The thought crime police
Bookworm on Aug 05 2008 at 11:10 am | Filed under: Free speech
One of the common responses to my post urging hidden conservatives to come out into the open in this election, if not to their friends and neighbors, at least to their fellow Republicans was that the situation can’t really be that bad. The Left isn’t any more snarky and snarly than the Right, and you simply have to speak up and make them back down.
In the ideological middle, where people have rather knee-jerk responses to politics (“my father voted Democrat, so I do too”), that may be true. The true Left, though, and this is a true Left that’s feeling a great deal of power because of the way the masses surge along in its wake on war and environmental issues, is much more deeply committed to its ideology — and part of the true Leftist ideology is to stifle all debate.
Only days after Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s death, it’s ironic that we are once more engaged in a battle royal for true freedom of speech, whether at the political rostrum or simply in letters we send to friends. (Solzhenitsyn, after all, found himself in the Gulag for writing a private wartime letter somewhat critical of Stalin.) Nevertheless, that it precisely what’s happening. Ralph Peters describes a reporter’s question, asked in all seriousness, on Peters’ pro-War stance: should Peters be tried for war crimes? Keep in mind that Peters did nothing at all but speak his mind on the war. That means, even if we buy into the worst of the Leftist belief and paranoia, and admit that the war was wrong and that the powers that be lied to get us into it, the Leftists are still suggesting that any average American who had an opinion on the war — no, who had the wrong opinion on the war — should be rounded up, tried and “reeducated.”
Are you scared? I am. And so are a lot of conservatives buried deep under mountains of blue, and feeling very, very alone. That’s why I’m urging them, not to announce to the world their conservatism, but simply to go to the place where they are most likely to find others just like them: their local Republican party.
Hat tip: Danny Lemieux
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
38 Responses to “The thought crime police”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
While this may merely be wet-dreams on the left, I do fear the day hate-speech laws are passed here.
Can’t happen, you say– First Amendment and all that. The Second Amendment survived by one vote and don’t think for a minute that a more liberal court won’t revisit that decision.
If I am deluded, please tell me.
I was listening to Robert Spencer on Savage talking about accusations of slander by Islamists. According to Spencer, in Islamic law (tradition?) the defense of slander isn’t the truth of the statement. Slander is the telling of a fact the other person doesn’t want public.
I do think in the future Americans will be endangered by the ICC (International Criminal Court), and we will see Americans accused of war crimes if we ratify that treaty.
“ That means, even if we buy into the worst of the Leftist belief and paranoia, and admit that the war was wrong and that the powers that be lied to get us into it, the Leftists are still suggesting that any average American who had an opinion on the war — no, who had the wrong opinion on the war — should be rounded up, tried and “reeducated.”” – Book
And I would argue that the right does the same thing.
In 2003, Michael Savage called for a return to the Sedition Act and expressed his desire to have those associated with the anti-war movement arrested. In case you missed it, this was from his Web Site:
The Sedition Act – Time to Act! Mar. 3, 2003
Time to Arrest the Leaders of the Anti-War Movement, Once we Go To War? We Must Protect Our Troops! Sponsor The Paul Revere Society! CLICK HERE TO READ THE SEDITION ACT!
(Oddly enough, MSNBC depicted Michael Savage’s hiring as part of its commitment to providing a “wide range of strong, opinionated voices,” even as they were firing “tired, left-wing liberal” Phil Donahue. “He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives,” an NBC-commissioned study said, even though at the time, Donahue hosted MSNBC’s highest rated show. Anti-war? Anti-Bush? Skeptical of the administration’s motives? Our watchdog press would have none of it! )
Though he later apologized, Bill O’Reilly also warned that opponents of the war would be “spotlighted” and considered “enemies of the state.”
And does anyone remember how Clear Channel, an organization which has ties to George W. Bush, organized rallies to trample Dixie Chicks’ CDs because they said they were embarrassed that he was from Texas?
