Evict Bush!

Saturday, September 21, 2002  

This Economist article discusses an ancient piece of clockwork attributed to the Greeks. I'd seen a piece on this on the Discovery channel a while ago, but this is the first internet article I've run across. (Admittedly, I haven't been actively looking.)

It's always fun to discover that ancient people had more advanced technology than they're generally given credit for. Rather like looking at old photographs and seeing the family resemblance over time. And they had problems with distributing that technology similar in kind, if not degree, to what we have now. The cutting edge of what happens in our laboratories and university research departments is probably a minimum of 50 years ahead (with the notable exception of aspects computing technology) of what's available to the public. The biggest problems of implementing these discoveries to improve people's lives doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we're clever enough to figure out novel solutions, but whether or not we can make good use of what we find.

Our biggest stumbling blocks, then as now, are greed, fear, and pointless bickering. Everything we do as a species to hamper our resolution of political problems prevents us from solving the larger issues that face us. Every time we reduce our common supply of resources and human capacity in conflict, we set ourselves back. It isn't the technology, or lack thereof, that hinders us. If we're more civilised to our immediate neighbors, it's probably the virtue of the well-fed and comfortably housed. Our treatment of distant neighbors, and those we regard as alien, is a clear demonstration of the lack of maturity that keeps us from aspiring to better use of resources.

Whatever happens in the next presidential election, the legacy of right wing judicial activism and appointments are going to be with us for a long time. It's almost enough to make a person want to pray.

From the BBC online news:

The European Space Agency is working on Mars exploration projects, but the Brits are lagging behind with their part of the mission.

Indigenous Bolivians are seeing a profit from responsible community forestry supported by the educational efforts of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and a government who has given them title to their ancestral territories. Each family got a cash payment from the proceeds of this year's sale, and several communal needs were taken care of. They're planning to expand their business in the future by purchasing a sawmill, and are looking at future arrangements for transporting their lumber to overseas markets. When capitalism works properly, it's a hummer.

This Guardian article addresses the misappropriation of feminist rhetoric by people who want excuses to blow things up, but no actual improvement in women's lives. It also speaks to the bizarre mindset that sees a veil (or abayah, or burqah) as the biggest obstacle to improving women's status, instead of realizing that perhaps lack of education, inequal protection under the law, economic dependence, and a constant fear of rape or public beatings might actually be more useful topics to address.

When any group of people have equal access to income and education, it's amazing how rapidly their status and freedom can increase.

As my masochistic news entertainment continues late into the night, two articles in the Nation seem to bolster any assertion that a full-fledged war in Iraq might not be the most important aspect of future safety. Neither article mentions Iraq at all, which is the point.

This piece about "The 'Talibanization' of Bangladesh" shows a profile of events occurring in that very poor (and disaster plagued) country reminiscent of recent Afghan history. Pakistani organizations are also thought to be supporting the running of terrorist training camps (in at least one case, funded with an initial Al-Qaeda grant), as they did in Afghanistan. Also, a popular cleric has declared that the 120 million citizens of that nation should rise up against the US. A proliferation of madrassahs, and the election this year of a radical Islamist faction calling for Shari'a law to be implemented are barely the beginning. Destruction of religious buildings and relics of other faiths (Hindu) were followed by slaughter, public gang-rape, and wholesale destruction of property visited on the minority Hindu population.

Across the border in Gujarat, radical nationalism and caste violence have now been followed by the persecution of unbelievers. Destruction of religious buildings and relics of other faiths (Muslim) were followed by slaughter, public gang-rape, and wholesale destruction of property visited on the minority Muslim population. The government did nothing, the police said that they had not been instructed to help, just as they rarely intervene in Hindu inter-caste violence.

In both countries, refugees from the incidents are living in camps or fleeing, and some may have to go back to the same villages where the local inhabitants destroyed their homes and murdered or raped family members. Hindu Bangladeshis are fleeing to India when they can, and Muslim Indians are living in temporary camps provided by Muslim charity organizations. Apparently, they are not fleeing in droves to Pakistan and Bangladesh (yet), and I don't even want to think what that says about the living conditions in those two countries. But people have certainly noticed that these Muslim refugees are only getting help from other Muslims.

