Blogito, Ergo Sum
by Gregg Calkins
30 November 2010, a Tuesday
On the Wikileaks front:
State Department cables show the efforts by the United States to reduce the population of the Guantánamo prison so it can eventually close.
I’ll bet a lot of them would have preferred Guantanamo to where they’ll wind up. Of course, the other countries promise not to torture them and all that, but I wonder if they’ll find the amenities as nice? Cuba was considered to be a great vacation spot for US citizens in the past.
She would also like to know if anyone has seen her purse and her car keys.
I’m feeling my age.
If you like astronomy and history you will find this very interesting:
The story of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe has box-office potential.
I used to regard
Richard Cohen as an honest man, but sometimes I wonder if BDS, the Bush Derangement Syndrome, hasn’t nudged him out of that category?Say what you want about WikiLeaks - and I don't much like what it has done - it nevertheless would be useful for its founder, Julian Assange, to follow George W. Bush as he lopes around the country, promoting his new book, "Decision Points." When, for instance, Bush attempts to justify the Iraq war by saying the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, Assange could reach into his bag of leaked U.S. government cables and cite Saudi King Abdullah's private observation that the war had given Iraq to Iran as a "gift on a golden platter." ...
"I had tried to address the threat from Saddam Hussein without war," he writes. On that score, he is simply not credible.
The accumulating evidence at the time showed that Iraq lacked a nuclear weapons program and did not have biological weapons either. As for its chemical weapons program, while harder to ferret out, it not only no longer existed, but even if it had, it was insufficient reason to go to war. Poison gas has been around since the Second Battle of Ypres. That was 1915. "The absence of WMD stockpiles did not change the fact that Saddam was a threat," Bush writes. Heads he wins, tails you lose.
But Richard is not vindictive. Instead, he asks that Bush...
...read the WikiLeaks documents and, for the sake of history and the instruction it offers, reassess his vaunted decisions.
A few things Richard somehow fails to mention, which I’d like to see him address for the sake of history. Presuming he actually means what he says.
One is the fact that Bush took office after 8 years during which officials on every level of the Clinton administration, including President Clinton himself, appeared very frequently before the public to assure the citizens of the United States of the threat Saddam posed, even right up to the end. Would Mr Cohen have us believe that the following never happened?
Democratic party leaders hold special briefings on Iraq for House Democrats. The message they give to lawmakers is that Saddam Hussein can only be dealt with militarily.
Richard Holbrooke, former UN ambassador under Clinton, says he believes that Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man in the world. Similarly, Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst who served on Clinton’s National Security Council, says that Hussein could have a nuclear bomb within a few years and that containment is no longer an option. And echoing the claims of hawks like Paul Wolfowitz, Dennis Ross, Clinton’s top Middle East negotiator, says that Iraqis will greet Americans as liberators if Hussein is removed. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also agrees with the policy of regime change, saying that Hussein is developing nuclear weapons and cannot be deterred. [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 124-126]On October 10, 2002, Mr Cohen apparently believed these things, too. Was this because he was in favor of believing them when Clinton was in power?
Did you happen to note who it was said that Americans would be greeted as liberators, and to whom the remark was made? Hint: it wasn’t Bush and Cheney.
Surely Richard Cohen knew
this happened:The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16–19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with
On October 31, 1998 US President
Bill Clinton had signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act.[2] The new Act appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy. ...The bombing campaign had been anticipated since February 1998 and incurred wide-ranging criticism and support, at home and abroad.
[3] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates initially announced they would deny US military the use of local bases for the purpose of air strikes against Iraq.[4] It became one of the roots of the 2003 invasion of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was removed from power.So it was okay for Clinton to invade and bomb Richard’s impotent and non-threatening Saddam Hussein for four days, pass a law declaring it to be official United States policy to see him removed from power, sanctioning the overthrow of a sovereign national government which President Bush should have known was harmless because no WMD were found afterward?
Well, how about
this from Clinton’s Secretary of State?Both Bill Clinton and Albright insisted that an attack on Hussein could be stopped only if Hussein reversed his decision to halt arms inspections. "Iraq has a simple choice. Reverse course or face the consequences," Albright said.
