Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspondent

The Imperfect Storm

Clifford D. May

January 15, 2004

President Bush has made his share of enemies – political, ideological, personal and stylistic. However, you must remember that doers make enemies, non doers offend no one.These opponents now appear to have joined together in an ad hoc alliance bent on proving that the President – in the words of Al Franken, chairman of the Hollywood branch of the coalition – is a “lying liar” who fooled Americans into supporting an unjustifiable military intervention in Iraq.

This narrative is being driven in a flurry of articles in liberal publications, a pseudo-documentary film from the left-wing advocacy group, MoveOn.org, in reports from such pro-Democratic think tanks as the Center for American Progress and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and by a former Democratic Senate staffer now teaching at the Army War College. And, most recently, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill piled on in interviews with CBS News' 60 Minutes, in Time magazine and in a new book.

Taken together, it seems like the perfect storm blowing through the White House. Taken apart, these arguments dissolve like morning mist.

For example, what the Washington Post terms “among the most serious charges” made by Mr. O'Neill is this: That President Bush was considering regime change in Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001.

We should hope so. After all, in 1998, President Clinton signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the U.S. government. The only question was how best (and how quickly) to accomplish that goal.

Here's another shocker. Mr. O'Neill told 60 Minutes: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.” Well … yes.

Saddam had twice invaded his neighbors, used chemical weapons to commit genocide against the Iraqi Kurds, ethnically cleansed the Marsh Arabs, maintained terrorist training camps, tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, threatened to take revenge on America, was shooting at American aircraft over Iraq's “no-fly” zones, was sending money to Palestinian terrorists, and had violated more than a dozen UN resolutions agreed to in exchange for the 1991 ceasefire. What's more, he had forced out UN weapons inspectors, and every major intelligence service in the world was convinced he was continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction.

As Stuart Cohen, a career CIA employee and Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council recently told ABC's Ted Koppel in a rare interview: “We were concerned about unconventional delivery of chemical and biological weapons. The ability of Iraqi intelligence agencies to perhaps bring something in undetected. And use it."

If President Bush saw those dots, connected them, and came up with the picture of “a bad person” who “needed to go,” that sounds like a good day's work.

The President was not alone in reaching such conclusions. In March 2002 Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton's Director of Gulf Affairs on the National Security Council, warned that the policy of “containment” was failing. “The last two years have witnessed a dramatic erosion of the constraints on the Iraqi regime,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs. “If no more serious action is taken, the United States and the world at large may soon confront a nuclear-armed Saddam.”

Almost exactly one year ago, The New York Times editorialized on the wisdom of such serious action, noting the conceptual link between Saddam and 9/11, while also making clear that the problem was not an “imminent” threat from warehouses full of WMD. Rather, the goal was to prevent Saddam from obtaining capabilities to match his intentions.

"It's not surprising that in the wake of Sept. 11, the president would want to make the world safer,” the Times opined on Feb. 23, 2003, “and that one of his top priorities would be eliminating Iraq's ability to create biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.”

Which is precisely what the US has done in Iraq: eliminated Saddam's “ability to create biological, chemical and nuclear weapons." Mission accomplished – if you'll excuse the expression.

The fact that we have not found the stockpiles of the anthrax, VX and Sarin that Saddam admitted he possessed does not imply that Saddam “never” had them -- as the BBC misstated last week. It simply means we haven't yet figured out what he did with them. Have they been well hidden? Did he send them out of the country, Syria, Lebanon? He certainly had time as we were stalled by the UN for months. What would you have done if you where in charge? Or did he destroy them secretly, which would have violated the agreements he signed? In the meantime, we have found evidence that Saddam planned to develop a clandestine capability that would produce such weapons as disease bombs on a just-in-time basis.

One question seldom asked of the anti-war warriors: If protecting Americans and liberating Iraqis were not the main reasons Mr. Bush decided to use military force, what were?

According to Bush's more extreme opponents, he did it, “to seize Iraq's oil fields,” “to make money for Halliburton;” “for Ariel Sharon;” “to get even with Saddam for trying to whack Daddy;” “to distract attention from the economy;” or “for the same reason he put arsenic in the drinking water.”

