SADDAM AND AL QAEDA

“You would think that the possibility of such an unholy alliance would be considered too likely to ignore. But then you hear some “genius” with a Ph.D. who is supposedly an expert saying that Saddam is a secular Arab and Al Qaeda is a fanatical religious group – how could they have any dealing with each other? Haven’t they heard of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939?” – more on the Letters Page.

THE NEW YORK TIMES PUNTS

Take a hard look at their editorial this morning. It acknowledges that Colin Powell made an overwhelming case that Saddam is in material breach of Resolution 1441. But the Times then concludes:

As the crisis builds, [president Bush] should make every possible effort to let the council take the lead. The Security Council, the American people and the rest of the world have an obligation to study Mr. Powell’s presentation very closely and very seriously. Because the consequences of war are so terrible, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq so great, the United States cannot afford to confront Iraq without broad international support.

Meaning what, exactly? How broad? And what, precisely does the Security Council “taking the lead” mean? Leading us where? We usually look to the editorials of major papers for answers to certain difficult questions. If you want such a synthesis – of history, argument, consistency and principle – you have to go to a serious editorial paper like the Washington Post. Methinks the Times has already decided against war (largely because Mr Bush is president), now realizes how dumb its position seems, and is slowly turning back toward something like coherence. One of the consequences of that is today’s utterly empty editorial. It’s a platitude in search of a principle. Let’s hope Mr Raines finds one before M Chirac does.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?

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.)

NOT JUST THE SAUDIS

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.

P.P.S.

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.

BOMBS, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE

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.