BUSH LIED......NOT!!!

Here is an editorial from the Chicago Tribune that everyone in America should read. Finally, a group of journalists has decided to weigh all the charges against the President about getting us into the war in Iraq against the evidence, and found that he really did not lie to the American people. They examine the NINE reasons the President gave for toppling Saddam Hussein by force and find that while mistakes were made, deliberate lies were not. Congratulations to the people at the Tribune for doing some good journalism.

After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.

Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. We said that every earnest tool of diplomacy with Iraq had failed to improve the world's security, stop the butchery--or rationalize years of UN inaction. We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict.

Read the whole thing. I found this at Instapundit, a blog I recommend you visit regularly.

WPRO TODAY

I will once again be filling-in for Dan Yorke on WPRO-AM in Providence, RI from 3-7 PM today. WPRO can be heard at 630 on the AM dial.

WPRO TOMORROW

I will be guest-hosting the Dan Yorke Show tomorrow on WPRO-AM in Providence, RI. You can catch the show from 3-7 PM on 630 AM throughout Rhode Island (and into parts of Massachusetts and Conn. as well). I will post a list of possible topics tomorrow morning.

THE TROUBLE WITH IRAN

Is the President of Iran crazy? One might think so following a drumbeat of inflammatory remarks regarding Israel. President Ahmadinejad has, over the last few weeks, called for the destruction of Israel, said that the Holocaust is a myth, and has suggested that the Israelis be moved to Europe or North America. Each statement has been followed by international denunciations, which is all well and good. But the problem will not go away. If his statements are to be taken at face value, Ahmadinejad clearly believes that the Jews need to be driven out of Palestine, or be destroyed, a view that is shared by quite a few of his co-religionists throughout the region. Like Adolph Hitler in the 1920s and 30s, the civilized world appears poised to ignore his ravings, a mistake that could repeat the awful consequences that were endured in the 1940s.

Overstating the case, you say? Consider this for a moment. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in Landsburg Prison in the early 20s, he was already being written off by expert political opinion in Germany and throughout Europe. While his trial and conviction following a failed Putsch attempt in Munich had made him a celebrity, most sober, conservative folks believed sincerely that reasonable people would not succumb to the ravings of someone who was so clearly unhinged. How wrong they were. After his release he slowly built the Nazi Party into a player on the German political scene, merely needing some confluence of events to provide him the energy to bring his message to the masses. The ravages of the Great Depression provided him with the fertile political ground to build his party into a truly mass movement. If, at that moment, conservative officers of the German Army had read his book and paid close attention to his speeches, they might have realized that Hitler REALLY MEANT WHAT HE SAID and, perhaps, they would have bumped him off. If the conservative business community had realized that Hitler REALLY MEANT WHAT HE SAID, perhaps they would have refused to provide him with financial backing. As we know, neither of those two powerful communities inside Germany really believed Hitler's words, assuming he was merely playing to the crowd, or that they could control him when he became Chancellor. When he became Chancellor, the governments of the other nations of Europe, especially France and Britain, likewise failed to believe he REALLY MEANT WHAT HE SAID about Lebensraum in Europe. By failing to take his written and spoken words at face value, both the German Army and the business community were destroyed, France was conquered and occupied for four years, Austria was assimilated, Czechoslovakia dismembered, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Belgium conquered and occupied, Britain battered to the brink of defeat, the Soviet Union invaded and ravaged, and millions of Jews and other nationalities were massacred. Only the steadfast nature of the British people(and the barrier of the Channel, guarded by the Royal Navy and the RAF), the heroic sacrifices of the Russians, and the intervention of the United States, prevented Europe from being plunged into a new Dark Age.

Obviously, the historical and political circumstances are different today. President Ahmadinejad is not the spiritual leader of a political movement, as Hitler was (Nazism as a potent political force in Germany in the 20s and 30s is simply unimaginable without Hitler). Ahmadinejad is the hand-picked operative of the Mullahs who really rule Iran. But is it not prudent to assume that his beliefs mirror those of the men who made him President? Is there not copious evidence indicating that Iran's government funds terrorist groups whose stated purpose is the destruction of Israel? Is there not copious evidence that Iran's government is pursuing an offensive nuclear capability? Is there not copious evidence indicating that Iran's government is trying to exert influence in Iraq, and helping those who are today killing American soldiers? Doesn't all of this paint a rather ominous picture?

