of advancing civil society."
Cato......." We do, but we don't currently have the resources to cover every single issue".
Contributor......." What if I give you the money for it?"
Cato...."Cool, we'll do it then".
That's my take.
How reassuring. Except that's exactly what free trade deals with third world countries is, or haven't you noticed? Companies dump Americans, move to China, pay workers .20 an hour then flood our markets with those products at the same price as when they were made here. Now's who getting rich thanks to government sanctioned policies?
There was a time not long ago when we would slap tariffs on companies who did that to protect American jobs. Now people like you and the Cato Institute call it "free trade". Sure it is.
I think these types of articles are being written cover the butts of individuals and organizations "just in case" it gets out of hand, and to play mind games with Republicans, and especially with Conservatives.
Well no, not if you reason that as a human being he's also 'capable' of punching his mother in the face.
I'm not being a smartass here, I just want to explain my point in an unambiguous way.
No biggie, though. I think he'll be proven correct, ultimately. I sure hope so.
W will be proven correct, I know so.
Keep the faith, Blzbba, because the other side sure won't.
Duh! The Libertarian Party (as differing from libertarians) have positioned themselves as an alternative to the other parties long before Perot had the idea. They ARE a political party with the goal of being elected and instituting their policies.
As to your "unified" view, organising libertarians is like herding cats.
Paleo-libertarians use ideological arguments based on natural rights all the time. See Lew Rockwell's writings, for example.
"As far as ideology goes, Rothbard's Old Right has a fairly long, consitent intellectual history."
Didn't you just state that paleo-libertarianism is not an ideology?
What people like Bandow are doing is more like pouring gasoline on the fire. He should know better, and I believe he does. So what's he looking to gain by subjecting W to this charade?
It's the essence of freedom
Bandow is abusing his essence.
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.