Steve Schacher

This was a lead story in Sunday's New York Times, by a woman named Judy Miller that many say is very credible. Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert. Free Membership required. The link will probably be good for a week.

Monday: Fox News Channel Tuesday: Fox News Channel Wedensday: Enterprise, Fox News Channel Thursday: Fox News Channel Friday: Fox News Channel Saturday: Fox News Channel Sunday: Fox News Channel

quote:FP 6....not in the exact context...Not in context is an understatement. That passage is a history lesson on how neighboring countries throughout history were motivated to war with each other. Hamilton was trying to set the stage for a constitution among the states that removes the motivations to go to war with each other. The first two paragraphs: quote: I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation. A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.Furthermore, the passage you cite begins with "Has it not, on the contrary..." Hamilton is setting up an argument and then arguing against it. You pick up on the second half of his argument. The beginning goes: quote: But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord. Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary...Hamilton is stating that mankind has been at war for its entire civilization, and those who argue that "The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars" or "Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord." are missing the point. Hamilton is saying that the real motivition for going to war is "that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies." Hamilton continues: quote:"An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally ENEMIES of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors." This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY."So, what do we make of the rest of FP6? Hamilton is saying that commercial interests, as well as territorial or power interests have started wars, but the overriding factor has been the nearness of nations to each other. He feared that the states would fall into the same problem of warring with each other unless a constitution could be put in place that makes common interests more important than competing interests. quote:I always reserve the right to be wrongand for you to piss off.Don't hold your breath.

quote:There were no convictions, only vindication. The records are sealed. From MSNBC. Like I said, Ritter plead out to counseling in exchange for "adjournment in anticipation of dismissal." From some Google copies of old stories no longer available: quote:The June 2001 arrest of Ritter, 41, came to light over the past week in various media reports. He was charged with a Class B misdemeanor, the least serious state crime on the books, for allegedly setting up a sexual rendezvous with a person who he thought was a 16-year-old girl. Ritter was unaware that he was chatting over the Internet with an undercover Colonie investigator posing as a teenage girl. Police were waiting for Ritter when he showed up at a Burger King in Menands to meet the girl. The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, [the MSNBC story stops here] meaning the charges would be dropped and the records sealed if he didn't break the law for a six-month period. quote:Who knows if what he said is correct.... I would also like to see real evidence against Skakir al-Khafaji....I'm not going to look for it. You can if you want, but I think I showed you enough evidence. I doubt you'd believe it anyway, unless you heard it with your own ears. quote:Fun with Hamilton:What were you quoting? Hamilton was angling to be the General of the Army (Hamilton fancied himself as the American Napolean), but Adams wouldn't appoint him. Adams preferred a strong Navy over an Army, so Hamilton schemed to undermine Adams in the election of 1800. Hamilton succeeded, but his ego got the better of him and Aaron Burr killed him in 1804.

Just do your favorite search on "Scott Ritter" & Arrest. Are CNN and FoxNews okay as first sources? Report: Former U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter Arrested in Internet Sex Sting Ex-arms inspector, war foe Ritter confirms 2001 arrest There's more, but that should be sufficient. And regarding that Skakir al-Khafaji guy you mentioned, here's an article from Slate that links him as the bagman for Ritter (also, I was wrong -- it wasn't $250,000, it was $400,000). Scott Ritter: What turned the hawkish Iraq weapons inspector into a dove? quote:That leaves us to consider ulterior motives. One popular theory, recently advanced by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, holds that Ritter has essentially been bought off. By his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation).

quote:Conviction? Yes. After the first arrest, he pled out for counseling. It never made the press because "Scott" is his middle name and the records were using his first name. He got caught a second time, and then a local NY TV station reviewed its records and found the story of the first arrest. quote:Skakir al-Khafaji is an Iraqi American...Scott Ritter was an ex-marine who was on the first UNSCOM team of weapons inspectors. At the time, he was a staunch pro-American. After Hussein kicked out UNSCOM, Ritter was approached by Iraqi officials to make a pro-Iraqi documentary in exchange for $250,000. He did so, and has been an Iraqi supporter ever since.

quote:Weekly World News will continue to follow this story as it unfolds. Keep watching for further developments. Ahh.. it's like the old Saturday afternoon serials. The heroine is tied to the saw mill, the hero is riding gallantly to save her. The villain is escaping. Come back next week for further developments. Will Andrew Carlssin sit in Ryker's Island or will he return to the future in his "time-craft?" Was the stock information linked in some way to a few people or companies or did he really know which stocks to buy? And, what about the money? Come back next week for further developments!