If Ahmadinejad REALLY MEANS WHAT HE SAYS, then that is not simply Israel's problem, or ours, it is the world's problem. Imagine what will happen if Iran does produce nuclear weapons. Can Israel simply stand by and allow that to happen? Can they risk the existence of their nation by simply assuming that Ahmadinejad is just playing to the crowd? I doubt very much that the survivors and descendants of survivors of the Holocaust are going to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s.

This looming scenario deserves the full attention of the world through the only body (like it or not) that has sufficient international legitimacy to take action, the United Nations. The founders of the U.N. created that body for this very scenario. They imagined a new Hitler, threatening the world, and the international community coming together to prevent his rise and the enormous destruction that would inevitably follow. Clearly, the first step should be a U.N. resolution condemning the statements of Ahmadinejad. Second, the body should declare that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, therefore, unless Iran fully reveals its entire nuclear program to inspection, it will face immediate economic sanctions, followed by internationally sanctioned military action to strip Iran of its nuclear potential.

Of course, even as I write this, I realize it will never happen. The men who sit in positions of power in the various governments of the world and in the U.N. are just as blind as the men who watched Hitler rise to power in the 1930s. They are like the man who fell from the roof of a ten story building. Upon passing the windows of each floor on his way down he was heard to say, "so far, so good...so far, so good".

HILLARY’S CONFUSION ON IRAQ MIRRORS THE POLITICAL CONUNDRUM FACING THE DEMOCRATS

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has a problem. By all accounts (except, explicitly, her own) she wants to be the next President of the United States. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A lot of great men (and a few not-so-great) have wanted to be President. It is only fitting that in the 21st Century a few great women (or not so great...history will be Hillary’s final judge on that score) should share that desire as well. Her desire, therefore, to be elected the first female President is not the problem. Neither is the fact that she has only held one elected political office (her current one). It’s not even the fact that she is a woman (although that has relevance to her most significant problem). No, Hillary’s problem is the same one plaguing all the Democrats, and all the Republicans too, including the current President. Hillary’s problem is the Iraq War.

Dick Morris explains the politics of it all very neatly in his most recent column. The bottom line is simple...a woman cannot be elected President unless she is perceived as being tough, especially in wartime. I cannot conceive of a woman candidate shattering age-old stereotypes about women and war unless she is perceived as tough-as-nails. Think Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir. Even Democrats realized in 2004 that they needed a candidate who could allay the concerns of heartland voters about toughness and resolve in the face of an uncompromising terrorist enemy, which is why they came to their senses and chose John Kerry with his Vietnam War experience over Howard Dean. As we’ve seen, Republicans do not face a similar problem. Since the Vietnam War the GOP has consistently out-polled the Democrats on the issue of national security, which is why George W. Bush’s lack of combat experience hurt him less than it would a Democratic candidate.

Back in 2003 Hillary seemed to realize this when she voted to authorize the President to use force against Saddam Hussein’s regime, and when she made numerous statements strongly supporting the operation. It even had some wags predicting that she would be the most uncompromising wartime President in American history. Unfortunately for her, political reality is now intruding in the form of a growing anti-war revolt percolating up from the left. The recent statements by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq have only galvanized the feelings of those folks who are at the core of Democratic primary voters. They perceive, correctly, that their efforts are succeeding. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quickly joined with Murtha and said half of her caucus supported the position (which I do not doubt). Other Democrats came out equally as strong against a quick pull-out.

Which brings us back to Hillary. As a member of the political elite of the country, she has certainly educated herself through briefings and policy papers about the geopolitical realities of the war on terrorism, the Iraq War, and the Middle East in general. I believe she knows full well the possible consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. She also knows that no one will be elected President who advocates such a withdrawal, as enough Americans who will see it as surrender or retreat will join with those who support the operation to make a majority. Even after all the negative news, most polls still show a majority against an immediate withdrawal.

Certainly, if over 100,000 American troops are still in Iraq in 2007, when the Presidential race really gets started, and the country still seems to be wracked by suicide bombings and sectarian strife, the political reality here at home will be different. An explicitly anti-war, bring the troops home platform will have greater resonance. But, if there are less than 100,000 troops in Iraq, with more coming home all the time, and the Iraqi government seems to be stabilizing and dealing effectively with the insurgents, then anyone who joined the immediate withdrawal crowd in 2005 is going to have a hard time getting elected as Commander-in-Chief.