Bush's more temperate opponents have no answer. And Al Franken's response – “He's a lying liar who tells lies!” – is only good for giggles.

I have never seen a President so wrongly lied about in my tenure.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

This is a very interesting article. What I find most interesting is how selective items are combined without addressing complete arguments.

Regime change in Iraq has been a goal, but, premptively declaring war was not part of the Clinton Administration's plans. If the ultimate goal is to make the world safer, why go after Hussein, who had no provable WMD, and ignore Al Quida, a group that has been energized by the current administration's attention to Iraq.

I find the comment about Al Franken especially amusing. It's easy to make a comment that someone is wrong. It's much more difficult to address specific statements made by the author and prove (emphasis on prove) the statements are wrong. Al Franken has included substantial documentation and examples for the thesis of his book, including reprints of the documentation he references.

This is a very nice opinion article, but, I find it short on full and complete support for the author's point of view.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>This is a very nice opinion article, but, I find it short on

>full and complete support for the author's point of view.

Fuckin right-on, Danny!

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

War to cause Regime change was not part of the plan? What was part of the plan? Have a tea party and make nice and then Mr Saddam will say OK you win, I'll leave? Whatever makes you think war was not part of the plan. The scuzzy guy bombed the hell out of Iraq enough times.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

Further as to the Al Franken comment. After the title of his book on Rush and all the comments he made on TV about Bush without providing any proof at the time of the comment, seems like a fair statement to me. He may have provided proof in his book, but he did not when he made the statements en passant!!

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

Who is ignoring the al Quaeda? A favorite Democrat lie is that in going into Iraq, the administration stopped looking for bin Laden and chasing the al Quaeda. But the truth is that we still have substantial numbers of troops in Afghanistan searching for bin Laden and al Quaeda on a daily basis. No criticizm of the failure to find bin Laden and destroy al Quaeda is valid unless the critic is able to show specifically what should have been which has not been done. The real problem seems likely to be that bin Laden is hidden in Pakistan, a nuclear power, which is not willing to let us come in and search. A forceable entry would run the risk of the use of nuclear weapons, or worse, the fall of the present government and the fall of nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists in Pakistan. If any of you Democrats know where bin Laden is, be sure and speak up.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

You really should read Al Franken's book. Franken does review numerous public appearances, when he appeared with conservative commentators, and how those commentators had no substantiation for their views when Franken would produce evidence that was contrary to their views.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

I will agree, Saddam Hussein is dangerous. And, if left unchecked, he **MAY** have been able to amass a large arsenal of WMD.

If the United States had an unending supply of people and money to pursue all terrorist dictators, there may be an argument to the war in Iraq. But, we don't have that endless supply.

I found it very interesting that, when Saddam Hussein was captured, there were cheers of "we're safer now". The next day (or, two days later??) the Terror Alert level was raised.

My question is, given limited resources to pursue terrorists, what made Iraq, a country that had no verifiable WMD (although we were told the opposite) enemy number one, rather than the group that did attack us. Why not use those resources to track down Al Quida, which is a much more immediate threat? Given the administration's ability to highlight positive activity in Iraq (i.e., "Mission Accomplished", "Saddam has been caught"), why has the news been so quiet regarding the hunt for Al Quida? For all the times there was a news report that Saddam Hussein will be caught "any day now", surely the same level of reporting (i.e., positive spin) would be publicized for the group that DID attack the US.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>You really should read Al Franken's book. Franken does

>review numerous public appearances, when he appeared with

>conservative commentators, and how those commentators had no

>substantiation for their views when Franken would produce

>evidence that was contrary to their views.

Wow - that sounds shocking. That never happens to liberal commentators. They never say things "without substantiation" or have "evidence presented that is contary to their views." Nope - never. That only happens to conservative commentators.

Conservatives say things without substantiation and there is evidnece to contradict their views. This book sounds really powerful and hard-hitting. I'm sure his books are persuading a lot of people who weren't already inclined to those views - especially the titles.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>This is a very interesting article. What I find most

>interesting is how selective items are combined without

>addressing complete arguments.