In an article entitled “How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio: Clear Channel Gags an Antiwar Conservative,” Charles Goyette also pointed to what happened to Clear Channel employees who dissed Bush and/or the war in Iraq.
And during the 2004 presidential campaign, when John Kerry said “we need a regime change in the United States,” RNC Chairman Marc Racicot started frothing at the mouth. “Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America ‘s commander-in- chief at a time when America is at war,” Racicot said, as if presidential elections were a plot in the mind of traitorous renegades.
Don’t kid yourself. The Right LOVES to stifle debate.
The American people would have been better served to have passed a sedition act alongside the authorization of the use of force act.
In fact, Congress should pass a law requiring the passage of a sediton act as part of a war powers act, since the same members of Congress that voted for the resolution immediately criticized the use of force.
Liberals undermined the actions of our troops from the beginning of the war. Had they held their tongues for a period of time, Israel might not be in the position of facing down Iran today.
There is nothing unique about limiting civil liberties in a time of war.
The Sedition Act of 1798 expired in 1801 and the Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1921.
Unfettered debate during a time of war that provides aid to the enemy isn’t a good thing.
So Ozzie….
You equate an expression of opinion with sedition during a time of actual war? The political opinions of different parties with supporting the administration during a time when soldiers are fighting and dying in a war? No difference there?
Unfettered debate during a time of war that provides aid to the enemy isn’t a good thing.- Brian
Well, the debate before the war was limited, too. The decision to go to war was made long before the drum beat sounded, however, and the mainstream media did its part to sell the war and drown out dissent.
“There is nothing unique about limiting civil liberties in a time of war.” — Brian
The government learned its lesson during the Vietnam War, after which provisonary plans to round up American citizens and lock them in detention camps became more creative. From Operation Garden Plot to Rex-84, provisions have been made. The good news is that Kellogg, Brown and Root won the contracts to build said detention centers. They’ve sure come a long way since supporting LBJ! gotta love the two-party system, no?
We’re always going to be at war and the Bill of Rights will weaken with each successive administration, whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat..
If you want to make it a crime to criticize President Obama, have at it. I find the whole idea unsettling.
But then again, no republic in history has lasted more than 300 years, and it appears that America will be no different. To quote Thomas Jefferson: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” (1778)
It’s a case of authoritarians vs libertarians, not left vs right.
You equate an expression of opinion with sedition during a time of actual war? The political opinions of different parties with supporting the administration during a time when soldiers are fighting and dying in a war? No difference there? -suek
I believe that the U.S is always going to be at war and that the Bill of Rights is on its way out.
I also think that a lot of people think of politics like sporting events and dont care about the Constitution as long as their team wins. (How many times have you heard the phrase “the Constitution isnt a suicide pact” to rationalize assaults to the Bill of Rights?)
Republicans will back Republican presidents, and Democrats will back Democratic presidents and whichever side is in power will try to drown out whichever side isn’t.
>>the debate before the war was limited, too. >>
Limited by what?
>>The decision to go to war was made long before the drum beat sounded, however,>>
Proof? Timeline?
>> and the mainstream media did its part to sell the war and drown out dissent.>>
Gee…you don’t suppose that was because of 9/11, do you? Why ever do you think that the media might favor this war in particular? They certainly didn’t support the Vietnam War…
>>“the Constitution isnt a suicide pact” >>
Only when activist judges interpret the Constitution to give the government rights it had limited by the Bill of Rights, or interpret laws in such a way as to give aid and comfort to an enemy.
>>to rationalize assaults to the Bill of Rights>>
assaults by whom?
Your beef is really with the Democrats, who for political gain supported the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Act without the debate you wished them to have. No one forced them to vote for it. And timeline. It is extremely difficult to cut off debate in the senate. And by the way, those wimpy Senator’s that didn’t realize they were voting to give the president the right to use force apparently didn’t read the title– Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Where were those principled members of Congress then?
It’s the same MSM that is having a love fest with Obama that you’re accusing of selling the war.
No interest here.
