Year: 2003

I suppose the true hardliners on the left and right would never be persuaded by actual evidence. When you read the arguments of Joe Conason, say, you wonder what would actually convince him of the need for war. Here is a statement that beggars belief:

What was most noticeably absent from Powell’s presentation, however, was any evidence that Iraq is a present threat to its neighbors or any other nation – and thus must be invaded and subdued immediately.

Unaccounted for tons of biological and chemical weapons? Rockets and unmanned airplanes to deliver them? A history of using such weapons in warfare? A record of invading other countries at will? Evidence of deliberate attempts to deceive inspectors? Clear evidence of a huge cover-up? Did Conason even listen or read Powell’s address or did he simply write this response, like the French did, beforehand? He believes that the onus for discovering the weapons of mass destruction is on the U.N., not Saddam, despite the explicit wording of U.N. Resolution 1441. Actually Conason believes that 1441 is meaningless; and that its demands that Saddam actually cooperate should be ignored, while the inspectors try vainly to find mobile factories in a country the size of France. He actually writes the following sentence:

What [Powell] did prove is that inspections ought to continue and intensify – and if Iraq tries to frustrate them as the regime did in 1998, there will still be plenty of time for military action.

If Iraq continues to frustrate them? By “frustrate,” I suppose Conason means actually expelling the inspectors, as in 1998. Anything else is just fine and dandy for him. Isn’t this precisely Saddam’s gambit? Use the U.N. inspections, which will find nothing under the current circumstances, as a cover for a continued program for WMDs. Keep the charade going indefinitely. Demoralize our troops by keeping them waiting for months on end while Swedes and Dutch scurry around deserts looking for chemical and biological facilities already well-concealed. Perfect. And if a major anthrax attack hits New York or L.A. in the next few months while inspectors continue their fruitless cat-and-mouse game with Saddam, whom do you think Conason will blame? Conason has got his bases covered. And, whatever his intentions, those bases are objectively indistinguishable from Saddam’s.

EBAY FOR POWELL: More nations sign on to doing something about Saddam. What do Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have in common? They know what tyranny is like and they know who saved them from it. Doesn’t this confluence of countries who actually love freedom tell you something about the real issue here? (For my own take on what Robert Scheer decried as the alliance of nations “you can buy on Ebay,” check out my latest column, posted opposite.)

The Qataris are also in league with al Qaeda. In fact, a member of the Qatari royal family actually gave a 9/11 conspirator safe haven and cash. Do we have any reliable allies in that region? Nevertheless, the intelligence in this story is damning proof of a Saddam-al Qaeda link.

PROOF THAT KINSLEY IS GONE: Slate unveils a multi-part series on media bias. The first installment is the first time I’ve found Jack Shafer unreadable. Will Mickey please do a series skipper at the end of it all?

HARVARD’S COURSE IN CHOMSKYISM: Take a look at this course that Harvard University is offering. If this isn’t indoctrination disguised as learning, what is?

IN DEFENSE OF COWBOYS: A letter from Kansas takes issue with the French.

At Harvard, natch. Chomsky wasn’t available?

Wonder why Colin Powell went on for so long about al Qaeda-Iraq terrorist, Abu Mossab al Zarqawi? It couldn’t be because he’s targeting Jews in Germany, could it? You okay with that, Mr Fischer?

A couple of brief answers to my question this morning: “If Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor can get married ad infinitum, why can’t gays get married even once?” Email Number One:

Some folks hold this belief much the same way others believe that while Arab peoples may establish 22 institutions of national self-determination among the family of nations, it somehow amounts to “racism” for Jews to assert even one.

Email Number 2:

Why can’t gays get married just once? It’s control. They won’t let us marry because then they would have to see us as normal human beings. And just like many normal human beings, we’d probably get married (and divorced) more than once.

Some have wondered whether I’m positing Larry king and Elizabeth Taylor as models for gay marriages? Nope. They’re the standard for straight marriages, a standard gays are described as unable to live up to. Constitutionally, marriage rights cannot be infringed in any way for prison inmates, illegal aliens, dead-beat dads, convicted wife-beaters, and serial divorcees. Heck, even paternal-killer Erik Menendez has an unalienable constitutional right to marry. The key thing to remember is that the opposition to same sex marriage is based on the notion that loving gay relationships are inferior to those engaged in by murderers, rapists, prison inmates, people convicted of child abuse, and on and on. Gay people are that low in the moral pecking order. Yet the opponents of equal marriage rights bristle when accused of prejudice. As well they might.