Just like the post you wrote in response to it.

>Regime change in Iraq has been a goal . . .

Why was it a goal of the Clinton Administraiton? Any ideas? Do you think that might be because Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat to the national security of the U.S? If not, why would our Government adopt a policy to change the government of a foreign country?

Have you ever given any thought to why that policy of regime change was adopted? It's not exactly common for the U.S. to adopt a policy of changing the Government of another country. Pretty extreme things have to happen in order for that to occur.

, but, premptively

>declaring war was not part of the Clinton Administration's

>plans.

LOL!!! So Clinton adopted regime change as a policy goal but didn't actually do anything about it - and that's good. Bush took this policy and actually implemented - and that's bad. That makes a lot of sense.

If the ultimate goal is to make the world safer, why go

>after Hussein, who had no provable WMD . .. .

The whole world thought Saddam had WMD's - including Democrats. The debate was never about whether he had them. It was about what to do about them.

, and ignore Al Quida, a

>group that has been energized by the current administration's

>attention to Iraq.

When you say "ignore Al Quida" (sic), are you talking about the Clinton Administration? That's the Administration that allowed Afghanistan to be turned into a terrorist training camp. It was the Administration after that which put an end to that. I think you have your Administrations confused.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>I found it very interesting that, when Saddam Hussein was

>captured, there were cheers of "we're safer now". The next

>day (or, two days later??) the Terror rAlert level was raised.

This is seriously the dumbest argument I have ever heard in political dialogue, and I was very disappointed to hear Howard Dean, who doesn't usually stoop to such idiocy, mouth this line.

If there are 2 people who are trying to kill you with a gun, and you kill one of them, have you been made safer? Isn't that true even if, the next day, the other person who you haven't killed finds out where you live and comes to kill you?

The fact that you eliminate one threat to you (Saddam Hussein) means that you are safer. The fact that there are still other threats which remain (Al Qaeda) doesn't change that fact.

That's just basic fucking logic.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>I found it very interesting that, when Saddam Hussein was

>captured, there were cheers of "we're safer now". The next

>day (or, two days later??) the Terror rAlert level was raised.

This is seriously the dumbest argument I have ever heard in political dialogue, and I was very disappointed to hear Howard Dean, who doesn't usually stoop to such idiocy, mouth this line.

If there are 2 people who are trying to kill you with a gun, and you kill one of them, have you been made safer? Isn't that true even if, the next day, the other person who you haven't killed finds out where you live and comes to kill you?

The fact that you eliminate one threat to you (Saddam Hussein) means that you are safer. The fact that there are still other threats which remain (Al Qaeda) doesn't change that fact.

That's just basic fucking logic.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

All I'm saying is that if two people are pointing a gun at me, one of the guns is loaded and has been used, and the other will take another five years to load with ammunition, I'd be more inclined to go after the person with the loaded gun rather than the person trying to figure out how to load a gun.

But, from a PR point of view, it's much easier to disarm the person who hasn't loaded a gun and proclaim the world is safer, while saying and doing little about the person with the loaded gun.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

Just more of the same spin, that they put on ONeil's statement that Bush team planned the Iraq exercise from the time that he took office. But NO DOUBT the facts were already available then and before the election from the Clinton era, that intelligence showed things were getting worse and action was necessary.

Amazing, that ONeil couldn't understand this, as well. Perhaps his writer was more of a spinner then he was!

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

I have read several reports and statements from people involved in the Clinton / Bush transition that the Bush Administration was warned about immediate terrorist threats. The most immediate threat came from Al Quida. However, the Bush Administration had other prioritites - such as going after Saddam Hussein to be concerned with the number one threat against the United States.

But, to the credit of the Bush Administration, they've been able to spin their missteps into PR to make many people believe we're safer since Saddam Hussein has been captured.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

Well, it just so happens that Afgan and the terrorist were FIRST on the list, then it was Saddam! Surprised, that you hadn't noticed that.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>I have read several reports and statements from people

>involved in the Clinton / Bush transition that the Bush

>Administration was warned about immediate terrorist threats.