Before 9/11, people outside the US widely considered the Pakistan-India border to be the single most dangerous spot in the world. Not only are tempers and public fanaticism high on both sides, but both countries are verifiably in possession of both nuclear weapons and their means of manufacture. Pakistan, let's not forget, is the only government standing who has supported terrorist activities in other countries which resulted in attacks against the US (as distinguished from governments who have supported terror against less important countries, or that did not attack actual US soil). The Indian government has stood by and done nothing while mass riot and murder happened in broad daylight, leaving their own citizens just as dead as any nerve gas victims.

We aren't talking about theoretical terrorist links, or about possible weapons. This is the real deal. Two countries involved in a heated territorial dispute, with a long history of hating each other, and definitely armed to the teeth. And as a free bonus gift, their neighbor is a poorly governed, impoverished country with a flourishing fanatic streak and porous borders. We'll be bringing some 'infinite justice' or 'enduring freedom' to this mess real soon, I bet... Oh yeah, right, no oil. Well, bugger the lot of them.

While local cable advertisers are still targeting potential converts to Jesus (the people of the United Methodist Church did the touching single-mom-worried-about-raising-the-daughter ad tonight) on TNT reruns of Charmed, the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer ad buyers on FX have made no such mistake. This evening the Seattle areas BTVS audience was told of the existence of Mage Knight, a figurine based Dungeons & Dragons lite, and an upcoming Aerosmith concert. I wonder who gets more bites?

Lisa posted a link to this blog by Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, suggesting that Democratic politicians were bowing out of taking a stand on a war. I agree, but I also understand why, even if it irritates the snot out of me.

War, particularly in a heated time such as this, always leaves them at a disadvantage politically. Public debate, particularly regarding politicians, seems to hold an anti-war stance as being anti-American. And they don't want to make the same mistake during Bush's term that the Republicans made during Clinton's term, lose ground because they are seen as being overly argumentative. It would be nice to dismiss these arguments as political niceties that principled politicians should disregard, but principled politicians usually lose their jobs. The system will get what it rewards people for, and Republicans are no less slaves to PR (even if they're better at acting like they aren't).

Yes, it's always more fun to talk about exciting topics like war instead of boring topics like health care and education. But there's a reason why these latter topics continue to be at the top of voters minds until fiery rhetoric turns their heads; they simply don't get addressed to anyone's satisfaction because no one will discuss them in useful detail. Republicans know they don't have the answers people want on the subjects, and Democrats fall into playing someone else's game instead of their own. Or they end up fielding candidates that put even interested parties to sleep.

The advantage of the Republican party, however, is that they know who they're talking to. The Democrats never seem to make up their minds about it, and as a no-card-carrying liberal, I feel that I deserve better representation. Part of that problem lies in the somewhat experimental nature of progressive politics in general, and political formulas have not yet been devised for selling that to the public. That's a shame, considering that this extremely prosperous country represents (in political terms and time frames) the near bleeding edge of internal political technology. (This in no way means that we should stop complaining about it in a search for ever greater improvement.) I would like the only mainstream party that theoretically stands for views similar to mine to really stand for them, and stop letting their opponents frame the debate. They need to get way smarter about packaging their politics in such a way that the average voter understands that their policies directly benefit them. I believe it's the case that they do benefit people, but 'liberal' politicians haven't been good at explaining that.

And it would be a shame to make this upcoming election a referendum on war, because come time that the war is over, people are going to be standing around wondering what the hell happened to government services while we were dropping bombs in the Middle East. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy had a scene held in a non-stop flying party. The problem with a non-stop party (paraphrasing) is that all the things that only seem like good ideas at parties never stop seeming like good ideas. If people vote for what seems like a good idea while snacking on heady war preparations and intoxicating 'support our troops' speeches, we may all wake up with hangovers.