Here's another good column, Who Armed Iraq: Myth vs. Fact. quote: Who Armed Iraq? Charles R. Smith Monday, March 17, 2003 Myth vs. Fact Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States. I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons. None have been able to name the specific weapon ÔÇô missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell ÔÇô that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system. All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks. Since when is a truck a weapon? Are the Iraqis going to drive backwards, fuel tank first, into the U.S. Army? Time to separate the myth from the reality. The propaganda spun by the far left is false. The facts show that Iraq is armed with a wide range of weapons ÔÇô none of which came from the U.S. Iraqi Air Force The Iraqi air force does not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force is made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor. Saddam could field a force of advanced MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters if they had not chickened out of combat during the Gulf War, flying to Iran for asylum. The Iranians, who love Saddam even less than we do, never returned the MiGs. The remainder of the Iraqi air force comes from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter. However, the French Mirage F-1 is reportedly the best jet fighter in Iraqi hands. You can view an Iraqi F-1 in action on the State Department Web site, testing a chemical spraying system. If you still believe that the Iraqis have no chemical weapons, think again. Iraq did not modify its best multimillion-dollar fighter jet to spray for fruit flies. Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month. Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today. Merci! With friends like, that who needs enemies? Iraqi Missiles Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some U.S.-made weapons? Not. The primary Iraqi missile is the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China. The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Baghdad with a number of Roland air defense missile systems. Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany ÔÇô not the U.S.A. In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saddam sends his love to Paris and Beijing. Without your help he certainly could not threaten his neighbors with nerve gas and anthrax. Iraqi Army Okay, if not jet fighters and missiles, then how about tanks? Certainly the biggest weapons seller in the world, the U.S.A., sold tanks to Iraq. The Iraqi armor force is made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all of Russian manufacture. The Iraqis also have a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here. How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis have a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites. So sorry, the Iraqi attack chopper force is Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers. The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts. Guns, then? Surely the U.S. supplied Saddam with guns? Nope. The main Iraqi artillery is the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier is armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make. Iran-Iraq War The facts are that during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supplied Iraq with something much more valuable than guns: satellite information on when and where the Iranians were going to attack. Of course, current anti-war activists seize this piece of information without putting it into historical context. The information was supplied during the height of the Cold War. The main threat to America was the Soviet Union and the biggest fear in the Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini. You remember the chant "death to America"? It almost seems that the ayatollah invented it. Ironically, the Ayatollah made his way to Tehran from his home in exile ÔÇô Paris. The Reagan administration, aware that the Iranian ayatollah had threatened to turn the Gulf into a sea of fire, assisted Saddam so that he would not lose the war. The assistance stopped short of helping Saddam win the war. In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The infamous Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran. The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against Iraq's superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war ended. France/Russia/China The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer. The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal. More importantly, none of them can give one good reason why Saddam should stay in power.

Fox was also reporting today that they found one of the mobile bio weapons labs that was in a converted refrigerator truck. [ 04-10-2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Ritter lost whatever shred of credibility he had left (after taking Iraqi money to make a documentary and then taking their side on everything) when he was arrested twice at a Burger King for luring underage girls via the internet.

Welcome to Anglo-Saxon reality by Mark Steyn. An excerpt: quote:France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Canada are not on the side of peace or morality or the Iraqi people. The pictures from the streets of Baghdad make that plain. But we are on the side of TotalFinaElf. Twice in recent columns, Diane Francis has mentioned, almost en passant, a curious little fact: The Western oil company with the closest ties to the late Saddam is France's TotalFinaElf. That's not the curious fact, that's just business as usual in the Fifth Republic. This is the curious fact: As Diane wrote in February and again last week, "Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chr├®tien's daughter." Let's see if I've got this straight: TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp, whose co-chief executive is Jean Chr├®tien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais. Mr. Desmarais' brother, Paul Desmarais Jr., sits on the Total board. For months, the anti-war crowd has insisted that "it's all about oil," that the only reason the Iraqi people were being "liberated" was so that the second biggest oil reserves in the world could be annexed in perpetuity by Dick Cheney and Halliburton and the rest of Bush's Texas oilpatch gang. Instead, it turns out that, if it is all about oil, then the principal North American beneficiary of the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is the family of the Canadian Prime Minister -- that's to say, his daughter, France Chr├®tien, and his grandchildren. What a delightful footnote to the Chr├®tien-Chiraquiste war effort. This is a victory not just for the Iraqi people but for "Anglo-Saxon" reality over Franco-Canadian postmodern cynicism.