She was referring to this:
The U.N. Security Council planned to meet Friday afternoon, but the odds that diplomacy would prevent an attack appeared dim as U.S. troops, ships and planes were converging on the Gulf.
But with elements of the sizable military operation still en route, there were indications that it would be at least a week before an attack might occur.
Did Richard Cohen protest mightily? And how should all of this have struck the newly-elected President Bush less than two years later? Well, let’s try only 12 days before Bush actually took office:
In one of her last acts as Secretary of State, Albright on January 8, 2001, paid a farewell call on
That certainly put Bush on pretty public notice about Iraq, I’d say, before he even sat down in the Oval Office for the first time. Okay, let’s hear a little more about the behavior of the Clinton administration from Salon, which certainly is not any kind of neocon publication:
Let’s review the history in this report from
"General
Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during parts of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, has a new memoir out that contains this significant-seeming story:Back in the late 1990s, Shelton says a member of Clinton’s cabinet asked him to allow Saddam Hussein to shoot down an American plane over Iraq as a pretext for starting a war. The way Shelton tells the story, this was a serious request.
Remember, the context here is the Clinton Administration’s years of trying to overthrow Saddam — including in a little-remembered 1996 CIA coup
attempt. In December 1998 (most likely after the request was made to Shelton), Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in Operation Desert Fox, which Clinton said was a response to Saddam’s lack of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors.Here’s what happened shortly after Shelton became Joint Chiefs chair in October 1997, according to his book:
"Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger’s table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day.
During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection.
At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"
The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can …" which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.
"You can?" was the excited reply.
"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."
The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. "I knew I should not have asked that…."
"No, you should not have," I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. "Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America."
The way Shelton writes the story, the unnamed cabinet official could not have been Berger or Cohen (or Tenet and Richardson). That leaves Albright and the
other cabinet members as possible candidates.If President Clinton was so very anxious to attack Iraq at least five years before it actually happened, how could any Democrat find fault with President Bush for finally forcing the issue in 2003?
Oh, I can answer that question. Whenever you read about George Bush’s "rush to a war of choice" in Iraq you will seldom, if ever, hear any mention of the eight long years of the Clinton administration, which have apparently been airbrushed out of the minds of people like Richard Cohen. Well, if he won’t tell you then I will, with Salon’s continued help:
President Clinton was in the process of "laying the groundwork" for an Iraq invasion as far back as 1998 and he said this in a nationwide televised address:
CLINTON: "Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." ...
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. ...
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in
late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by
overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15
to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come
into compliance. ...
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was
only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to
the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air
because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right
thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove
his willingness to cooperate.
So Clinton not once, but twice, ordered American armed forces to attack Iraq and had them on their way, neither time requesting any authorization for his use of force from anyone.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully,
we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.Without delay, diplomacy or warning. Clinton continued, explaining in some detail how Saddam had failed to cooperate, saying:
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the
safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.And so
we had to act and act now.Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the
Make no mistake, Clinton said, we had to act and act NOW! Richard Cohen listened and nodded thoughtfully, no doubt, without complaining about any rush. So what was Clinton’s message to Saddam?
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license.
If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why,
on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. ...The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Apparently this message was being broadcast for the world to hear, including Saddam and the United Nations, but not for the next president due to follow President Clinton? Of course he was supposed to be listening, don’t be a dunce. Does anyone remember who, in December of 1998, was considered to be a virtual lock to succeed Clinton? He was considered to be such a shoe-in that some reacted with shock, dismay, disbelief and anger when he lost.
Is Richard Cohen’s problem with Bush today that Bush took action not according to the guidelines clearly spelled out by Clinton—"without delay, diplomacy or warning"—but even went him one better by convening a joint session of congress to actually AUTHORIZE the use of force in writing...which Cohen and his ilk then termed a "rush to war"?
Or is Cohen’s real problem with Bush his disappointment that Clinton’s anointed successor, Gore, did not do all of these things, instead?
Is this a case of merely personal liberal animus with Cohen, not any rational remembrance of the words of history? Yes, that would certainly be shallow if such were the case.
