Archives for November 2003

Where have I heard this before?

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

Colin Powell, in Brussels meeting with his EU counterparts before heading off to Bush’s state visit in the UK, has criticized a European UN resolution on Iran’s nuclear program. Remember that the foreign ministers of the UK, France, and Germany where all in Tehran last month to try to diplomatically solve the nuclear row.

The Europeans say that Iran is cooperating, but the Bush Administration insists that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program and they would rather that the UN consider sanctions.

Whether they’re right or wrong, Powell and Bush are going to have a heck of a time convincing the world that a rogue Middle Eastern country has a secret weapons program that poses an imminent threat to the West which must be addressed immediately.

Nov 18, 2003 | 4 Comments

Should we stay or should we go?

After getting us entangled in the very type of nation-building adventure he ran against, President Bush now seems to want to cut bait before the elections next year. For someone like me who opposed going to war in the first place, the question is whether we can afford to get out now that we are entrenched.

“The goal of the enemy is not to defeat us militarily,” said top Mideast commander Gen. John Abizaid yesterday. “The goal of the enemy is to break the will of the United States of America, to make us leave.”

And while we’re not leaving yet, the enemy must be heartened to know that their Ramadan offensive has put the Administration in a tizzy requiring a last minute trip home by Paul Bremmer. They must also be pleased at the increasingly obvious frustration of the Administration with its hand-picked Governing Council.

The plan now seems to be to turn over sovereignty pretty soon and hold elections (much to Dominique de Villepin’s satisfaction, I’m sure). But who do you think the majority Shi’ia population will elect? What kind of constitution will Iraq end up with? If thousands of mujahideen are making their way through the porous borders now, what will the situation be like if we leave?

It’s already a terrible situation, but if U.S. troops left today, the Bush Administration would succeed in turning a contained, if brutally controlled, country that posed no threat to the United States into a new pre-9/11 Afghanistan with the difference that this one has oil and therefore a steady stream of income. Somebody please get these people a copy of Fareed Zakaria’s “The Future of Freedom“.

So, an anti-war guy like me is put in the uncomfortable position of arguing that we have to stay in Iraq. How long? Well, if we don’t leave before true liberal democracy and the rule of law have taken root in Iraq, we may not get out in our lifetimes. But if our goal is security–to America–then we can leave much sooner, although true democracy for Iraq wouldn’t figure into the equation then. If one good thing can come out of all this it’s that hopefully this war’s failure will temper future presidents’ bloodlust and military aspirations.

Nov 14, 2003 | 3 Comments

I told him steel tariffs were a bad idea

So the WTO does what it’s supposed to do and finds Bush’s steel tariffs illegal. Hooray! The WTO works. Now it’s time to see if the administration does. Will Bush finally realize that he is either for free markets or he isn’t?

Sadly, there’s reason to believe that he will be intransigent. It just seems to be part and parcel of the go-it-alone, get-outta-my-way, swaggering persona he’s presented to the world. For example, I’m not crazy about the UN. But if I was president, I would realize that the UN is a fact of life and that most other countries take it seriously. I would choose to express myself with polite diplomacy instead of utter contempt.

And the thing is, the WTO is nothing like the UN. But will Bush understand this or just perceive it as another international body trying to subjugate the U.S.? Will he see the EU smugly preparing the champagne across the Atlantic and dig in his heels? If he does, he’ll not just be hurting our economy, but a world trade system that has served us all well.

I think he might well dig in his heels, and not just because of his “us v. them” mentality, but for the same reason why he put up steel tariffs in the first place: politics. Bush knows that Pennsylvania, home of big steel, is a key election state. He’s visited that state more than any other as president. Will he piss off that special interest this close to an election?

Nov 10, 2003 | 3 Comments

Here’s some compassion

Seventeen American ex-POWs who were jailed and tortured by Hussein’s government during the first Gulf War sued Iraq in federal court. They won by default and were awarded $956 million–$653 million in compensatory damages, $306 million in punitive damages. This is money that they could collect from frozen Iraqi government assets.

But as the New York Times reports today, the Bush administration has filed in court against the veterans. They don’t want them to get one red cent because, the government says, it needs the money for the reconstruction effort.

“No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a truly brutal regime,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, perhaps a little too literally. “It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq.”

Now, I dislike unreasonable jury awards as much as the next guy, but this was an award handed down by a judge. Plus, even if you think $56 million per tortured soldier is too much, don’t you want them to have something? At the very least to recognize what they went through? Well, the compassionate conservatives over at DOJ don’t think so. I wonder why they can’t just ask for the judge to order remittitur?

Another interesting tidbit in the story is that “in a related case” families of Sept. 11 victims are also suing to get their hands on some frozen Iraqi money. Wouldn’t it be something if government lawyers were put in the position where they had to argue that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

Nov 10, 2003 | Comment

  •  
  •