>The most immediate threat came from Al Quida.

If the Clinton Administration were so aware of the threat of Al Qaeda, as you claim, why the fuck did they sit by and do nothing for years while the Taliban allowed Afghanistan to be turned into a sprawling terrorist training camp for Osama bin Laden? Please, somebody explain that.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

It is easy to understand why CLinton and friends did nothing to stop the terrorists, they left for the others and criticized them. Plus they had their own personal pasttimes and problems to deal with.

That is one powerful propaganda machine.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

It is easy to understand why CLinton and friends did nothing to stop the terrorists, they left for the others and criticized them. Plus they had their own personal pasttimes and problems to deal with.

That is one powerful propaganda machine.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>It is easy to understand why CLinton and friends did nothing

>to stop the terrorists, they left for the others and

>criticized them. Plus they had their own personal pasttimes

>and problems to deal with.

>

>That is one powerful propaganda machine.

Or, they were working on a plan to counter terrorists and had accumulated a substantial amount of information at the end of Clinton's second term. This was turned over to the Bush Administration for several reasons - first, it was very important, and, second, Clinton did not want to do to his successor what had been done to him, which is go into office with no idea of threats that existed. The mistake the Clinton Administration made is to assume the Bush Administration would actually take the greatest threat of terrorism seriously.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Or, they were working on a plan to counter terrorists and had >accumulated a substantial amount of information at the end of

>Clinton's second term. This was turned over to the Bush

>Administration for several reasons - first, it was very

>important, and, second, Clinton did not want to do to his

>successor what had been done to him, which is go into office

>with no idea of threats that existed. The mistake the Clinton

>Administration made is to assume the Bush Administration would

>actually take the greatest threat of terrorism seriously.

If - as you claim - the Clinton Administration knew that Al Qaeda was such a great threat, then that Administration was criminally reckless for allowing Afghanistan to serve for years as an unfettered training ground for Osama bin Laden.

This notion that they didn't do anything because they were "working on a plan" is a fucking joke, and you know it. Aside from the fact that you just made it up, it took the Bush Administraiton less than one month to figure out how to overthrow the Taliban with minimal causalties and cease having Afghanistan be a terrorist amusement park for Osama bin Laden. If the Clinton Administration knew that Al Qaeda was such a threat, what possible excuse is there for that Administration allowing the Taliban to remain in power, playing host for years to Al Qaeda????

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

Basic fucking logic boy is actually missing the point. Saddam never posed a threat to the United States. His being free posed no danger to us. His capture had absolutely zero impact on our safety. For Saddam to have been a danger to us, he would have had to have had WMD, which he did not. He had disarmed as required by the UN resolutions. The fact that the terror alert went up was incidental. Saddam had no imapct on it in any way shape or form. Only a real threat could, not a made up one.

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Basic fucking logic boy is actually missing the point.

>Saddam never posed a threat to the United States. His being

>free posed no danger to us.

Then why did the Clinton Administration adopt "REGIME CHANGE" as its official policy towards Iraq. It's pretty extraordinary for the U.S. Government to adopt as its official goal towards another country that the government of that country should be changed. If Saddam posed no threat to the U.S., why did the prior Administration want to change that Government?

>For Saddam to have been a danger to us,

>he would have had to have had WMD, which he did not. He had

>disarmed as required by the UN resolutions.

Do you know of anyone who knew that he had no WMD's before the war began?

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies was co-founded by Richard Perle.

Nuf said

RE: Interesting column from former NYT Foreign Correspo...

>Then why did the Clinton Administration adopt "REGIME CHANGE"

>as its official policy towards Iraq. It's pretty

>extraordinary for the U.S. Government to adopt as its official

>goal towards another country that the government of that

>country should be changed. If Saddam posed no threat to the

>U.S., why did the prior Administration want to change that

>Government?

To force him to comply with the UN resolutions, which he did.

>Do you know of anyone who knew that he had no WMD's before the

>war began?

Dubya, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Conodleeza Rice...