I WAS critical of the Balkan War– though I didn’t hear much dissent from the left then, and yes, it’s easy to be critical of the projection of power when it’s not your guy in office.
But, it’s another thing to provide aid to the enemy of your troops while they are getting shot at.
Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage are conservatives?
Bill O’Reilly styles himself a libertarian independent, not a Republican, and has hardly been shy about going after Republicans and conservatives on issues.
Savage absolutely HATES Bush and McCain, as well as his conservative talk-show competitors. I really don’t know how to label Savage except to say that he is NOT a conservative….a bipolar crank, maybe.
Hear, hear, Bookworm. Nicely written.
The same debate is going on over at neo-neocon. I noticed that Helen wrote in and suggested that we should think about Solzhenitzyn when we consider the price one may have to pay for free speech.
I agree with Helen – Sozhenitzyn was an amazing man and should always be remembered for his willingness to speak the truth, even at great personal cost.
But what is being forgotten is that this is NOT the Soviet Union. We are in the United States and people should not have such concerns about speaking what they believe.
When my friends found out that I am a conservative, many of our relationships changed. I have been called a neanderthal and a fascist. When people find out I am conservative, their eyes widen, as if I just told them that I am cannibal.
Or I’m told that I’m naive or stupid – which always makes me laugh because my friends, most of whom are attorneys or other professionals with advanced degrees, know that I have completed vastly more coursework at the university level than they have. But, according to them, I am the one who “doesn’t get it.”
I have learned that unless it is a special circumstance, I keep my mouth shut. I just smile and nod while these people go on, blustering about how stupid President Bush is and how great Obama is.
You know what made me laugh, though? The day after the nation learned that Bush had won a second term, I went to work and sat there, listening to co-worker after co-worker expressing utter amazement that Bush had won. And one right after another kept saying the same thing, “I don’t even KNOW any conservatives! How could this guy have won???”
And I thought to myself, they do this to themselves.
Deana
1. >>the debate before the war was limited, too. >>
Limited by what?
There was no debate. Once in a while, Scott Ritter would appear on TV and say he doubted WMD claims and Paula Zahn would accuse him of drinking Saddam Hussein’s Kool-Aid.
But by the time Andrew Card explained why the Bush administration waited until Sept. 2002 to “market” the impending war in Iraq, American TV complied, coming up with powerful soundtracks and visuals that read “Showdown With Saddam” and “Countdown to Iraq” while making it appear as if an actual debate were taking place. When Phil Donahue tried to present the “other side,” however, his show was cancelled, despite having MSNBC’s highest primetime ratings.
>>The decision to go to war was made long before the drum beat sounded, however,>>
Proof? Timeline?
Actually, I can go back to 1992, when the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which called for a “go-it-alone” military strategy and a policy of preemption, was leaked to the press. And by 1998, right about the time George H.W. Bush was explaining why his administration did not remove Hussein from power, Paul Wolfowitz was testing the “cakewalk theory” before Congress, shilling for the Iraqi Liberation Act and promising that the U.S would not need to send major ground forces into Iraq to do the job.
Mickey Herskowitz, Bush’s ghost writer on A Charge To Keep, says that Governor Bush began talking about invading Iraq in 1999. . .”‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it,” Bush told Herskowitz in one of two taped interviews. “If I have a chance to invade . . . if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
PBS’ highly informative War Behind Closed Doors also examined how Bush’s ideas might have taken root:
EVAN THOMAS, Asst. Managing Editor, “Newsweek”: When George Bush was running for president, he essentially went to school. And various great and worthy men trooped down to Austin to teach George Bush about the world. And by and large, they told him that Iraq was unfinished, basically, but they had to be a little careful about it because, of course, George Bush’s father was the one who hadn’t finished the business. And if George W. Bush was elected president, he may end up having to do what his father didn’t do or couldn’t do, and that is killing off Saddam Hussein.
NARRATOR: In Bush, Wolfowitz saw a chance to get his ideas about a tougher American stance in the world implemented. But W, as he was known, was also being advised by Colin Powell. And during the campaign, neither side really knew where they stood with the candidate.”
And, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill told 60 Minutes in Jan. 2004, the plans to invade Iraq began days after Bush’s inauguration. “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, ‘Fine. Go find me a way to do this.’”
PBS also has a timeline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html
>> and the mainstream media did its part to sell the war and drown out dissent.>> Me
Gee…you don’t suppose that was because of 9/11, do you?” suek
No. I dont. Media manipulation was brought to an art during Gulf War I and the same folks were calling the shots during this war..
During the first Gulf War, Americans were treated to Propaganda Plus, when a PR firm was hired to sell the war to both the Senate and the public.
“Why ever do you think that the media might favor this war in particular?” Suek.
As I said, the massive propaganda campaign during the first Gulf War, from forged satellite phots to fake Congressional testimony, made me supsect.
CNN’s Christine Amanpour said that intimidation “by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News” led to “a climate of fear and self-censorship” and the unquestioning propagation of “disinformation.”
The New York Times was especially helpful during the push for war, and Judith Miller, in particular, did a bang-up job:
* In 2000, a memo from a former colleague described New York Times reporter Miller as “an advocate,” whose work “is little more than dictation from government sources . . . filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies.” James Bamford later asserted that Miller “had been a trusted outlet for the INC’s [Iraqi National Congress'] anti-Saddam propaganda for years.”
* A story by Miller, containing disinformation indicating that Saddam Hussein sought high-strength aluminum tubes to develop a nuclear bomb, ran on the front page of the New York Times. Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice took to the Sunday morning talk shows, repeating Miller’s assertions — with Rice telling CNN, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
* Miller went to jail for refusing to name her source in the Plamegate investigation, (Scooter Libby) where she was visited by John Bolton, whose nomination for UN ambassador had been called into question by “claims that he tried to manipulate US intelligence to support his hawkish views.” Libby, who was later indicted in the Plame case, wrote her this cryptic letter: “You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover — Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work — and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers. With admiration, Scooter Libby.”
The New York Times has been a conduit for disinformation in the past and it was invaluable in helping this administration sell the war in Iraq.
And so, by the time the Government Accountability Office found that the Bush administration violated the law by engaging in “covert propaganda” within the U.S. (for programs other than the war) and it was discovered that several columnists were on the White House payroll, my suspiscions grew.
>>to rationalize assaults to the Bill of Rights>>
assaults by whom?
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and most likely, the next president, too.
Hopeuflly, it’s Obama so you’ll take note!!
Hello Bookworm,
What Ralph Peters noted and what you’ve noted in this post is what I’ve tried to get across to people with conservative leanings for quite some time. This is simply not another election. The Left IS becoming more and more totalitarian.
We saw shadows of it during the 2004 election. When I said that the Left was employing brownshirt Nazi tactics, people passed me off as just being partisan, paranoid, not with the right thinking people.
For the past year or so, it’s become more and more plain that the free speech such as we’ve had since the inception of this country might very well come to an end should the Left maintain their power hold on Congress and if they gain the Executive Branch.
Obama said outright that we need to create a civilian “security agency” to take the load off the military. For what purpose? Does he understand what he is proposing? Do you? Do you remember your history? Do you remember if the Nazi’s have their civilian security agency?
I keep hoping that someone will listen…
I do think there are still patriotic men and women who are liberals (AMERICAN patriots, not this flub-bub “patriot to the world” nonsense), but this election and this period in time are becoming more and more disturbing to me. And it should be disturbing to anyone with some grasp of history…
Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage are conservatives? – D.L.
Yes. When people talk about right vs left, they think of these men as being on “the right.”
Interesting world you live in, Oz.
The Right loves to stifle debate – hm. In my experience, which, I will wager, is considerably more than yours, that has rarely been the case. In thinking about it, I can go right back to the successful left-wing takeover of Columbia University in the late ’60′s – at which time all lectures, speeches, and appearances by people representing the right stopped. A simplistic example, perhaps, kids being brainless; but instructive nonetheless. And not unique: on every campus where the left won, debate stopped. SDS did not llike dissenting opinions any more than does Pelosi.