Oh, yeah, THREE!! quote:what was his thing with counting anyways?The Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch. quote:LAUNCELOT: We have the Holy Hand Grenade. ARTHUR: Yes, of course! The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! 'Tis one of the sacred relics Brother Maynard carries with him! Brother Maynard! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade! MONKS: [chanting] Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. ARTHUR: How does it, um-- how does it work? LAUNCELOT: I know not, my liege. ARTHUR: Consult the Book of Armaments! BROTHER MAYNARD: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one. SECOND BROTHER: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu-- MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother. SECOND BROTHER: And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.' MAYNARD: Amen. KNIGHTS: Amen. ARTHUR: Right! One!... Two!... Five! GALAHAD: Three, sir! ARTHUR: Three! [angels sing] [boom]

One... Two... FIVE!!!

Thomas Friedman, New York Times, April 2, 2003 quote:Come the Revolution To read the Arab press is to think that the entire Arab world is enraged with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and to some extent that's true. But here's what you don't read: underneath the rage, there is also a grudging, skeptical curiosity ÔÇö a curiosity about whether the Americans will actually do what they claim and build a new, more liberal Iraq. While they may not be able to describe it, many Arabs intuit that this U.S. invasion of Iraq is something they've never seen before ÔÇö the revolutionary side of U.S. power. Let me explain: For Arabs, American culture has always been revolutionary ÔÇö from blue jeans to "Baywatch" ÔÇö but American power, since the cold war, has only been used to preserve the status quo here, keeping in place friendly Arab kings and autocrats. Even after the cold war ended and America supported, and celebrated, the flowering of democracy from Eastern Europe to Latin America, the Arab world was excluded. In this neighborhood, because of America's desire for steady oil supplies and a safe Israel, America continued to support the status quo and any Arab government that preserved it. Indeed, Gulf War I simply sought to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait to restore the Kuwaiti monarchy and the flow of oil. Once that was done, Saddam was left alone. And that is why Gulf War II is such a shock to the Arab system, on a par with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt or the Six-Day War. But different people are shocked in different ways. To begin with, there is the shock of Arab liberals, still a tiny minority, who can't believe that America has finally used its revolutionary power in the Arab world. They are desperate for America to succeed because they think Iraq is too big to ignore, and therefore a real election there would shake the whole Arab region. Second is the shock of those Arabs in the silent majority. They recognize this is the revolutionary side of U.S. power, but they see it through their own narrative, which says the U.S. is upsetting the status quo not to lift the Arab world up, but rather to put it down so it will submit to whatever America and Israel demand. That's the dominant theme in the Arab media: this war is simply another version of colonialism and imperialism. Al Jazeera uses the same terms for U.S. actions in Iraq as it does for Israeli actions in the West Bank ÔÇö Iraq is under U.S. "occupation," and Iraqis killed are "martyrs." As Raymond Stock, a longtime Cairo resident and the biographer of the novelist Naguib Mahfouz, remarked, "People here, particularly the chattering classes who watch the Arab satellite channels, are so much better misinformed than you think. The Arab media generally tells them what they want to hear and shows them what they want to see. There is a narrative that is deeply embedded, and no amount of embedded reporting from the other side will change it. Only a different Iraq can do that." But there is a third school: Egyptian officials, who are instinctively pro-American but are shocked that the Bush team would use its revolutionary power to try to remake Iraq. Egyptian officials view this as a fool's errand because they view Iraq as a congenitally divided, tribal country that can be ruled only by an iron fist. Whose view will be redeemed depends on how Iraq plays out, but, trust me, everyone's watching. I spent this afternoon with the American studies class at Cairo University. The professor, Mohamed Kamel, summed up the mood: "In 1975, Richard Nixon came to Egypt and the government turned out huge crowds. Some Americans made fun of Nixon for this, and Nixon defended himself by saying, `You can force people to go out and welcome a foreign leader, but you can't force them to smile.' Maybe the Iraqis will eventually stop resisting you. But that will not make this war legitimate. What the U.S. needs to do is make the Iraqis smile. If you do that, people will consider this a success." There is a lot riding on that smile, Mr. Kamel added, because this is the first "Arab-American war." This is not about Arabs and Israelis. This is about America getting inside the Arab world ÔÇö not just with its power or culture, but with its ideals. It is a war for what America stands for. "If it backfires," Mr. Kamel concluded, "if you don't deliver, it will really have a big impact. People will not just say your policies are bad, but that your ideas are a fake, you don't really believe them or you don't know how to implement them." In short, we need to finish the peace better than we started the war. [ 04-05-2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Happy Birthday guys! quote:I am 43 years old! Someone must be older than me !? Anybody?I turn 44 next month.

