Month: October 2002

Background, just in case: three Democratic congressmen recently spoke out against the President’s policy vis a vis Iraq in an interview with CNN. At the time, they were in Baghdad. Quite a few people have equated this with treason. Today, two of them (McDermott and Bonior) defended their actions.

I don’t want to rehash the definition of treason. What interests me is that today was the first time I’ve seen anyone mention that McDermott and Bonior are Vietnam-era veterans. They didn’t serve in Vietnam, but I’m pretty sure “peacenik” is not a word you should casually apply to someone who was in active military service at the time. Certainly they weren’t fighting to end the war.

This kind of ad hominem attack is very discouraging. Piling on the derogatory verbiage is no way to conduct debate.

Here’s the text of the resolution Bush is sending to Congress regarding Iraq. It looks pretty fair at first glance, although I think bringing up the 1993 assassination attempt on Bush smacks of revenge. I care that Iraq tried to kill Bush Sr., but I do not care more about that than I care about any single attempt to kill a US soldier. I also have not yet seen proof that Iraq is being harbored by al Qaida. However, this is in essence the bill that Congress needs to pass before we invade Iraq. I’m glad he’s acknowledging that Congress gets to decide.

Hey, wait a second. When Bush spoke to the UN, he said “The Security Council resolutions will be enforced.” That implies that there are Security Council resolutions in effect, right? So what’s all this about “We feel the inspectors should not go in until there is a resolution that gives them the authority and instructions of the Security Council”? I mean, if we want new resolutions, that’s good; I’m pretty confident that Saddam would be willing to hide stuff inside his palaces, so I can understand wanting access. But that’s no reason to thwart (the State Department’s word) inspections under the current rules, is it? Let’s be clear on this: that’s a direct threat from the United States State Department to obstruct the work of the authorized and appointed UN weapons inspection teams.

Maybe Bush didn’t want the existing Security Council resolutions enforced after all. Perhaps he should have said so. Alas, he’s now allowed himself to be manuvered into a sticky position — it’s not Iraq standing in the way of the UN any longer, it’s the US who appears to be “a threat to the authority of the United Nations…” Again, Bush’s words.

Yeah, that was just a really, really smart bit of strategy.

Remember that 33 pounds of weapons-grade uranium? Well, turns out it was really only five ounces. The 33 pound figure counted the weight of the container. Except it wasn’t really uranium at all.

And of course, we don’t actually have any evidence it was going to Iraq anyhow.