I just watched Colin Powell’s address to the Security Council. More impressive than I expected, especially on the Saddam-al Qaeda linkage. How, I wonder, can anyone now doubt that Saddam is deliberately obstructing the implementation of Resolution 1441? The evidence is overwhelming. The only question now is whether the U.N. cares about its own credibility, its own authority and its own integrity. I’m no fan of the U.N. but I’m no implacable foe either. We do need an international body to reflect international consensus. That consensus must be forged by the major powers, especially the United States. So far, the process has worked. It’s up to the U.N. to see if it can work in the immediate future. The main, horrifying conclusion from Powell’s presentation, however, is not about the U.N. It’s about the direct threat we are still under. If Saddam has what Powell outlines, then this war could be horrendous. It could lead to massive casualties among American troops and a possible attack on civilians in Europe and the U.S. That makes it more important that we get international cover and support for the terrible duty we now have. This seems to me to be particularly true because it was the international coalition that insisted in 1991 that the first Gulf War not extend to deposing Saddam. That coalition now has a moral responsibility to help the U.S. and the U.K. to finish the job. We can only pray now that France, Russia, Germany and the others take that responsibility seriously. Powell has done all that he could have done to make that choice stark and unavoidable. The rest is up to the U.N.

I’m not sure why Jeffrey Goldberg’s latest superb piece in the New Yorker hasn’t made more of a splash. yes, he has some mini-scoops on Saddam’s links with al Qaeda. But its real merit is in helping us understand what levels of empirical evidence are required in the matter of espionage and intelligence. Or to put it another way: the question to be asked of Saddam and al Qaeda is not do we have clear evidence of their connections; but why wouldn’t they be connected? You can look at intelligence entirely inferentially, looking through the myriads of signals and signs and hints and guesses to find hard evidence of, say, a link between al Qaeda and Saddam. Or you can use your common sense, assume such a link and then go back to the intelligence data to see if such an assumption is backed up or disproven.

CONNECTING THE DOTS: This is not the same as making stuff up. It’s simply recognizing the nature of the information available. Here’s a sample of what you get:

In interviews with senior officials, the following picture emerged: American intelligence believes that Al Qaeda and Saddam reached a non-aggression agreement in 1993, and that the relationship deepened further in the mid-nineteen-nineties, when an Al Qaeda operative – a native-born Iraqi who goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi-was dispatched by bin Laden to ask the Iraqis for help in poison-gas training. Al-Iraqi’s mission was successful, and an unknown number of trainers from an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists. (Training in hijacking techniques was also provided to foreign Islamist radicals inside Iraq, according to two Iraqi defectors quoted in a report in the Times in November of 2001.) Another Al Qaeda operative, the Iraqi-born Mamdouh Salim, who goes by the name Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, also served as a liaison in the mid-nineteen-nineties to Iraqi intelligence. Salim, according to a recent book, “The Age of Sacred Terror,” by the former N.S.C. officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, was bin Laden’s chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction, and was involved in the early nineties in chemical-weapons development in Sudan. Salim was arrested in Germany in 1998 and was extradited to the United States.

This is what is called a proof of principle. It has happened; therefore it can happen. If the consequence of that is a biological or chemical attack on the West, then Western governments have a duty to act sooner rather than later. Given the new risks, containment isn’t an option.

THE PROS GET IT: Goldberg also talks to Robert Gates, former CIA director:

Gates, who was C.I.A. director under George H. W. Bush, said that the evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda is not irrefutable, but he noted that ambiguous evidence is an occupational hazard in intelligence work. Gates suggested that the current debate over Iraq’s ties to terrorism is reminiscent of a debate about the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Then, he said, “you had analysts in the C.I.A. who said, ‘Absolutely not, it would be contrary to their interests to support unpredictable, uncontrollable groups.’ There were other analysts who said, ‘Baloney.’ They had a lot of good history, and circumstantial reporting on their side, but they didn’t have good evidence. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, and we got hold of the East German Stasi records, we learned, of course, that both the East Germans and the Soviets were supporting Baader-Meinhof and other terrorist groups.” Gates continued, “I have always argued, in light of my fairly detailed knowledge of the shortcomings of our intelligence capabilities, that the fact that we don’t have reliable human intelligence that proves something conclusively is happening is no proof at all that nothing is happening. In these situations, the evidence will almost always be ambiguous. On capabilities, it’s not ambiguous. Can Saddam produce these weapons of mass destruction? Yes.”