On the other hand, I think it's perfectly valid to express conditional support for any given government action. In this case: if UN support is given, if the war falls under the framework of international law, if a commitment is made to nation-building afterward (Marshall plan style), if civilian casualties are minimized, if diplomatic channels are fully exhausted, if imminent threat is demonstrated, if the government shows that they've considered ways in which this could come back to bite us later.... then most everyone would support it, including me. To make my own motive in this clear, I don't like the idea of wasting human life in fruitless endeavors that will lead to more waste of human life in the future. I don't want my own security threatened because my government went in like an outlaw, and pulled out like a one night stand. Hussein is a right bastard despised by all, but if things are handled badly, we could end up with a more fragile and hostile situation than we have even now. That wouldn't be good for the people of Iraq, and it wouldn't be good for us.

Last year I saw the play 'R. Buckminster Fuller: The History and Mystery of the Universe' in Seattle, and it was fabulous. They've started up again in San Francisco, and I would recommend it to anyone who will be in the area during its run, starting Oct. 16. It's a one man show, done in the format of a lecture by Fuller, and far more stimulating than that description lets on.

Remember Afghanistan? While not a single story regarding it could be found on the BBC yesterday, Reuters had this posting today on recent Taliban captures.

In the Guardian today, Pepsi wants to send you into space with Russians if you win their contest. Johnathan Freedland speculates about whether or not America is the new Rome, bolstered by commentary from all sides of the political debate, historical comparisons, and this factoid... "Pentagon figures show that there is a US military presence, large or small, in 132 of the 190 member states of the United Nations." Also, Bush calls the Iraqi offer a trick.

The Nation posts this dissection of the various liberal positions on the use of force in the world. Adam Shatz discusses the born-again militancy of Christopher Hitchens, and the flawed but sometimes useful framework offered by Noam Chomsky.

The problem, as I see it, with archetypal designations of liberal and conservative is that they tend to imply that one answer is always the right one. It is not always right to go to war, anymore than it is always wrong. If it was right or wrong once, it may not be right or wrong the next time. If you go to war, there are ways of conducting yourself that make the clean up easier or harder. I don't know what the payoff of prevailing kinds of rigid dualism is for people, but I imagine there must be one.

I'm glad I was wrong about the initial fight in Afghanistan, that the civilian casualties were far less than they could have been. Even though our 'allies' have not been kind, those deaths do not reflect on us at present (I'm not sure whether that will ultimately be better or worse.) The Taliban needed taking down (though not an original objective), and a permanent happy campground for terrorist benefits no one. But that conflict, and the larger war on terror, are far from over. It is not necessarily correct to go to war in Iraq just because we haven't yet got a black eye in Afghanistan.

In BBC business news today, India looks to biodiesel to soften foreign oil dependence, and shys away from buying gold. British business toys en masse with doing business in Iraq, while oil prices fall on that country's offer to allow inspectors back in. In market news, the stock markets fall as optimism fades from the exuberance of yesterday's weapons inspection announcement, and world investment is down from last year reflecting the global slowdown.

Also on the BBC, international reaction to Iraq's offer to accept inspectors back into the country. As background, not mentioned in the article, Iraq owes Russia and France a long ton of money borrowed before the Gulf War. Previous inspection teams were ousted while trying to look for weapons in, of all places, Ba'ath party headquarters offices. I can't imagine why the Iraqis accused the teams of being spies?

The article relays US reactions: "...But US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the issue was not inspections - but Iraqi disarmament..." And my question is, how is anyone to say that Saddam really has or hasn't got weapons if inspection teams aren't allowed back? The previous inspection teams were successful in eliminating, read disarming, over 90% of Iraq's post war offensive capability. Inspections are really all about disarmament, and further about proving the issue of weapons compliance one way or the other.