Thus, the question for Hillary (and all the Democrats thinking about the presidency) is simple. Should I play to the fervent anti-war crowd now in an effort to be seen as their champion, which would almost certainly put me in the driver’s seat for winning the nomination? Or, should I stick with my pro-war views, in the hope that by 2007 the situation will be seen as heading in a positive direction, and I can take credit for advocating a tough course, while offering an intelligent critique of the way the administration has handled it, and alternatives for the future prosecution of the war? I think it is this analysis which has led Hillary to muddy the waters about her Iraq War position (as well as Kerry, Edwards et. al.).

If I am right, here is how it might play out. Someone will, like Howard Dean in the last cycle, come out of the weeds and offer the anti-war base of the Democratic Party some true, 100% pure anti-war juice. They will drink it up with gusto. That man (maybe Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)) will build a winning operation, irrespective of how things go in Iraq. I say irrespective of how things go in Iraq deliberately. The anti-war left doesn’t care about victory in Iraq. They believe the war from the beginning was immoral and illegitimate. One typically does not want the immoral designs of evil men to succeed, does one? For them, all that counts is fealty to their view. Any Democrat who wants to be President and doesn’t toe the line on this issue faces some serious heavy lifting when we get to the retail politicking of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2007. For Hillary, that’s a problem.

PROPAGANDA

This week's big media story is the issue of Americans planting news stories in Iraqi newspapers. Yesterday, officials at the Pentagon admitted that they were, in fact, using a P.R. firm in Washington to translate articles written by soldiers into Arabic and then placing them into local papers in Iraq. There is still some question as to whether or not the placement of these stories without properly stating that they were paid advertisements, rather than legitimate news stories generated by the paper's own staff, was done at the Pentagon's direction. I suspect the operation was done with the complete approval of folks at the Pentagon (including the payments to Iraqi journalists). Why? Because they want to win the war, and propaganda is a vital part of warmaking in the modern era.

Can you imagine fighting World War II without propaganda (and censorship, for that matter). Clearly, the Vietnam War gives us a prime example of what happens when the U.S. (or any free society, I would imagine) tries to fight a tough, brutal war without propagandizing its people. In fact, while the people on the homefront in WWII were being fed a steady diet of propaganda designed specifically to keep up their morale, during Vietnam (and now, Iraq) the people were being fed a steady diet of propaganda designed specifically to shatter their morale.

Propaganda, you ask? Isn't what the MSM did during Vietnam and what they are doing now in Iraq simply reporting the news in a clear and objective manner? Those of you who are laughing at this point know what is coming next. Every news outlet makes editorial decisions every day, none more important than what stories to cover and what stories to ignore. After all, every media outlet has a limited staff and limited space or time to devote to news. Therefore, the coverage of the war is, by necessity, going to be limited to a slice of the conflict. In WWII that slice was whatever the U.S. and Allied militaries and governments chose to allow. They were the true editors of war news. In Vietnam (and now, Iraq) the editors of the newspapers and the producers of the network broadcasts are the arbiters of what does, or does not, get covered. The WWII military editors were driven by one thing...victory. The Vietnam editors, and their contemporary counterparts, are driven by a variety of motives, depending on the editor and his or her employers. Clearly, most editors, producers and reporters are left-of-center ideologically in the MSM (just look at the few polls that have been done, or ask anyone..like me...who has worked at these institutions). Therefore, they are going to look more critically at any decision of a right-of-center President. More importantly, though, they are driven by the desire to obtain a bigger audience for their product. Bad news sells better than good news. We are more concerned with the one plane that crashes than the 2,000 planes that landed safely. We are more concerned with the one patrol that gets ambushed than the hundreds of patrols that went without incident.

The cumulative result of all of this is what we are seeing today, and saw during Vietnam. A steady drumbeat of reporting about U.S. and Iraqi casualties, suicide bombers, kidnappers and beheaders, Shiite death squads, torture, and assorted other stories of mayhem and destruction. In WWII, if there had been no censorship or propaganda, the public would have been fed a similar diet. In 1942 alone, the U.S. and its allies suffered disaster after disaster, oftentimes due to the incompetence of Allied leaders. Even when we were winning, mistakes were made and lives lost. Only because Americans were shielded from the worst of this did morale remain relatively high on the homefront.

I am afraid that the Iraq War will be won or lost on the homefront, even more so than on the battlefield, or in the battle for Iraqi 'hearts and minds'. The only bulwark against defeat at the moment is the determination and stubbornness of one man...George W. Bush. Even as the public turns against him, he continues to wage this war. Even as his political allies grow faint-hearted, he continues to wage this war. I predict that even if his party loses the House and Senate in November of 2006, he will continue to wage this war. After watching his most recent speech, I am convinced that he will be stopped by nothing short of victory, or the end of his term in office.