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.
|
Bush did not swallow the 'intelligence' hook, line, and sinker. He was a willing participant just like Clinton. another permutation. Currently, according to White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, the U.S. is "sure" that the Iraqis were the sinister force behind Al Shifa, producing what the Post characterized as "powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active nerve gas." This, says Professor Tullius, strains credulity: "Bleach is often used to detoxify nerve agents," he says. "Using bleach to activate an agent makes no sense." While the Iraqi and Sudanese militaries are known to have collaborated on limited munitions projects, says investigative reporter Frank Smyth, there is nothing linking these endeavors to Al Shifa or Bin Laden. "It looks like the administration acted based on inferences drawn from pieces of intelligence they presumed were connected," he says.
Ah, I see. So may one understand correctly then that you consider GWB to be a conservative republican?
Their love of drug use and laissez faire attitude toward national security and border control puts them squarely in the Democrat camp. They are positioning themselves to be the Ross Perot of the new millenium.
Quite frankly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Libertarians have a love of drug use? Kindly elaborate on that utter mischaracterization.
Sounds like he has conservatives and liberals mixed up.
Corporate welfare is not free trade. It is subsidies and tax breaks and protective tarrifs. (which you advocate)
Hiring whomever you want and selling products to whomever will buy them at whatever price arrived upon without coersion is free trade. It works better than any other system. Certainly better than your view, which has been a dismal failure (and is immoral) where ever it has been used.
I love debating so called conservatives who love command policies and big government interference in private transactions. It exposes them for what they truly are. In the "big government know best" and Union thug camp.
Your slanted view exposes you as incredibly ignorant or deliberately obtuse.
First you stated that they (all L/libertarians) have a love of drug use.
Then, when called on it, suddenly it's legalization, not actual use, and it's only the Libertarians in the Northwest who you've been exposed to.
Care to amend it any further?
You are delusional. The Cato Institute does not presume to speak for the Libertarian Party, much less libertarians in general.
Why not go educate yourself instead of saying all these incorrect and crazy things which make you look goofy.
Indeed.
So for the last 200 years our beloved USA was just a third world garbage dump? Free trade with third world countries is recent policy, prior to that we traded with those on economic par with us only, as in Japan and Europe and Canada. That was called "fair trade".
For those that tried to dump their cheap labor products on us they were slapped with tariffs, that policy was in the Republican platform into the seventies. The Founding Fathers supported protectionism, and we became the richest, most powerful nation due to it. To suggest it was a "dismal failure" totally ignores the reality of history.
Your viewpoint is skewed as far as I'm concerned. If he was talking about Clinton you would be cheering. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. (no pun intended)
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.