Further: "...The US administration wants a resolution that will allow the use of force against President Saddam Hussein if Iraq refuses to comply. ..." Comply with what? With disarming? With becoming a saint? With mounting a moon expedition? How is a war justified if Iraq is provably not a threat to the world community? It's easy to get into a froth about some utter bastard of a dictator, but there are more of those than anyone likes to admit.

"..."Thanks to our joint efforts, we managed to avert the threat of a war scenario and go back to political means of solving the Iraqi problem," Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov..." of Russia, said. "...The other ... members [of the Security Council] are China, which welcomed the offer, and France, which said the council "must hold Saddam Hussein to his word"...."

Today on the BBC online news, Israeli citizens bomb a Palestinian school in Hebron, demonstrating that at least when Israelis take 'justice' into their own hands they don't stay around for the blast to go off. Much of the conflict in this city is generated by the fact that a settlement of 400 Israelis has moved into the middle of 120,000 Palestinians, and keeps around 30,000 of them under tight military control. Which is clearly all the Palestinians' fault for having a longstanding city right where the settlers wanted to build their houses. Those bastards!

The article also relates that a Jewish militant group bombed another Palestinian school in March. But wait, let me guess... Jewish militants are completely beyond the control of their government? No, no... this will surely get as much news coverage in America as the Palestinian bombing of a Jewish school? Ooh, ooh, I have it... the Israeli government is going to bulldoze the homes of the families of the Israeli settlers who were involved? I give up.

Further, part of my family came from Europe way back when. Where's my piece of the EU to settle? I want my ancestral homeland back, dammit, I don't care who lives there now. The problem is the way that white westerners somehow own the land they wore born on or purchased in a more 'real' and enforceable way than the unfashionably dark and unsuitably governed. The only reason there is a state of Israel today is that we all felt really bad about this lousy attitude. But not bad enough to have given to the Jewish people in apology, say, Montana, or part of the old Rhineland. I have a feeling that trying to reclaim my ancestors' chunk of the english or german countryside would get me told in no uncertain terms to bugger off.

This is a reprint of the day's earlier blog, partially eaten by technical difficulties, though mysteriously accessible through the editing system...

This Guardian article discusses patent law as it relates to pharmaceuticals and the TRIPS agreement being pushed on the third world. It regards a British government commissioned report which found that it just isn't very likely that private companies are going to spend lots of money developing drugs that treat the most common diseases in poorer countries, and that in many cases the patent regime could cost a lot of lives. But before the report is dismissed as the product of socialist bureaucrats:

"...On the commission on intellectual property rights sat not only lawyers, scientists and a bio-ethicist, but a senior director from the drug company Pfizer. For all that the Association for the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) is now making distressed noises, this person's core involvement suggests the radical road the report lays out would not do such serious harm to the industry..."

Just as I suspected, Noelle Bush got a slap on the wrist for getting caught with coke in rehab. Not that I wish any worse on her, she has a serious problem, and one that her family rightly feels should be treated medically. Yet Arianna Huffington's latest column, A Crack House Divided, lays out just what's wrong with what happened in this case. She summed it up best here:

"...If America's drug laws were applied consistently, Jeb Bush and his family would be evicted from their publicly-funded digs, just as people living in public housing can be thrown out of their homes if any household member or guest is found using drugs -- even if the drug use happened someplace other than in the housing project. And Noelle could find herself joining the tens of thousands of young people unable to get a college education because of a provision in the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to students convicted of possessing illegal drugs.

"But the rich and powerful are judged by a very different set of rules. That’s why the staff at Noelle's rehab center tore up a sworn statement incriminating Noelle even though the facility's standard policy is to turn all such matters over to the police...."

Read Ms. Huffington's full column for some startling numbers regarding drug sentencing severity by race, and an outline of the kind of treatment that Jeb Bush thinks everyone but his daughter should get. Or, for more on the issue of being eligible for 'one strike' eviction from public housing if anyone who lives with (or visits) you is caught using drugs at any time you can read this Salon article.

Also in the news, the UN will spend all day today discussing economic reform in Africa, according to the BBC online.