Ah, but you are not speaking of school, you are an adult!
Very well. I know a good many adults, not one of whom considers Michael Savage (or Bill O’Reilly, come to that) to be taken seriously. Clear Channel, with it’s “ties to George W. Bush” – whatever they may be, was clearly engaged in something sinister when they suggested breaking up Dixie whatevers CDs, and not in the least doing it for publicity, as Murray the K organized submarine races, or SDS organized rallies to smash “The Ballad of the Green Berets” – though that was a little cheaper, in those days it was vinyl.
And I don’t believe even you believe there was any attempt to “froth at the mouth” over Kerry’s ill-worded comment. I certainly know no one who frothed, and I bet you don’t either.
I don’t recall that the debate before the war was limited, either. In fact it wasn’t: you are flatly wrong. It was quite lively. As you doubtless recall, (though they themselves seem not to), when the democrat party realized they were on the wrong side of history and scrambled to re-open debate so they could all have their pictrures taken being tough and signing on for the war, it continued afresh.
I don’t know with precision when the decision was made to go to war – but neither do you.
Your remark on operations to “round up dissenting citizens” post-Vietnam War leaves out that the “dissenters” in question were intended to be those who had committed criminal acts; in which case we might refer to them as “crooks” rather than “dissenters.” A guy who smashes up someone’s storefront in the course of his constitutionally protected dissent remains a guy who smashed up someone’s storefront. I was present at more than one demonstration in the 1960′s, and they were often enough seen as holidays from reality during which you were free to run amok, smash windows, destroy property, steal from stores, and urinate in the streets.
On the other hand I agree with you that the Bill of Rights (no such thing, really; it’s the popular locution but it’s really just the first ten amendments) is progressively weakened, administration irrelevant. The problem there is that it’s lefty judges, who want to do away with the amendments they don’t like, in particular the 2nd, and increasingly remove our jurisdiction over ourselves. That’s why the right favors “strict constructionists,” i.e., people who will read what the damn thing says and confine themselves to that, without reference to European law, emanations from penumbras, the faint oder of a distant fart, or anything else not on the page.
On the other hand, today’s ruling in Germany that pub and bar owners who wish to are indeed free to let people smoke in their establishments – because they are THEIR $#@@^!! establishments – bids fair to tie a knot in Souter and Kennedy’s willies. The German court actually did something to favor INDIVIDUAL rights – holy cow! On whom can Ruth Buzzi – I mean, “Ginsburg” – rely now?
I have never heard the phrase about the Constitution not being a suicide pact used even once to justify pulling down a piece of the first Ten. But I have heard a tanker-load of crap about Europe; the “interests of the state;” and several other tons of BS from our left-side judges as they try to explain that what it says is not what it really says. Left-side. Every time.
Nevertheless, that it precisely what’s happening.
is.
Are you scared?
Not particularly. They are as vulnerable to intimidation and prosecution as the rest of us are. They just don’t know it.
And I would argue that the right does the same thing.
It’s this moralistic and nihilistic view of the world that is part of the Left’s most effective arsenal.
Everything and every side is bad, so anything is justified if we say so. It’s perfect for attack and for defense. Defend the Left by attacking others criticizing them and attack others for their own flaws and lack of a right to speak out on flaws. The advantages of multiculturalism and moral and ethical total relativity were hard fought for.
I believe that the U.S is always going to be at war and that the Bill of Rights is on its way out.
Which means there’s no reason to try to preserve the Bill of Rights, rather it is more effective to take slices out of it when it is convenient. The long term preservation of such things isn’t O’s concern, not like it is for us, for Ozzie has no hope.
You can argue with Ozzie on pre war debates or lack of it, but the basic philosophy of Oz will always be in contention with classical liberal values. And you can’t change that, no matter how many words you write.
don’t know with precision when the decision was made to go to war – but neither do you. – T
In addition the the “War Behind Closed Doors” special I cited, I was reading some pretty prescient people.