quote:For those of you not as sharp as steve..."You have to know these things to be the King."

quote:faster than the wind speed velocity of sparrow.African or European?

quote:You just gotta LOVE Mark Steyn!!!I do. Here's another treat for you all. There is a poster on FreeRepublic named Diogenesis who puts up the most unbelievable photos from the military. He's either an insider or an editor at a news organization who posts the "reject" photos. You may have noticed that Fox News now runs extreme closeup photos before their commercial breaks -- this is where they are getting them from. War in Iraq, from preparation to combat. The entire sequence tells the story. 3/13/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/863364/posts 3/14/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864163/posts 3/15/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864839/posts 3/16/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/865465/posts 3/18/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/867293/posts 3/19/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/868851/posts 3/19/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/868218/posts 3/20/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/870505/posts 3/20/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/869858/posts 3/21/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/870919/posts 3/21/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/871408/posts 3/22/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/872047/posts 3/23/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/872883/posts 3/25/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/874440/posts 3/26/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875605/posts 3/27/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/877421/posts 3/27/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876484/posts 3/29/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/878484/posts Past Compilation http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/810581/posts

Ask Dr. Ridgley: What's the Post-War Left to Do? quote: Dear Dr. Ridgley: Many of us newspaper columnists in the anti-war Left are worried about the upcoming war with Iraq and what its aftermath means for us professionally. It's apparent that nothing we anti-war columnists can do will stop the U.S. from its aggression against Iraq. War is inevitable. We're looking ahead, and many of us don't like what we see. American troops are likely to be met in Baghdad by cheering thousands, similar to the welcome given allied troops in the liberation of Paris from the Nazis and their Vichy collaborators (no irony there, eh?). Saddam Hussein's heinous crimes against humanity will be exposed when his torture chambers are opened to the media and thousands of prisoners released. Huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons will be captured and unearthed from their underground bunkers in Tikrit, Baghdad, and other cities. Captured records will likely expose France and Germany as collaborators with Iraq in its chemical and nuclear weapons program. This will be a disaster for the Left of momentous proportions not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union. All of this presents us columnists on the anti-war Left with what could be an insurmountable problem. What do we write about after this war demonstrates that Iraq is everything that the George Bush administration said it was? Must we eat crow for this obscene administration? Worried in Washington, D.C. Dear Worried: I've received many letters from Leftist pundits on this topic: What do we write when we're proven wrong on Iraq? What can we possibly say in the aftermath of a great American victory? Should we join in the victory celebration or instead indulge in a sullen teeth-gnashing silence for at least a couple of days? Good questions, all. Of one thing we can be certain-there will be a post-war, post-Saddam Iraq, and this situation will be on us within a month. Much of what this misbegotten administration has claimed will likely be proved true. How will the anti-war Left handle it? Fortunately, there's no need for hand-wringing. We have a pool of experience developed over decades of being wrong on the facts but correct theoretically and morally. Herewith is a primer for anti-war pundits and talking heads to help you navigate the treacherous shoals of a world without Saddam, without a bothersome U.N., without a France that anyone listens to, and with America triumphant. Many old hands on the Left already know most of these chestnuts, but I'll review them for the benefit of journalists who came of age since the last imperialist gulf war in 1991 and are still feeling their way in the practice of liberation journalism. I'll also recommend who can best utilize the various techniques. No mea culpa : The first thing you must realize is that we on the left never, ever admit we're wrong. Let this be your touchstone, so you can throw away all those "just in case" mea culpa columns you ginned-up in the event things went