Hopefully, this post will publish correctly, with the appropriate URLs.

Sorry about that last post, blogger seems to be having serious technical difficulties. I published a post, which was then melded into the previous post. When I tried to delete the previous post, it melded the new post into the one below that. I'm now afraid to delete the whole mess, because... well, you can see where this is going. So, sorry.

Just as I suspected, Noelle Bush got a slap on the wrist for getting caught with coke in rehab. Not that I wish any worse on her, she has a serious problem, and one that her family rightly feels should be treated medically. Yet Arianna Huffington's latest column, A Crack House Divided, lays out just what's wrong with what happened in this case. She summed it up best here:

"...If America's drug laws were applied consistently, Jeb Bush and his family would be evicted from their publicly-funded digs, just as people living in public housing can be thrown out of their homes if any household member or guest is found using drugs -- even if the drug use happened someplace other than in the housing project. And Noelle could find herself joining the tens of thousands of young people unable to get a college education because of a provision in the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to students convicted of possessing illegal drugs.

"But the rich and powerful are judged by a very different set of rules. That’s why the staff at Noelle's rehab center tore up a sworn statement incriminating Noelle even though the facility's standard policy is to turn all such matters over to the police...."

Read Ms. Huffington's full column for some startling numbers regarding drug sentencing severity by race, and an outline of the kind of treatment that Jeb Bush thinks everyone but his daughter should get. Or, for more on the issue of being eligible for 'one strike' eviction from public housing if anyone who lives with (or visits) you is caught using drugs at any time you can read this

This Guardian article discusses patent law as it relates to pharmaceuticals and the TRIPS agreement being pushed on the third world. It regards a British government commissioned report which found that it just isn't very likely that private companies are going to spend lots of money developing drugs that treat the most common diseases in poorer countries, and that in many cases the patent regime could cost a lot of lives. But before the report is dismissed as the product of socialist bureaucrats:

"...On the commission on intellectual property rights sat not only lawyers, scientists and a bio-ethicist, but a senior director from the drug company Pfizer. For all that the Association for the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) is now making distressed noises, this person's core involvement suggests the radical road the report lays out would not do such serious harm to the industry..."

For a detailed analysis of the case for a war in Iraq, as well as the practicalities and points of international law associated with it, check out this Case Against War article by Stephen Zunes in The Nation. If it really is all about Iraq violating the law, and the US upholding it, the article points out some potential scenarios based on current US government interpretations of what justifies a war:

"...If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade states that are similarly in violation; for example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey and Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco. The US insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the UN and, in doing so, would open the door to international anarchy... "

As A.J. Muste said, "The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?" It seems that we might be letting it go to our heads that we just ousted a government in Afghanistan over whom we were able to proclaim 'air superiority' within hours of officially starting the conflict.

MSNBC cable news had a smashing line up last Thursday, 9/12/02, providing excellent coverage of a broad spectrum of political opinion. I've only got around to cross-referencing everything today, but it still seems as newsworthy as it was when it was aired. In the climate of the times, the interesting talk was mostly about going to war with Iraq. This would ordinarily be tedious, as it was obvious nearly a year ago that the administration was hellbent for it, and the Democratic 'opposition' would stand by and say nothing of import. But they found some folks with interesting stuff to say, certainly compared to the state of the talking heads circuit about a year ago. Notes were taken, and the highlights are summarized below.

For background, this was the day that Bush gave his speech to the United Nations about the terrible threat posed to the freedom and liberty of every nation on the planet by Saddam Hussein. Hence, the mentions of Bush's speech throughout are referring to that particular event. Parenthetical comments reflect additional information or comment supplied by the author, or implications that may otherwise have been lost in the translation.

Ashleigh Banfield's On Location program had an interview with Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector, and later a panel of international journalists.

Scott Ritter (fmr. UN Weapons Inspector, fmr. Marine)

• Saddam Hussein is certainly dangerous and if he has the weapons that it's being said he possesses, then military action would be appropriate.
  
