Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • New British Inquiry Is Showing That Saddam Did Seek Uranium in Africa

    Jack Kelly, writing for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, decisively argues against the idea that Bush lied about Iraqi attempts to purchase yellowcake in Africa.

    Britain’s Financial Times reported Wednesday that an official British government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq has concluded that Britain’s MI-6 was correct to conclude that Saddam Hussein’s regime had sought to buy uranium ore from Niger.

    If so, this gives the lie to the charge that “Bush lied!” when he said in his 2003 State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

    I like how Mr. Kelly quickly gets to the key point: the keystone of the “Bush lied” campaign is gone. It didn’t vanish — it never existed.

    The “Bush lied!” charge hung on two slender reeds. The first is that the only “evidence” the CIA had at the time of an Iraq-Niger-yellowcake connection was a fairly obvious forgery obtained through Italian sources. The second was the “investigation” conducted in early 2002 by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson on behalf of the CIA.

    Wilson spent less than two weeks in Niger. In his July 2003 New York Times op-ed about the investigation, in which he described his methodology as “drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country’s uranium business.” The people he talked to told him that Niger hadn’t sold uranium to Iraq. Wilson’s op-ed accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence — and ignoring his report on Niger — to justify a war on Iraq.

    There were two problems with Wilson’s investigation. The first is that the people to whom Wilson was talking might not have been telling him the truth. The second is that to say that Niger did not sell uranium to Iraq is not the same as saying Iraq did not try to buy yellowcake ore from Niger.

    In fact, Wilson himself has confirmed that Iraq did indeed try to buy uranium from Niger.

    Game, set, match.

  • The Cowards’ Approach to War

    For over a year now, the media and the leftists have demanded for the Bush administration to voice an exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many on the right, sans media, have wondered about the exit strategy from Bosnia for years.

    What is our exit strategy from the Korean conflict? Did Truman ever voice one?

    What is our exit strategy from our bout with the Axis powers of Germany and Japan? Surely FDR announced an exit strategy to the American public in World War Part Deux.

    Well, yes, he did. Speaking almost a year before Pearl Harbor, FDR spoke of “no end save victory” in the defense of liberty and freedom. This is how he led the American and Allied efforts in WWII, demanding the unconditional surrender of the Axis countries of Germany, Italy and Japan. He did not fight for a stalemate. He did not settle for a return to pre-war boundaries. He fought to win.

    It is my belief that the very concept of exit strategy is a self-defeating idea. To have any strategy other than victory as the objective is a mistake. A stated and accomplished list of milestones may insure a “peace with honor,” but it in no way guarantees a desired outcome in the long term. War is not the end-all be-all solution to the world’s problems; however, when war must be waged, it must be waged to win. American lives should not be tossed aside for the sake of a tie or, worse yet, an honorable defeat when victory could have been attained had we, as a people, had the stomach for it.

    I have been unable to find any military or political usage of the phrase “exit strategy” prior to the Viet Nam War. Certainly, this is the conflict that popularized the term.

    Stated bluntly, exit strategy is a planned way of disengaging short of victory. Contingency planning in the event of defeat is needed and understandable; planning a withdrawal, based on milestones and dates decided by political needs and not long-term requirements, without defeat but before victory is achieved is indefensible. And yet, this is just what has been demanded by the media during practically every American military involvement of the last thirty years.

    Yes, in the short term, this does have the effect of reducing casualties within a given conflict. Unfortunately, it serves to set the stage for greater loss of life in the next conflict. It is the cowards’ way of waging war, deferring the losses to those fighting later.

  • U.S. to Pull Forces From 2 U.N. Missions

    Seems to only be a token gesture, but the U.S. military is backing out of two tiny deployments.

    The U.S. military will pull tiny contingents out of two U.N. peacekeeping missions because Americans no longer are exempt from international prosecution for war crimes, a Pentagon spokesman said Thursday.

    A seven-person team will be removed from the U.N. mission to keep the peace between the African nations of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and two liaison officers will be taken out of the U.N. mission in Kosovo, spokesman Larry Di Rita told reporters at a new conference.

    We should pull, or at the very least threaten to pull, our 2,200 troops from Kosovo, with the explanation of principle and more dire need elsewhere. Specifically, enforcing U.N. resolutions in Iraq.

    I do so tire of the League of Nations, Part Deux.

  • Cohen: F9/11 So Bad It Could Help Bush

    In the latest column of liberal Richard Cohen, the film Fahrenheit 9/11 is shredded, both on methodology and relevance.