“Saddam Hussein is not a threat to the U.S. . . The experts say that Saddam doesn’t have the capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — and even if he could and even if he could somehow acquire that capacity, he certainly doesn’t have the capacity to deliver them. . . The whole weapons inspection issue is really just a ruse. The real agenda of the Bush administration is a regime change. . . It has nothing to do with the U.N. or weapons inspectors or even human rights.”– Former U.N. official Denis Halliday, Salon.com, March 20, 2002 (a year before the start of the war in Iraq).
Ozzie
As Paul Harvey would say, heres the rest of the story.
http://www.spinsanity.org/teamleader-kerry.pdf
Alters the meaning some, I would say.
Ozzie
Not being a former UN official, I can unequivocally state that Hussein did in fact gas his own people.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
While Hussein may not have been able to use a missile to reach us, he most certainly could have sold or given these weapons to terrorists to smuggle into this country. And after 9/11 there should be no doubt about any hesitation to use them.
That is, of course, if poison gas qualifies as WMD.
Not being a former UN official, I can unequivocally state that Hussein did in fact gas his own people. — rock
Yes, this occured in 1988 . What was the U.S response? “In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.”
But in 2002, Saddam did not have WMD and was not a threat to the U.S.
More pre-war wisdom:
Oct. 2002: “[A] growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in [Bush’s] own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses — including distorting his links to the al Qaeda terrorist network — have overstated the extent of international support for attacking Iraq and have down played the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.” – “A Growing Number in Government Have Misgivings About Iraq Policy,” the Baltimore Sun, Oct. 8, 2002
Ozzie
I have to give you credit. Your 20/20 hindsight is amazing. Just because some predicted Saddam did not have the weapons did not make it fact.
http://tinyurl.com/5vdyfp
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
I could find more, but whats the point? In the real world there were just too many questions to let them go unanswered.
This is the dilemma we now face with Iran. Are they lying? Are you willing to risk it?
If I were a Jew and and Israeli, I would not.
What was the U.S response?
We know what our response was, OIF 1. What was your response? What was the response of your allies, NATO and the UN?
Enemies of humanity are not a threat to you, Oz, we know that. They are, however, a threat to those working to protect humanity.
Thomas…”This is simply not another election. The Left IS becoming more and more totalitarian.”
I agree. The stakes have been greatly raised by Leftist intolerance. Anyone sitting out this election because McCain is a less-than-perfect candidate is making a serious mistake.
Republicans will back Republican presidents, and Democrats will back Democratic presidents and whichever side is in power will try to drown out whichever side isn’t.
And that’s why building something that has lasted as long as the US Constitution required more than parochial loyalties that you have shown here.
And that’s why maintaining it requires nothing of what you believe to be right or real, Oz.
I have to give you credit. Your 20/20 hindsight is amazing- Rock
Actually, Rock, by 2002, I was reading alternative and foreign press to get my news and was telling anyone who would listen that the WMD claims were trumped up.
Another favorite quote from that era:
“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,” said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence. . . Mr. Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top levels of the administration had been deliberately skewed by hawks at the Pentagon.” — Julian Borger, “White House ‘Exaggerating Iraqi Threat’,” the Guardian, Oct. 9, 2002
And yes, Paul Wolfowiyz was gunning for war since 1992 (For more information, google “the Wolfowitz Doctrine and was one of the main architects of 1998′s Iraqi Liberation Act.
It matters not if a Republican or Democrat is in the White House and come to think of it, 1998 was a very busy year:
Some highlights:
* PNAC writes a letter to President Bill Clinton and Republican leaders in Congress asking for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.” Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, William Kristol, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Armitage and eleven others sign the memo.
* President Clinton contemplates action against Iraq, but Republican Senator Arlen Specter reminds him to respect the Constitution. “Bomber and missile strikes constitute acts of war,” he writes in a letter to the president. “Only Congress has the constitutional prerogative to authorize war.” In 2002, White House lawyers contend that President Bush can preemptively attack Iraq without Congressional approval.