• Where does it say in international law that breaking UN resolutions justifies removing a government?
  
• Inspectors verified the destruction of 90-95% of the post war stockpile.
  
• The reason he resigned wasn't because he felt insufficient force was being used, but because the US government was interfering with the purpose of the inspections, and using them to spy on Iraq.
  
• Wars of pre-emption have no place in international law, and you can't extrapolate a mushroom cloud (of Iraqi origin, presumably) from 19 hijackers, even if they did horrible things.
  
• Saddam Hussein has been a lifelong enemy of religious fundamentalists. (For the record, it should be common knowledge that the distaste is mutual.)
  
• In response to whether he's concerned that some regard him as a traitor, Ritter responded that he served proudly as a Marine for 12 years and worked for 7 years to get weapons out of Iraqi hands. He said that any war where we are asked to sacrifice our troops should be just and worthy.
  
• He insisted in response to multiple questions about whether or not he was being pressured to take this stand that the only people leaning on him were the FBI.
  

The journalists hosted later on the program made the following points, summarised by speaker:

Raghida Dergham of Al Hayat: Bush's speech did not make a case for an invasion, but opened up a welcome diplomatic channel. People in the Middle East want to know why no one is concerned with Israel's weapons of mass destruction, and wonder what we are getting into with a war. She asserted that both the people and governments of the area dislike the Iraqi regime, but also don't like the idea of opening a 3rd war front (in addition to Afghanistan and Palestine.) Democracy is badly needed in the region, but invasions can't be the only way to get it.

James Bone of the London Times: Bush's speech will make EU support easier to get. Considered the speech to be a reflection of a neoconservative opinion that equates a (US) invasion with democracy (also regarding Afghanistan and Palestine, link to Bush transcript above).

Gerald Baars of German Public TV: Germans support the war on terror, but see no reason for an invasion of Iraq at this time. This regime has existed for 30 years, and been out of compliance for 12 years, so why attack when Afghanistan is not yet stable and the coalition is fragile? (As a side note, the German government has been diligent in uncovering terrorist cells in their country.)

Donahue had a number of guests worth talking about, even though Donahue himself can get a bit emotional which takes the edge off the show sometimes. I have to admit that he isn't quite as fair as Chris Matthews when it comes to giving the opposition equal air time.

James Robbins, editor of the National Review online

• Blair has signed on, and will be putting out more information within the month. (MP George Galloway, below, asserted that this was because it was taking a while to cook the books.)
  
• Half a million dead Iraqi children is just a shibboleth.
  
• The war is only about enforcing UN resolutions.
  
• If the UN won't step up, they've been given a chance.
  
• Bush's speech was great, but some of us need no convincing.
  

Jim Bohannon, a talk radio host

• UN hasn't done its job for 12 years.
  
• In response to a question about expediency of targets, he said that attacking China was 'outside the realm of reality' and that N. Korea wasn't really a threat.
  
• No stretch of the imagination to assume that Hussein could give weapons to terrorists.
  
• Within a couple decades there may be as many as two dozen nuclear powers, now is a good time to cap the number.
  
• Our troops signed up for danger, part of their job.
  
• If we don't act, we'll become a bullseye for "every 2-bit, 4th rate, 3rd world thug." (I thought that was pretty catchy.)
  

Ramsey Clark (fmr. US Attorney General, Johnson Administration)

• The Answer Coalition is having a protest march in several cities on October 26th to oppose a war with Iraq.
  
• Threatening Iraq is dangerous and lawless.
  
• During the Gulf war, more Iraqis died every day for 42 days than died at Ground Zero.
  
• A million and a half people have died due to the sanctions regime.
  
• UN inspectors cleared out 90% of the 20% of weapons left after the war, leaving them at 2% of their pre-war threat.
  
• We need to reach out to the world as friends under the rule of law.
  
• Demonization of anyone is wrong. When politicians start talking about evil, you can say goodbye to law and justice.
  
• First strike puts an assault before the trial.
  