    I go on about Moore and Ellis because the stunning box office success of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out, but instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance.

    Unfortunately, it may be too late for the Dems to keep the loony left at arm’s length. In fact, it seems the loons are the rudder of the good ship Democrat, steering hard a’port.

    It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a President who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope.

    I fear how it will play to the undecided. For them, I recommend “Spider-Man 2.”

  • NYC Issues GOP Convention Protest Permits

    The unionists, abortionists, socialists, pacifists and miscellaneous useful idiots are picking up their protest permits to turn New York city into a circus during the Republican’s national convention.

    Late Wednesday, police announced additional permits to groups including the Christian Defense Coalition, Planned Parenthood (news – web sites), the Middle East Peace Coalition and People for the American Way. Demonstrations, prayer vigils and rallies by these organizations would be held from Aug. 28 to Sept. 1.

    But United for Peace and Justice and city officials are to meet again Friday to discuss the anti-war group’s application for a rally and march for 250,000 people on convention eve, said Bill Dobbs, a spokesman for the group.

    What? No sign of ANSWER? And who is going to give anybody the Brooklyn Bridge for a protest?

    Don’t get me wrong — I have nothing against protesting. Protesting is a fundamental right in our nation. I guess my problem is with the silly protesters. I don’t know what the union people will do or how they’ll protest. Heck, I don’t even know what they’ll be protesting, as I’ve seen nothing anti-union from Bush to date. However, the abortionists will have their same silly signs and silly chants and coathangers. The communists, socialists and pacifists will have their own silly signs and silly chants and many will generally look like they need showers and are just trying to leap back to the Sixties.

    Here’s an idea, protester person, shower, shave (that goes for male and female), dress normally and carry a sign that, without falsehood, profanity and exaggeration, expresses a valid point. That is how to get mainstream America to take notice. Freaks may get more media attention, but the average American looks at the photos and television segments, only to sigh and mutter, “Great, more freaks.” No message conveyed.

  • I Wasn’t Always a Republican…

    …just mostly.

    Probably my biggest personal political regret was being too young to ever vote for Ronald Reagan, missing the voting age in 1984 by less than a year and a half.

    I first heard of the Libertarian Party during the 1980 campaign. It is the only time offhand that I can recall seeing any television spots for the party and, probably not coincidentally, it was the party’s high mark in Presidential voting. Edward Clark received 921,128 votes that year, almost doubling the party’s second best showing of 485,798 in ’96. To be honest, at the time I knew very little of what the party stood for and was quite happy in the bliss of my Republican roots.

    In the years between the ’84 Reagan landslide and the first Presidential election I would be eligible to vote in (1988), I began looking more closely into the Libertarian Party. Through my investigations and re-examinations of my own beliefs, I gradually decided that I’m about 75% Republican and 75% Libertarian. I know that’s 150%, but only if you think the stances of the two parties never overlap.

    In ’88, I supported Alexander Haig for the Republican nomination, but he was out of the contest long before the Texas primary rolled around. My allegiance and my primary vote switched to Jack Kemp. Then-Vice-President Bush was my third choice, and I was at peace with his nomination and was supporting him against Dukakis. My general election vote, however, went to Dr. Ron Paul, who was a Libertarian from Texas at the time and is now a Republican Congressman.

    The pattern continued in subsequent Presidential elections, supporting the Republican and voting for the Libertarian. Hey, this was post-1980 Texas and the electoral votes have been a lock for the GOP. I always envisioned my Libertarian vote as an idealistic but harmless statement. I say idealistic statement because there is one part about the Libertarian Party’s membership process that has always bothered me:

    YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

    In fact, the party platform is almost entirely devoid of the concept of national defense.

    I did, in 1999, accept a membership card from the Libertarian Party and gave them a small donation, but I did so without signing this portion of the card. They didn’t seem to mind. I have since let this membership slip by the wayside. I love several of the Libertarians’ ideals but, as a Reagan Revolutionary and a devout believer in the proven concept of Peace Through Strength, I can not agree with this statement regarding initiation of action. I especially see it as out of step with reality in the post-9/11 world.

    Besides, I have another reason for supporting Bush and not voting Libertarian this year, even though my vote won’t have an effect on the Texas electoral votes. That reason is simply this: it’s one vote closer to not having to hear the liberals whine about winning the popular vote, as if that ever mattered.