Year: 2003

An emailer lays it out:

You wrote: ” Even when 45 percent of California’s voters didn’t pick a replacement candidate (because they voted “no” on the recall), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s votes this time were 3.7 million from the remaining 55 percent, compared to Davis’ 3.5 million from 100 percent of the electorate last year. In a conventional race, Schwarzenegger would have buried Davis.”
This is incorrect. Those who voted no on recall could still pick a replacement candidate. Indeed, this was the entire rationale of Cruz Bustamante’s candidacy. For evidence that this was the case, here are the vote totals on Question 1 and Question 2.
Note that the number of voters who voted on Question 2 is approx. 90%-95% (tough to tell precisely w/o adding up all the minor candidates) of the number of voters who voted on Question 1.

My bad. I really need to avoid all math questions. I keep screwing them up.

Matthew Hoy has the goods on Senator Jay Rockefeller’s amazing incoherence on the “imminent threat.” We may just have turned this lying meme around.

One interesting thing to note in the New York Times’ editorial yesterday on WMDs in Iraq. They didn’t re-use the “imminent threat” meme. It’s gone. Instead, they described the threat described by the White House as “extraordinary.” That’s a stretch too. But at least it isn’t a complete fabrication. Tony Snow also helped by grilling Jay Rockefeller yesterday and got him to concede that Bush specifically disavowed the notion that the threat from Saddam was “imminent.” A reader’s comb-through of the entire White House archives for speeches, press releases and so on doesn’t come up with a single administration use of the term “imminent”. That’s not proof that the White House never used the term, but it’s pretty good evidence that it wasn’t the administration boilerplate that the press is now trying to imply. I have found one use of the term “imminent” from Richard Perle. But he’s not a formal administrtaion official; and he has been a hothead at times.

THE REAL ISSUE: Am I being ridiculously semantic here? I don’t think so. Here’s why: If the administration had genuinely described the threat as “imminent”, then there wouldn’t have even been much of a debate. Of course we are entitled to defend ourselves against imminent attack. The debate rather was over what kind of threat could justify a war. The White House argued that it was a grave and growing threat, that it was unknowable, that we’d under-estimated Saddam before and that after 9/11, the balance of judgment had to shift to greater vigilance. Technically speaking, none of this was necessary because of Saddam’s flagrant violation of U.N. Resolution 1441 (which, by the way, also did not describe Saddam’s threat as “imminent”). The point was less that we knew the threat was imminent, but that we couldn’t know for sure that it wasn’t. I’d argue that this complex argument is completely upheld by what the Kay report has found so far: a clear, underground system for a biological and chemical weapons capacity, with the possibility of actual weapons yet to be discovered. It may be that the threat turns out to be less than feared. The question then becomes: given that we could not have known for sure at the time, should the president have risked waiting or tolerating Saddam? Would another delay have removed the doubt? Hindsight is easy. But real decisions have to be made without it. If the Democratic candidates want to argue that they would have taken the risk and allowed Saddam to stay in power, then they need to say so clearly. Howard Dean already has. He would have left Saddam in place and hoped that the nightmare of terrorists with Saddam-provided WMDS wouldn’t take place. After 9/11, I consider that an act of gross irresponsibility. But some do not. Let’s debate that, shall we? It’s still the critical question in the coming campaign: whom do you to trust to protect us?

The German Booksellers’ Association have their own Sontag Award. And it’s just gone to Susan Sontag! The Association views Sontag as a lone dissident in an “arrogant super-power.” The writer who described the mass murderers of 9/11 as braver than allied pilots is hailed by the German literary elites as having an “exceptional sense of morality and immorality.” Her main triumph: standing up to the “hegemonic response” to 9/11. 9/11? Who remembers that any more? Surely not the Germans. (Hat-tip: Eamonn.)

LEFTIES AND TYRANTS: “I think Joe Stalin was a guy that was hugely misunderstood. And to this day, I don’t think I have ever seen an adequate job done of telling the story of Joe Stalin, so I guess my answer would have to be Joe Stalin.” – actor, Ed Asner, responding to the question, “If you had the chance to play the biographical story of a historical figure you respected most over your lifetime, who would it be?”

Money quote from Chuck Muth, Arizona Republican:

FMA is a solution in search of a problem. No state court has yet to rule in favor of recognizing “gay marriages.” But even if one or more states do recognize gay marriages, federal law already defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And while FMA proponents say the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution would force states to recognize gay marriages from other states, other legal scholars contend it won’t. Shouldn’t we at least wait to see if something is broken before trying to fix it?

Meanwhile, there’s more evidence that the argument for at least some kind of civil union for gay citizens is gaining ground.

MARTIN SMITH, LEFTIST: Interesting background on Martin Smith, producer of the Frontline attack on the Iraq War. Well, actually not that interesting. He’s another baby-boom lefty “child of the 1960s” who went into public television and documentaries to advance his liberal ideas:

“I was a Conscientious Objector during the war years. I did alternative service work, and when I came back to school, I went back to New York University Film School. I didn’t think that I was going to be making documentaries, but I gravitated toward documentaries immediately, because there was an immediacy to them. You didn’t wait around for people to get their make-up right or for the set to get built, and you just went out and shot things… Yes, I was a child of the sixties, and I was at half of the demonstrations, and all the concerts.”

Good for him. But please don’t try and persuade us he’s only interested in the truth. He’s an anti-war propagandist of the classic kind. I just wish I didn’t have to pay any part of his salary.