excessively bad for the Saddam team. Recommended: Everyone. Blame Amerika for something (it's never out of fashion for you baby-boomers to spell America with a 'k.'). Don't get caught up in trying to explain yourself or why you defended a brutal dictator and his torture chambers and his chemical weapons and all of that. Instead, attack . Do this obliquely. Don't write about what the facts show. Remember that reality is what you make of it, so speak vaguely. Use generalities. Mention the "Pentagon death machine." Talk about "killing fields." Work into your column "butchery," "slaughter" and "madmen." Emphasize unintended civilian deaths while ignoring the atrocities committed by Saddam against his own people. Call this the first sad victory of the "new colonialism." Use words and phrases like "imperialism," "hegemony," and "the world's policeman." Recommended: Katha Pollitt. Foreigners such as Regis Debray will also find this useful. Suggest that it's sinister. Intone ominously about "big oil interests" without ever really saying what you mean. Say that you're "disappointed in" and "deeply saddened by" displays of "patriotism bordering on jingoism." This war heralds a new "dark time." Mention a "conspiracy of shadowy economic interests." You can even dust off "quagmire," although this one's wearing thin. I know that this is a favorite among anti-war types over 45, but use it sparingly. Recommended: Mary McGrory and Richard Cohen can get mileage here. Anthony Lewis and Helen Thomas, too. Belittle/minimize the achievement. This is sneer-and-curled-lip territory. "What's to cheer about? This was only the Iraqi military, after all-a third-rate power. Hurrah." "The real question is why it took so long for the American steamroller to crush a fourth-rate power." "This was only the Iraqi military, a fifth-rate power; the real test will be [fill in the blank appropriately]." Recommended: Eric Alterman, Paul Begala. The "New Crusades" motif. Note that Christians have a long history of tyrannizing the Middle East, and that this so-called victory is no different. Use terms like "Christian arrogance." Warn of the "dangers of religious fundamentalism of any sort." Mention "21st Century Crusaders." If you're feeling playful, refer to "our own Christian Taliban." Recommended: All anti-religious pundits. Multicultural argument. This is related to the Christian - Muslim divide, and is used on campuses all the time. It's sophomoric and shopworn but you can whip this old dog to his feet a couple of times to help you weather the initial weeks after Iraq collapses. Remember that "the imposition of western values on another civilization far older than our own is simply wrong." This one is strengthened considerably if you can work in "racism" and talk sweepingly of "wars against people of color." Recommended: Any Left-wing "pundit of color" or pundit with an exotic-sounding name can use this to good effect. Womyn can use this, but white males stay away. Change the subject. This tactic is always worth a column or two. Instead of talking about the obvious topic-the victoriously concluded war-mention the ongoing "plight of the Palestinians" and wonder aloud if the U.S. will mount a similar operation to "liberate" the Palestinians from Israeli "occupation." Likewise, wonder if the U.S. is ready to tackle the "much tougher task" of taking on North Korea. Venture afield and resurface the "evils" of "globalization" or of environmental doom. There's a lot of material here-remember global warming and the Kyoto Treaty? Trot out a golden oldie: the "vanishing rain forest." Refer to this administration's "neglect of the domestic agenda." As a nice touch, revisit and describe in detail the many peace demonstrations; mention the "gorgeous mosaic" and the "joy of seeing millions marching for what's right." Recommended: Maureen Dowd, Eric Alterman, and Seymour Hersh. Attack the "style" of the victors. Hector against "misplaced gloating" by those who favored military action from the start. Use terms like "bloodlust," "bullying," "zeal," "messianic," "evangelical," "missionary," "manifest destiny." Strongly imply that there was something "unclean" about this war against a "tin-pot dictator." Mention your "deep sadness" at the images of dead and dismembered Iraqi soldiers who, after all, "were only defending their homeland." Express "fear for the future of our nation." Recommended: Maureen Dowd again, and Helen Thomas, especially. Congratulate yourself and don't apologize. This should be a centerpiece column for you and should contain the words "peace" and "children" at least three times. Useful phrases: "It's never wrong to stand for peace." "How many Iraqi children would be alive today if peace had prevailed?" "Victory celebration? No, I'd rather pray for the children instead." (This last one has religious overtones, so use it sparingly and only if you feel comfortable) Focus on what you, yourself, "feel." Work yourself and your emotions into the piece and talk about your reactions to the war. Talk of your own "shame." Couple with snide