If he can produce them, our enemies will get them. And what we found out on September 11 was that if our enemies get them, they will use them. Unless we get them first. Is that really so hard to understand?

It’s an old story, but I once had dinner with, among others, Elizabeth Taylor. The excruciating conversation eventually found its way toward AIDS. I soon found out she didn’t have a clue what she was talking about. Not even the faintest. So I wasn’t all that surprised by her interview with Larry King last night. Her little dog-thingy was perched between her and the suspendered reptile asking the hard questions. Here is a Hollywood classic about Herb Ritts, the photographer who recently died of AIDS:

KING: What got you into the perfume business? That was a beautiful spot, by the way. He died much too young, of AIDS. TAYLOR: Oh, God. That was so beautiful, wasn’t it? KING: It was AIDS, wasn’t it? I mean everyone… TAYLOR: It was pneumonia. KING: OK, pneumonia.

There you go, Liz. Raising awareness and countering stigma as always. What would we do without you?

P.S.: If Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor can get married ad infinitum, why can’t gays get married even once? Answers on a postcard, please.

Like many former apologists for Soviet terror, the British lefty, Anthony Wedgewood Benn, has a soft spot for Saddam Hussein. His interview with the monster will surely rank high up there in the annals of moral obtuseness along with Jimmy Carter’s fellatial interactions with various mass murderers. Will Benn get a Nobel next? Maybe he should just get an Oscar. How, after all, do you keep a straight face when Saddam says, “Most Iraqi officials have been in power for over 34 years and have experience of dealing with the outside world. Every fair-minded person knows that when Iraqi officials say something, they are trustworthy.” And how do you have an interview with the big guy from Tikrit without mentioning the invasion of Kuwait? Still, it was good to see Saddam embrace the “peace movement,” and send them his encouragement. He knows their usefulness to his barbarism. The best antidote is the following spoof in the Guardian of all places. Even they can’t take this old aristocratic Stalinist seriously. Here’s a taste:

TB: America goes to war where there’s an oil interest, as we did in the Falklands, because the Falklands was an oil war – there’s more oil around the Falklands than there is around the United Kingdom. And, of course, some companies are now bigger than nation states. Ford is bigger than South Africa. Toyota is bigger than Norway.
SH: Bigger than Norway?
TB: Bigger than Norway. And I do not want a world which is safe only for oil companies and motor companies, but which is dangerous for my grandchildren. SH: I too am a grandfather. I too think of my grandchildren, Raghda and Rana’s fatherless children.
TB: Fatherless? What happened to their fathers?
SH: I shot them. But there were others I didn’t personally shoot, you understand. Family gatherings in our country can sometimes become, how do you say, over-exuberant.

Irrational exuberance, Saddam-style.

“Vidal has a good word for anyone who likes the sound of “a final all-out war against the ‘System,’ or “deliberately risks-and gives-his life to alert his fellow citizens to an onerous government.” In the end, McVeigh and bin Laden are pikers. “Most of today’s actual terrorists can be found within our own governments, federal, state, municipal.” “Municipal” is a particularly nice touch: perhaps Vidal means police departments, though for all the care he takes he might just as well be alluding to death squads at work under cover of sanitation departments. If you wonder what might be a better society, Vidal helpfully offers up what he calls “Tim’s Bill of Rights,” which includes (a) no taxes, (b) metal-based currency, and (c) low legislative salaries. So much for political theory.” – Todd Gitlin, decrying the Bush administration in Dissent, but also exposing the idiocy and moral callowness of some now on the left.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: “I’m not sure if enough people in America have gotten wind of what’s about to happen now – and, if it does happen, whether it’s right or wrong. That may be the only difference. But we certainly have criminals in the White House. These are even more successful than the last time. I mean, Nixon and company were kind of petty in their ambitions. These guys are ruthless beyond belief, and boy, are they pocketing a lot of money.” – Terry Gilliam, the Onion.

FISKING PELLETIERE: The New York Times sank to a new anti-war low last weekend publishing the theory of one Stephen C. Pelletiere, claiming that the gassing of Kurds in Hallabja was the work of Iran not Saddam. The New Republic’s Spencer Ackerman does a splendid job dismembering it.