George Galloway, MP (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

• Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country, clear double standard.
  
• You can't make war against every country with weapons of mass destruction, and they don't all (including the US) admit inspectors.
  
• Hussein didn't even use weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War when he got "the Mother of all Hidings," why would he use them now when he knows it would lead to immediate destruction of his government?
  
• Chickenhawks (implicitly including Robbins and Bohannon who were in the studio at the same time) are always willing to spill the last drop of someone else's blood.
  

John MacArthur of Harper's magazine, author of 'Second Front.' The journalist who blew the whistle on the falsity of 'Nayirah' testimony before congress regarding Iraqi troops pulling newborns out of incubators to steal the equipment.

• 'Nayirah's' testimony was completely false and uncorroborated, though claims based on it asserted the death of 312 babies in the fashion described. The girl was apparently the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and wasn't in Kuwait during the invasion.
  
• The fabrication was very useful, 7 senators cited the incident as the reason they supported the Gulf War bill, which only passed by 5 votes.
  
• False satellite pictures were used as a pretext to put troops into Saudi Arabia, Saddam's forces were never massing on the Saudi border.
  
• Hussein was told that the US had 'no opinion' regarding border disputes in the region when he asked the US embassy staff what they thought of invading Kuwait.
  
• Bush Jr.'s recent characterization (retracted by the White House staff) of Iraq as only 6 months away from having nuclear weapons was based on an IAEA report put out at the start of the Gulf War, before their capabilities were largely destroyed by bombing and then inspection. But the damage is done, as a recent Fox News poll indicates that 69% of Americans believe that Hussein has nuclear weapons *right now.*
  
• They're 'making it up' as they go, just like Bush Sr.'s administration did.
  
• Bush Sr.'s administration subverted informed consent by basing their case for war on untrue information.
  
• The US has sat back during every previous attempted overthrow of Hussein's government. (Rich Lowry, below, claimed in response that this was just a 'mistake' that we should now correct.)
  

Sig Rogich, of Rogich Communications (fmr. Bush Sr. Adviser)

• Kuwaitis had the right to make their case, any exaggeration was justified by the fact that they were being invaded.
  
• Bush's speech was really great. Strongest speech he's ever heard, made a strong case.
  
• President's behavior is spot on, and there's honest debate in the administration.
  
• Bush & the American people know that we have to defend our interests.
  

Christopher Hitchens, columnist for The Nation, formerly of Harper's

• Hitchens himself, as well as the Iraqis generally and the Kurds specifically, want a regime change. The Bush administration has not made it clear, however, that he wants the same kind of future for the country as the people of Iraq want.
  
• There was no need to invent a Saddam Hussein atrocity, it is a regime of 'permanent murder.'
  
• At the time of the Gulf War, the truth would have inconveniently disclosed the fact that Saddam at his worst was a friend of the US. We had originally (and falsely) blamed Iran for the gassing of the Kurds.
  

Rich Lowry of the National Review

• Accused MacArthur of suggesting that the case for the Gulf War was a fabrication (which admittedly he did, so I guess that Lowry is accusing him of telling the truth.)
  
• It should be no surprise that countries 'gild the lily' when making a case for war, 'countries get things wrong.'
  
• Even if we lied, Hussein is still a murderer. (Throughout his commentary, he made the case that if Hussein is a dangerous murderer, it doesn't matter what was said to bring people along in the fight.)
  
• Re: MacArthur's comment on subversion of the democratic process and informed consent, Lowry said repeatedly that subversion was a very strong word.
  
• Liberals & Progressives are only outraged when US weapons are used against civilians, but that they don't seem to mind when Saddam does it on his own. [chorus of protest] (Is it merely inconvenient to remember that the things we are mainly accusing him of today are things that he did when the US was supporting him?)
  
• The Bush administration is on the side of progress in the Arab world.
  