references to amorphous business interests: "Well, it looks like Bush and his cronies in the oil business are happy now." Claim that you knew this would be the outcome all along and credit everyone but the administration with any positives-talk about "Chirac's bold stand against American megalomania," "The Clinton Administration's patience and restraint," "Hans Blix's crucial role in bringing Iraq to heel in spite of American bellicosity." Recommended: Eric Alterman, Robert Scheer, and Jonathan Schell are masters at this technique, but every pundit on the anti-war Left should develop at least a serviceable expertise with it. Call it "moral belligerence" The Moral Lament. This workhorse is a favorite and trumps most anything. It's especially valuable because it can't be overused. Having remained silent on Saddam's crimes against humanity, you may think you're restricted from post-war moralizing, but you're limited in no such way. Remember that piety and self-congratulation on our morally superior stances infuriate the right-wingers, especially when they incorporate some element of perceived hypocrisy. If you're looking for examples of how to use this technique with smug skill, see Katha Pollitt over at The Nation . It's her specialty. The great thing about this technique is that you don't have to know the facts about any particular issue. You can always be right no matter the specifics. In fact, you can write this column now , without knowing anything . Talk of how there are "no winners in war." Lament the many civilian casualties, and ignore celebrations by the Iraqi people that suggest they welcome Saddam's ouster. Talk vaguely about the "human cost" of this "immoral war." Lament the "loss of innocent life." Lament the crippling of the U.N., which heralds a new age of "unilateral aggression" by a "rogue America." Ignore the broad international coalition that ousted Saddam; instead, focus on the "Coalition of the Moral" that opposed war, which includes France, Germany, Syria, Russia, Libya, Iran, and Cuba. Immediately criticize any post-Saddam regime mercilessly. Describe it as "inauthentic." Hold it to an impossible moral standard, even as you now hold the Saddam regime to no moral standard at all. These things are, after all, relative and situational, and we're concerned with larger issues, not consistency. Remember how we belittled the liberation of Grenada as the bullying of a postage-stamp-sized island? That technique is appropriate here and should get you through the initial onslaught of smug right-wingers whining "I told you so." Feel free to nit-pick the military victory and belittle it. Sharp-shoot the military occupation government as not being "democratic" enough. Focus on the "inhumane" treatment of prisoners of war, and insist that their "rights be respected" as they were "only defending their homeland" against a "foreign invader." Preempt calls for war crimes trials for Saddam's henchmen by suggesting that the U.S. ought to put its own generals and politicians on trial for waging a "brutal war of aggression." Mention Kissinger and Pinochet.Recommended: All anti-war Left pundits. As you write your pieces (and I suggest you begin now), ignore or dismiss the larger positive ramifications of one of the most important civilizing actions of our age-the liberation of Iraq and the attendant coming transformation of the Middle East. Instead, combine several of the forgoing techniques in this fashion: "All this gloating and these so-called 'victory' celebrations are equivalent to dancing on the graves of Iraqi children, killed in the Christian onslaught on this devoutly Muslim nation." Or try this: "This so-called religious man unleashed a brutal killing machine on a country that attacked no one, threatened no one, and was working within the framework of civilized nations to achieve a peaceful resolution to an international dispute. Who is the dictator and who is the diplomat? Who is civilized and who is not?" Or this: "I have no stomach for victory celebrations that praise the killing of women and children, that honor the Pentagon's death machine for slaughtering draftees defending their homeland, and that serve none but the big oil interests." When Iraq goes down and this cause has been closed out, I know you'll be disheartened and tempted to put away the cheap poster paint, to closet the signs, to shelve the Peter, Paul, and Mary songbook, to slide the bongos under the bed, and to sigh about what might been; the destruction of Israel, Saddam's hegemony in the Middle East, greatly diminished American power and influence, and weekly terrorist attacks in the U.S. But remember that creativity and boldness can carry the day in those first precious weeks after Iraq falls. A flurry of columns sporting the above techniques will see you through another civilizational loss, just as they did after Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. Always remember that the only real alternative is to congratulate the Bush administration for being right all along. And that's just not an option.