* Paul Wolfowitz testifies before Congress, urging it to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act. Help the Iraqi people “remove him [Saddam Hussein] from power,” Wolfowitz says, denying that the use of American force would be necessary. “The estimate that it would take a major invasion with U.S. ground forced seriously overestimates Saddam Hussein,” he says. Later that year, President Bill Clinton signs the Act into law.
* U.S. intelligence reports that Osama bin Laden’s “next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it” with a second report explicitly warning against attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.
* At a gathering at the Cato Institute, Dick Cheney underscores his distaste for sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Libya and other oil-rich countries. “The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States,” he says. Though Cheney later calls Iran “the worlds’ leading exporter of terror,” as CEO and chairman of Halliburton, he lobbies to have economic sanctions against Tehran lifted.
* George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft co-author A World Transformed — portions of which appear in Time under the heading, “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam.” Saying that a “march into Baghdad” would force soldiers “to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war,” which “could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability,” Bush also says that if coalition forces had unseated Saddam, “the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
* President Clinton orders a strike against Iraq, saying that “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.” Scott Ritter later reveals that by 1996-1997, “Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed, meaning that there was no chance of viable weapons of mass destruction existing in Iraq.”
Crackerjack debate you have going here Book! You must be pleased.
On Books original point (not to sidetrack the above interesting argument): if you live in a leftist reserve (Bay Area, Austin, Bolder, others?) would you consider putting a McCain bumper sticker on your car?
I don’t because I am fairly certain that my car would get vandalized. If I didn’t have kids I would consider running the experiment to see what happens.
The nature of the stifling of expression isn’t typically in the form of “hate crime” laws. It takes the more insidious form of simple broad based intimidation.
Ozzie, since you are so opposed to the deposing of Saddam, I would suggest that you do the following.
1) Give a point-by-point refutation of the twenty three parts of the Iraq War Resolution of Fall 2002.
2) If , as you assert, Saddam no longer had weapons of mass destruction ( though there was no accounting for the inventory that had previously been revealed/discovered), then that supports the previous assertions of France and Russia that sanctions should have been considerably relaxed and even dropped. Please speculate on what the world – and Iraq- would be like with a Saddam without sanctions. Include Iran in the picture.
3) If in 2002 Saddam was not a threat to the US, as you have previously asserted, then please explain why Saddam was firing at US aircraft.
4) If Saddam was no longer a threat and no longer had weapons of mass destruction, then please explain why post 2002 reports also stated that he had maintained the capacity for manufacture of same.
5) If Saddam no longer had weapons of mass destruction and no desire for same, then please explain the presence of all those tons of yellowcake recently transported out of the country.
Just wondering.
Ozzie says:
“I believe that the U.S is always going to be at war and that the Bill of Rights is on its way out.”
Many liberals (such as Ozzie) are convinced that, yes, the Bill of Rights is on its way out, that Bush and Cheney are leading a move to dictatorship on the right that will soon remove all freedoms from American people.
Many conservatives are convinced that the Bill of Rights is on its way out because leftist judges are simply ignoring it by “reinterpreting” it and by citing foreign judicial statements in support of their decisions.
I’ll give the left this much: The Patriot Act has in fact made it easier for our government to violate our rights to an astonishing extent.
But if the left has any integrity at all, they’d admit that the Bush administration itself has done a truly fantastic job at NOT using the Patriot Act’s worse possibilities to smash our freedoms.
On the left, however, we have the truly monstrous Kelo decision among many others; we regularly have a minimum of four justices who regularly show that anything they think is good for the community must mean some kind of constitutionality.