Hardball with Chris Matthews was typically good, with the usual succession of political big names and insiders. While Matthews political sentiments come through, I've never seen a show he did where opposing points of view didn't get fair representation and suitable grilling. It was telling that the two guests in elected office in the US had virtually nothing whatever to say for their five minutes, which makes their moments of yammer interesting in contrast to the other speakers.

Senator John Warner (R - Virginia, Armed Services Cmte.)

• Bush's speech was really great.
  
• We're going ahead with or without the UN. (Is there anyone who doesn't know, or at least suspect this?)
  
• President Bush wants congress to vote on Iraq before October recess, and considers it important that there be no division.
  

Senator Bob Graham (D - Florida, Select Cmte. on Intelligence)

• Bush's speech was fine, but the American people need more information.
  
• Concerned about what happens after the bullets stop flying if we go in alone.
  

Benjamin Netanyahu, former PM of Israel came on. As usual, no one does public relations in the US like the Israelis. They are the hands down masters of genre. Hats off.

• Hussein has portable, washing machine sized nuclear centrifuges. (It was unclear what sort of equipment he intended to describe, as Matthews cut him off with a question relating to an assertion that Iraq had no portable weapons. It didn't sound like Netanyahu was talking about actual missiles, though.)
  
• After Matthews question about Iraq being considered mainly a regional threat, and asking if Israel was in danger, Netanyahu said "Yes, and so are you..." (It's difficult to convey the immediacy and emphasis of the 'so are you' portion of his message.)
  
• In response to Matthews statement that we seem pretty alone in this, and that Israel wasn't going to be fighting in this war, he said "You're not alone... you're the greatest power on Earth..."
  
• "All decent people understand... common future is imperiled... Bush is right, and courageous, and bold..."
  

A report was given (power point style and everything) posing the question of whether or not Iraq is really the biggest danger facing our country at this time. After the report, two former government appointees were brought in to speak on the topic.

• Syria has 500 ballistic missiles w/ 300 mile range, as well as a chemical weapons program.
  
• Iran has 350 ballistic missiles w/ 600 mile range, plus chemical and nuclear programs. (They suggested that the Iranian nuclear program was about 5 years away from producing fissile material, though it should be noted that Israel has vowed to bomb any nuclear plant built in the country, just as they bombed Iraq's facility years ago.)
  
• North Korea has tested medium range missiles, and is working on missiles that could reach the US.
  

Other points brought up on the program, as a useful background to the ensuing discussion, included the following:

• Iraq may have a total of 12 scud missiles hidden away, they have definitely had chemical and biological weapons programs in the past, and have been trying to get nuclear material.
  
• A partial list of other countries with nuclear weapons accompanied a question as to whether Iraq was the most dangerous of all of them. The list: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Yemen & Pakistan. India and China were for some reason not mentioned.
  

Nancy Soderbergh (fmr. US Ambassador to the UN Security Council, Clinton Administration)

• Bush did not make a case for an imminent threat.
  
• Information available one and a half years ago did not indicate any immediate danger, the administration should provide more information if they have it.
  
• It's not clear that containment would not work as well as it did for the far more powerful Soviet Union.
  
• The worst immediate threats probably come from 'stateless states' like Somalia, where terror organizations can operate more freely.
  
• Yemen has been very cooperative.
  

Jed Babbin (fmr. Defense Department Official, Bush Sr. Administration)

• Iran will take care of itself, maybe within a year, as the regime is crumbling. (Soderbergh regarded this one year estimate as overly optimistic, but agreed that it was very likely at some point.)
  
• N. Korea is slowly starving itself to death, and would only pose a threat if S. Korea's leader went suddenly insane.
  
• Bush's speech was great, but he could have given more information.
  
• We are absolutely entitled to a military option.
  
• In response to an exchange between Matthews and Soderbergh regarding the prevailing of cooler heads in the administration staff, Babbin said that 'cooler heads equal appeasers', and there were no appeasers in the current administration. Matthews closed by saying that 'appeaser' was a word he loved to hear from conservatives, they always say that about everyone who doesn't want to go to war.
  

And that wraps up this report, thanks for tuning in ;)