Sunday, October 10, 2004

You Can Learn A Lot From The New York Times

If you are willing to skip the editorial page and the opinion pages and draw your own conclusions from the news, this Friday's (October 8, 2004) New York Times is a gem. There are three prominent articles that when taken in as a whole, amount to a complete refutation of John Kerry's entire position on Iraq.

Finally; "U.S. Report Says Hussein Bought Arms With Ease" is on page one. This article notes that the Duelfer report states that Saddam Hussein used the U.N. Oil For Food program to raise billions of dollars doing business with "...six governments and private companies from a dozen other nations that were willing to ignore sanctions prohibiting arms sales... which included components of long range missiles, spare parts for tanks and night vision equipment." It goes on to state that: "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

The Times also points out that, "Iraq went to great lengths to build a missle system with a range longer than the limits imposed by the United Nations..." This is a key point, because the UN weapons inspectors (who, by the way, returned to Iraq as a direct response to President Bush's showdown with Saddam) were In Iraq looking for illegal missle systems along with WMD.

The next article: "French Play Down Report of Bribes in Iraq Scandal" cites Charles A. Duelfer, in his report as saying that millions of barrels of discounted oil were sold to French officials " encourage France's support for Iraq in the Security Council."

The final article: "Inspector's Report Says Hussein Expected Guerrilla War,"
also citing the Duelfer report, states that according to extended interrogations of Mr. Hussein and his top deputies, that "...from August 2002 to January 2003, Army leaders were ordered to move and hide weapons and other milliatry equipment at off-base locations including farms and homes." According to the Times, "...the Duelfer Report describes the M14 Unit (Iraqi Intelligence) as having trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians , Yemeni, Lebansese, Egyptian and Sudanese operatives in in counterterroism, explosives, marksmanship and foreign operations..."

If you just follow the T.V. news, or only read the headlines, you would think that all that the Duelfer report said was that Saddam had no WMD. The above articles demonstrate the pattent untruth of that conception.

Now, let's get to Mr. Kerry's position. The war was unwise because:

  1. Saddam did not posses prohibited weapons.
  2. We should have given our allies, such as the French, more time and incentive to put pressure on Iraq.
  3. We should have spent more time working with the U.N. and waiting until we were ready to effectively occupy Iraq. Then, there would have been less violence and chaos, if and when we finally did have to go in.
The facts are:
  1. Saddam did posses prohibited weapons and was acquiring more.
  2. The French and many others who opposed our stance on Iraq were not reluctant allies, but adversaries, who were paid off to oppose us in the U.N.
  3. The time we did spend with the U.N. (August 2001 to January 2003) was the exact time period that according to Saddam's people, that they were planning the current insurgency. We gave them too much time. More waiting would have been more tragic.


Blogger Middle East, PHD said...

Once again Jeffrey has done an excellent job highlighting the truth and showing what a complete moron Kerry and his followers are. Some additional points I would like to add:

1.) Not only did our delay in going to War give Saddam time to plan his now guerilla-like resistance, but it also allowed him to hide many of his stockpiles of chemical weapons. The real scary thing is that he did have stockpiles of chemical weapons and most likely they are sitting in the hands of the Syrians who are just waiting to pass them off to Hezbillah or some other Terrorist group.

2.) We still to this day have no idea who supplied the Anthrax that paralized this country for weeks. Many experts have said that the quality of anthrax used is very likely from Iraq. To ignore that this anthrax may have come from Iraq would be very naive and negligent.

3.) Kerry's suggested "Global Summit" that would need to get approval from the UN and the World is just naive and stupid. Let's be honest. Aside from the UN being corrupt as we have seen by the oil-for-food program, we have seen that the UN spends more time finding ways to pass sanctions against Israel for protecting itself against terrorism, rather than passing sanctions against those countries that support, harbor, and finance the terrorists. I dare say that many of the countries that Kerry wants to get approval from before we are allowed to protect ourselves would probably still allow another Holocaust if the opportunity presented itself. The bottom line is that we need to be a leader on World Morality and we need to take matters into our own hands, if necessary, when it comes to protecting ourselves.

October 10, 2004 at 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Instapundit:

I HOPE THIS IS TRUE: A reader emails me a Stratfor analysis on Iraq strategy. I won't reprint the whole thing, but here's the key bit:

Whatever Kerry has had to say about Bush's execution of the war in the past, he has made it clear that he will continue what Bush calls the "War on Terror" and that he will not abandon the war in Iraq.

This last is by far the most important thing to have emerged during the campaign from a geopolitical and strategic point of view. However much the candidates argue over who would be better at fighting the war, it has become clear that the war will go on regardless of who is elected or re-elected -- and that that includes the Iraq campaign. Neither is promising a radical redefinition of the war. Each is claiming simply to be the more effective in executing the war.

Therefore, on this fundamental level, the election has become unimportant.

As I've noted repeatedly, I'm a single-issue voter. If I could be persuaded of this, I might be able to look at other things. I have to say, though, that I don't have tremendous confidence in Kerry's follow-through.

One other brief bit from a rather long analysis:

Since al Qaeda initiated the war, it is critically important to understand that it has completely failed to achieve its strategic goals. From a purely political standpoint, the war has thus far been a disaster for al Qaeda. At the same time, assuming that al Qaeda has not lost the ability to carry out operations, the United States has not yet secured the homeland from follow-on attack.

This seems right to me. As for the earlier part, well, I'd sure like to believe it.

UPDATE: It's worth reading this piece on democracy in the mideast by Jackson Diehl, from today's Washington Post, too. Sounds like "root causes" are being addressed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Many readers say that I shouldn't rely on Stratfor. Fair enough -- I haven't followed their analyses, but those who say they have aren't impressed. Meanwhile, reader Alexandre Leupin thinks their faith in Kerry is unjustified on the facts:

"As I've noted repeatedly, I'm a single-issue voter."

I am too, in the sense that, if our security is not preserved, all the rest (freedom, prosperity, the rule of law, equality of women, etc) becomes meaningless.

I'd say I am a 1 1/2 issue voter, since I like the state confined to a reduced perimeter in my life. And here, W. Bush record is not good, he has tremendously expanded federal spending on domestic issues, excluding the needs of security and defense (understand that I would not object if he ratcheted defense spending up to 7% of GDP- the level at the heigth of the cold war - from the present 4%) . To me, on that point, Kerry would be only a bit worse.

Reading a lot about Kerry's positions on defense (especially the piece in this sunday's NYT magazine), I have come to the conclusion he is not a flip-flopper at all: since 1971, he is at his core, consistently, a pacifist, with a deep reluctance to projet US military might abroad and a hasty willigness to cut spending on defense. This comes without a doubt from his Vietnam experience. In other words, he is not fit to be commander-in-chief today, we are not in Vietnam anymore, Toto.

I'm afraid that's how I see it too. I could be wrong of course -- I've been wrong about Presidents, before, though usually in the direction of being disappointed, alas -- but that's how it looks to me.

October 13, 2004 at 3:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home