And finally, it doesn’t matter that Germany passed a law promoting individual freedoms, in allowing its biergartens to determine their own smoking policy. If Ruth Ginsberg had relied on Germany in support of her own smoking bans, she would now simply switch to Luxembourg, or England, or Libya, or Cuba, or… that’s the fun of believing that international legalisms matter more than the Constitution or our own established common law. You’ve got HUNDREDS of sovereign legal opinions throughout the world, and you get to pick and choose the ones that make you feel all giggly inside! “Look at this one, Justice Souter, in Gabon, on Tuesday, they agreed with us!” “Well then, Justice Ginsberg, we must be correct, mustn’t we? It takes the sting out of the fact that on Saturday, in Mali, they didn’t agree.”
And yes, by the way, I consider relying on international other-sovereign opinions in Supreme Court decisions to be grounds for impeachment and removal from the bench.
Ozzie reminds me that the original meaning of “Right Wing” refers to the seating positions of deputies in the French chamber immediately after the Revolution. As the Leftist revolutionaries were seated on the “Left”, “Right Wing” meant everybody else, a definition that defies generalization. So, as per Ozzie, all of us that don’t subscribe to his Leftwing view are”Right Wing”.
For all practical purposes, Saddam Hussein is history and the Iraq war is over. We won and Iraq is now on well on its way to becoming the leading power of the Middle East – a democratic, friendly-to-the-U.S. oil-rich power and counterweight to both Iran and Saudi Arabia. It may even kindle further reform in the Middle East. Most Americans, especially those with memories of dysfunctional the Middle East has been up to this point, will realize that this is a good thing.
Trying to rehash history by nitpicking partisan political commentary (the Guardian, Ozzie? Oh, please!) is pointless. Eventually, new facts and historical analysis will have their way and we’ll know much more about what really happened.
What we see in Ozzie’s postings is the same attempted re-write of history that saw fellow travelers attempt to blame the Vietnam debacle on Nixon and the Republicans (successful) and the fall of the Soviet Union on everything BUT Ronald Reagan (unsuccessful).
We’ll hear much more like this going forward, but, in the end, it’s pointless!
As far as from where the biggest threats to our civil rights emanate right now…I have just one word to say, “Kelo”.
Rock likes to argue such things as it is an intellectual exercise or competition on who has the better facts or what not.
For Oz, I suspect it is about changing the past because you can’t make Iraq fail in the present or the future.
Ozzie:
I haven’t weighed in on this, but if I did, I’d come out against you — as you know from the post that led to this fascinating discussion.
Nevertheless, I want to thank you very much for engaging in this debate. It’s been a civil and interesting one, and it’s forced everyone involved to go beyond the echo chamber of “it’s true because I say it’s true” and to muster facts and arguments to support their positions. This kind of mental exercise and discipline can only be a good thing for all.
Rock did most of the heavy lifting. Compared to that, the rest of us didn’t do that much.
About those judges…
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13114
Nevertheless, I want to thank you very much for engaging in this debate. It’s been a civil and interesting one, and it’s forced everyone involved to go beyond the echo chamber of “it’s true because I say it’s true” and to muster facts and arguments to support their positions. This kind of mental exercise and discipline can only be a good thing for all.- Book
Well, thanks, Bookworm.
And I want to thank you for not censoring me, which, in my experience, has happened as much with those who allign themselves with the right, as with those who allign themselves with the left.
(I understand, however, why people think the those on the left are fascists. . . While in college, I learned to keep quiet around certain professors, and feminists have given me the hardest time for not sharing their lock-step views).
It’s refreshing to be able to say what I think without having anyone either block my posts or get extremely nasty, which has actually happened on other message boards.
It seems I’m an equal opportunity offender — and I appreciate that you haven’t taken offense.
I’m no fan of anarchy, Ozzie, and I loath personal attacks, obscenities and aggression. Otherwise, I highly value debate — especially the civil kind. Since you fall squarely within the latter category, you are always welcome here.
Here’s another post on the topic.
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-criminalizing-politics-thinking.html
His blog is slow loading…once the red print on the right side comes up, click on the “stop” icon…
Still more…
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/08/document-drop-the-accountable-america-warning-letter-targeting-gop-donors/