More Steyn: This crazy non-war has turned into Chinese whispers. Excerpt: quote:Last May, I predicted that Bush would invade Iraq before the end of August. I was wrong as usual. Instead, the President was prevailed upon to "go the UN route", as a sop to Colin Powell, and to provide Tony Blair with some multilateral cover. And now that we've reached the season finale of this interminable, unwatchable unreality show - I'm A Superpower, Get Me Out Of Here - the end result is that we'll be going to war with exactly the same participants as we would have done last August, and the one person weakened by going the UN route is the very one it was designed to protect: Mr Blair. The best way to help Blair would have been to get the war over six months ago.

Here's an instant classic column by my new favorite writer, Mark Steyn, called Bring on the war - for everyone's sake. An excerpt: quote: And spare a thought for the poor Iraqi Army. As London's Sunday Mirror reported yesterday, "Terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces -- because they thought the war had already started. "The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise. The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender." Awf'lly sorry, old bean. Try again in a fortnight, there's a good chap. The Iraqi Army is begging to surrender en masse. Why torment them for month after month? This interminable non-rush to non-war is like a long, languorous, humid summer where everyone's sweaty and cranky and longing for the clouds to break and the cool, refreshing rain to fall. Bring it on. Please.

quote:No you don't or you would side with the majority of the free world....who at this point have that market on lock. Also, you should stop using arguments that claim ligitamicy via UN regulations. Your belief in America's imperial prirogative to dictate international law while being free from the same do not strengthen your position.Thank you. Next time, don't put words in my mouth. I can speak for myself. quote:Please don't lump the AFL-CIO in with corporations.Why not? Labor gives all their money to Democrats, whether their union members want them to or not. They made their members have to sue to earn the right to direct where their dues go. Corporations split their money between both parties, playing both sides of the table. I remember when the media was aghast that Bush raised $75MM so quickly. Bush raised most of his money from many small-time donations from average citizens. Also remember, the money we're talking about went to the RNC/DNC as soft-money, not to the candidates directly. It was all the average citizens in "fly-over" country that gave Bush his huge campaign warchest. quote:Auto industry gave Bush 1,272,497 and Gore 114,790.What would you expect? Gore wrote a book calling for an end to the combustion engine. If you were an auto manufacturer, whom would you give to? quote:Oil and Gas gave Bush 1,889,206 and Gore got 139,514. When you factor in the dominating role oil personnel play in critical administration positions....the link is clear. This provides a solid foundation for blood for oil arguments...It provides a solid foundation for conspiracy theories. Bush came from the business community (agriculture, oil [which he got out of in the mid-1980's], and baseball) before becoming Governor of Texas. Dick Cheney didn't enter the business community until after he was Secretary of Defense, working for an oil drilling and engineering firm -- not a refiner/producer/marketer. Gore was raised as a child to be a politician by a politician -- U.S Representative, U.S. Senator, VP. Gore is also oil-connected to Occidental Petroleum and Armand Hammer. Bush Sr., was an oil man, then U.S. Representative, ambassador to the U.N, ambassador to China, CIA chief, VP. Clinton was Arkansas Attorney General, then Governor, then President. Reagan was an actor, Governor of California, then President. If you think Bush is beholden to the oil community, then you'd love the links that Clinton had to the lawyer community and tort-reform legislation. quote:Yeah and if the CIA hadn't knocked of the democratically elected president in '53 that never would have happened. Funny how the most expedient and "pure" imperialist actions never work out in the long run.I had to research this to understand what you were referring to. They didn't knock him off, they caused him to flee (after two failed attempts) and installed the Shah who was later ousted by Khomeini. It was over Iranian nationalization of the oil fields fomented by the USSR after WWII. From Information Please Almanac: quote:At the Tehran Conference in 1943 the Tehran Declaration, signed by the United States, Great Britain, and the USSR, guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of Iran. However, the USSR, dissatisfied with the refusal of the Iranian government to grant it oil concessions, fomented a revolt in the north which led to the establishment (Dec., 1945) of the People's Republic of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish People's Republic, headed by Soviet-controlled leaders. When Soviet troops remained in Iran following the expiration (Jan., 1946) of a wartime treaty that also allowed the presence of American and British troops, Iran protested to the United Nations. The Soviets finally withdrew (May, 1946) after receiving a promise of oil concessions from Iran subject to approval by the parliament. The Soviet-established governments in the north, lacking popular support, were deposed by Iranian troops late in 1946, and the parliament subsequently rejected the oil concessions. In 1951, the National Front movement, headed by Premier Mussadegh, a militant nationalist, forced the parliament to nationalize the oil industry and form the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Although a British blockade led to the virtual collapse of the oil industry and serious internal economic troubles, Mussadegh continued his nationalization policy. Openly opposed by the shah, Mussadegh was ousted in 1952 but quickly regained power. The shah fled Iran but returned when monarchist elements forced Mussadegh from office in Aug., 1953; covert U.S. activity was largely responsible for Mussadegh's ousting. In 1954, Iran allowed an international consortium of British, American, French, and Dutch oil companies to operate its oil facilities, with profits shared equally between Iran and the consortium. After 1953 a succession of premiers restored a measure of order to Iran; in 1957 martial law was ended after 16 years in force. Iran established closer relations with the West, joining the Baghdad Pact (later called the Central Treaty Organization), and receiving large amounts of military and economic aid from the United States until the late 1960s.