Well, let’s let Clinton go on with his speech and see what he says, for those who do not remember:
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region,
the security of the world.The security of not merely his people or the region, or even simply the United States, but the entire world, Clinton says! Richard Cohen now complains that Bush should have been smart enough to know that Saddam wasn’t really a threat. Richard says this at alternate times when he isn’t calling Bush a moron or an idiot and Clinton the most intelligent president ever...well, up until the current one. Anyhow, Clinton then told his listeners how he was going to solve the world’s security threat problem:
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities.
That is, we are prepared for collateral damage from the very beginning. Some civilians are going to be killed, and we know it, and some American forces are going to lose their lives, too, and we know that. Those costs have been faced up to and factored in.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face
a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.And mark my words, he
will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.Did you actually mark his words? I helped you out a bit. Does Clinton say that he bombed Iraq earlier that day because Saddam already HAD weapons of mass destruction? No, right here he clearly warns his listening public that he acted because Saddam
WILL develop them. And what is Clinton’s defense for his actions?Because we're acting today,
it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. ......once more, the
So, yes, I’m more than a little disappointed in Richard Cohen and others who understood it to be necessary and right when Clinton bombed Iraq, including killing whatever
civilians might have been in the way, without delay, diplomacy or warning, identifying Saddam as a threat to the security of the entire world because he could not be allowed to get the WMD Clinton promised us he would use when he did, recognizing that doing so represented America’s vital interests sufficient to place America’s armed forces in harm’s way, may God bless and protect them, because we were making the threats less likely to be faced in the future......but now complain that President Bush not only should not have rushed to war but should also have known that Saddam wasn’t even a threat to the United States today (the future no longer being an issue for Mr Cohen), far less to the entire world, because Saddam had no WMD and everybody knew that...oh, yeah, and he also had nothing to do with 9/11, which was also true when President Clinton was bombing Iraq, and so how is that an issue later on?
You see, either Clinton was totally wrong, together with "
the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser" or else all of those people were right, including the secretary of state on January 8, 2001, or else they were all correct...and so was George Bush.Hey, I understand a lot of people don’t like George Bush, some of it is purely personal but some of it is justified, I can’t argue against that. But totally airbrushing the facts from the eight years which preceded Bush makes your case against him weaker, not stronger, after the history comes to light. People who argue that Obama should not be judged by the economy he inherited from Bush should also point out that maybe Bush should not be judged by the Iraq he inherited from Clinton, shouldn’t they? Hello, Mr Cohen?
What’s the big difference between the way Clinton and Bush dealt with the Iraqi threat? Clinton said in justifying his immediate military action, in the same breath that he acknowledged there would be civilian casualties as well as the loss of lives in the American forces, that:
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
Clinton was willing to do those things merely to degrade Saddam’s capacity and ability.
Today Iraq has not only no WMD, for certain, and no ability or desire to threaten its neighbors, but it also has no Saddam to worry about at all, period.
And what does it have, instead? Why, it has President Clinton’s stated goal: "
a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."Clinton told us that we had to weigh the costs of action versus inaction, so was the cost of action too high? How did George Bush put it in his first inaugural speech?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- John F. Kennedy
Oops, sorry, Google must have given me another first inaugural speech instead.
Well, Mr Cohen, I’ll turn history back to you and Mr Assange now.
You never know what you’ll come upon when you look up quotes. For instance, who said
this?For too long, our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.… It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply, and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power by even greater use of clean-coal technology; solar and wind energy; and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles and expand the use of clean-diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.… At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.… [New] technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
If you cheated and looked at the link you already know it was George Bush...otherwise I’ll bet you money that you did not. He said it in early 2007.
Former president
Jimmy Carter is always good for some Liberal Logic:"Republicans so far have been totally irresponsible," Mr. Carter went on. "Now that they’ve taken control of the House of Representatives, they’ll be responsible for a major element of the U.S. government."
This means, of course, that the Democrats have actually been the ones responsible for both major elements of the US government for the past fours years. Oh. Not George Bush? No.
He remembers history as well as Richard Cohen does, too:
"I was blessed when I was president by a very encouraging and almost incredible degree of bipartisan support," Mr. Carter said. "It was quite unlike… what is present here with President Obama since he has practically zero Republican support in the House or Senate."
Hot Air points out, however:
...his party had a
Yeah, he really needed bipartisanship. Amusingly enough, Obama thought the same thing with his majorities. Maybe that’s what happens to one-term presidents?