The way in which what was once a joyful mix of all sorts of lifestyles in San Francisco has curdled into a leftist, Puritan sect is perhaps best represented by that bastion of political correctness, Berkeley. Here’s a little insight into how these people think. It’s from Orville Schell, dean of the J-School:

“It strikes me that the better educated people are, more often than not, they tend to be more liberal, and I think this is a very well-educated area … When you live in a beautiful place, which the whole Bay Area is, you draw people for whom that is important and the idea of preservation, moderation, of walking a little more softly, is important. And I think that creates a kind of liberal mind-set in an environmental sense and in a larger political sense.”

Imagine being a right-of-center student at his school! You immediately know that your own dean thinks your political views might be a function of your lower intelligence. And the notion that only statists care about the environment, or about beauty, is so insulting it hardly bears comment. But there you have it.

THE PLAME LEAK: It may have been disgraceful, but probably legal. Here’s why. I largely agree with Nick Kristof on this – both sides come out looking terrible, but the administration leaker is a truly odious character. Josh Marshall, however, surely goes a little over the top with his claim that because Plame’s cover had already been blown by Aldrich Ames, the White House official deserves to be seen in exactly the same light. He’s vile, but not on the Ames level.

Here’s a fascinating encounter with the producer of the Frontline special on the war against Saddam, Martin Smith. It’s from the Washington Post’s online chat today:

Boston, Mass: Why did Martin Smith at least twice say while conducting an interview in the program that “Americans were sold this war as an imminent threat…” That is a bold face lie, an untruth from beginning to end. In President Bush’s state of the union speech, he specifically countered that argument by in essence saying we cannot afford to wait until the threat from Iraq is imminent. For a program with Truth in it’s title, that’s a big slip up and I heard Mr. Smith say it at least twice.

Martin Smith: I’m glad you asked this question. I believe I may have used the term “imminent threat” more than twice. If you go back to the records you will see that while the president does not use the exact phrase, he talks about a “grave and gathering danger.” He talks about Saddam’s ability to launch chemical or biological weapons in 45 minutes.

No one that I spoke to in the administration who supported the war quibbled with the use of the term “imminent threat.” It’s simply not a quotation – it’s a summary of the president’s assessment.

Good for you, Mr Boston. What we see here is that Smith has interpreted what the administration said before the war to be an “imminent threat.” But the only time I know of that the exact phrase was used was in president Bush’s critical State of the Union address before the war. And in that speech, this is what Bush said:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

Yes, that is a “grave and gathering danger.” But it is not “imminent.” In fact, it specifically makes a distinction that Smith’s propaganda elides. Think I’m as biased as Smith? Here’s how the leading anti-war Democrat – yes, Howard Dean – described Bush’s position on September 29, 2002: “The president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.” I would say that “any time in the immediate future” is as good a definition as any of the word “imminent.” So was even Howard Dean spinning for Bush? Of course not. He was summing up the simple truth. Smith is distorting the historical record to make a fake case against the administration. Perhaps it was intentional; perhaps he was just so blinded by liberal bias he even believed his own untruths. But this time, he’s been caught.
(CORRECTION: In my original version, I included a final line from the caller from Boston. There was no final line. I mistranscribed commentary from an email about the inter-change and confused it with the transcript. Apologies.)

JUST A REMINDER: Here are a few choice quotes from Democrats in the period leading up to the war to disarm and depose Saddam. They are all almost identical to the Bush administration’s statements. None claim an “imminent” threat. All suggest a real and growing danger. Some of the intelligence may well turn out to be wrong. But their concerns were real; and their judgment correct. Again, the imminent meme has to be challenged before the anti-war media make this untruth truth:

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” –Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” –Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” –Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction… [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” –Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

With thanks to Snopes.com and Don Luskin.

After Saddam, the Iraqi Marsh Arabs, their lives and traditions violated by Saddam, enjoy the benefits of America’s liberation:

The marsh has once again assumed its omnipresent role in the village. Women clad in black head-to-toe abayas wade into the water to wash clothes. The mullet found in the murky depths, though small and bony, is grilled for dinner every night. Swamp grasses are cut to feed the cows and sheep that will eventually be traded for water buffalo.
“Everyone is so happy,” Kerkush said as he watched his son stand in a mashoof and steer it like a gondolier with a long wooden pole. “We are starting to live like we used to, not the way Saddam wanted us to live.”

How can you not be moved by such a story? How can you not be proud of what we have done?

More imminent insinuation from the left. Frontline, the left-wing arm of liberal WGBH, ran a documentary last week, paid in part by tax-payers’ dollars, that threaded the “imminent” meme throughout. (They had the gall to email me to promote it). Here’s one question posed to Paul Bremer that simply assumes the lie:

I guess the problem is that Americans cautioned that this aftermath would be difficult, and that we didn’t sign up for a humanitarian mission; we signed up to rid ourselves of an imminent threat. Was the war wrongly sold?

The distortion continues relentlessly. And you’re paying for some of it.

From October 10, 2002, here’s an extract from Tom Daschle’s case for agreeing with the administration’s rationale for war:

The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing, and it cannot be ignored.

There you have it. Why does the media continue to lie about the arguments made for war against Saddam? They keep moving the goal-posts so the administration cannot win. Just as they did all they could to prevent the war, and to undermine it when it was going on, now they seek to distort history to advance the agenda of appeasing terrorist-sponsoring tyranny. (Thanks to Bo Cowgill.) Keep those “imminent” references coming. We can turn this untruth around.