From the United Kingdom Times Online: quote: Blix 'hid smoking gun' from Britain and US From James Bone in New York BRITAIN and the United States will today press the chief UN weapons inspector to admit that he has found a ÔÇ£smoking gunÔÇØ in Iraq. Such an admission could persuade swing voters on the Security Council to back the March 17 ultimatum. The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting ÔÇö an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war. The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm. ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs incredible,ÔÇØ a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. ÔÇ£This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. ItÔÇÖs a biggie.ÔÇØ An explicit report by Dr Blix of the discovery of an Iraqi violation would help the six swing voters ÔÇö Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan ÔÇö to explain a change of position to their publics. Unlike the outlawed Al-Samoud 2 missile, which was declared as a purportedly legal weapon, the drone was not declared. It would be the first undeclared weapons programme found by the UN and is considered by British and US officials to be a ÔÇ£smoking gunÔÇØ.

quote:By 1441 the security council has the final say on what is or is not a material breach. I think that common sense has the final say on what is a material breach. quote:You think big oil is some neural or benign force. I don't agree. Big Oil bought Bush the presidency and most of his chicken hawks have major ties to oil.....even "condy".I think they're as benign as General Motors, Intel, Microsoft, British Telecom, IBM, Toyota, etc. As far as buying the presidency, the election was an even split, so don't go around thinking that "big banking" like Citibank, or "big labor" like the AFL-CIO or the NEA didn't throw their money around, too. It's disengenuous to imply that Bush won because of money from the oil lobby, while ignoring how close Gore's lobby money got him to the White House. Personally, I think that the oil money isn't as tainted as the banking money (Robert Rubin of Citibank/Enron was Clinton's Treasury secretary) or the labor money (taken from union dues) or teacher money that went to Democrats (but that's a topic for another thread). quote:It is already known that we provided WMD material and information....shame on them for following our lead.We didn't do it against UN sanction resolutions. Also remember that when we armed Iraq, they were in a war against Iran (yes, I know Iraq started it), but Iran had taken Americans hostage for 444 days and were enemies of the USA at the time. Geopolitical entanglements shift over the decades, and policies and allies will shift with them. [ 03-09-2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:The neocon position is clear. They want to reorder the Middle East into something happy and shiny in American format. This is the definition of imperialism. No it isn't, if the USA isn't interested in ruling the Iraq as a colony, and I don't believe that it is. I believe the USA is interested in setting up a self-rule system in Iraq. As the old saying goes, Democracies don't start wars. quote:The bottom line is that these two oil conglomerates stand to gain huge revenues from "liberation"....The bottom line is that there are only a few companies in the world in a position to take advantage of the situation anyway. Why should anyone be surprised that an oil company would benefit from stability in the biggest oil region in the world? It's no different than the De Beers company benefiting from the largest diamond region in the world. You wouldn't expect a lumber company complain about not getting a share of the diamond business, so why would companies complain about oil companies taking advantage of stability in the oil regions? quote:What Lotharr said and that you don't use 15 - 30 gallons of milk or water a week. Milk could double in price and it wouldn't hurt that much.I knew that. I left it hanging out there to see if someone would pick up on it. Still, when you think about how many jobs that "buck fifty" provides for vs. the liter of water, you see that oil is more than something that aristocrats get fat on. And also, the plastic container that the liter of water comes in is from oil, too, and probably results in more jobs than the water itself. quote:This entire situation IS about oil. Just not in the way Americans and other anti-war protestors originally thought. France is chin deep in relations with Iraq. Russia is not far behind. Germany may be the only honest protestor there is but I'm sure they have a smoking gun somewhere. It's partly about oil, and for France and Russia, it's about unpaid loans and business contracts that they'd lose in a regime change. For France and Germany, it's also about what we'd find in the file cabinets of Hussein's offices -- France supplying experimental equipment and Germany supplying chemicals.