Libertarian Leanings

Joe Wilson - back in the news

The other night I happened to catch a snippet of The Daily Show and there was Joe Wilson - he of "no uranium in Africa" fame. At first I thought it was a rerun, but lo and behold, it the real Joe in real time - well, close to real time maybe. It seems the occasion of his recent appearance on this program, and his recent appearances in the news, is the release of his new book,"The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity".

By now we must all know that "the lies that led to war" are all about the sixteen words in the President's 2003 State of the Union address.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

Because those sixteen words are factually correct, they are often included verbatim in these efforts to peddle the "Joe Wilson - whistle blowing patriot" theme. Then they are followed by the favored interpretation. Here is how the New York Times sees it in its glowing review of Wilson's new book:

He called his government contacts, but he ''wouldn't learn for six months that the country referred to in the British claim was, in fact, Niger,'' a fact the British still refuse to declassify and admit.

Concerned that Bush had ''deceived the nation and the world'' in going to war in Iraq, and after the president announced the ''mission accomplished'' in Iraq, Wilson began speaking out, quietly at first.

So we're suppose to believe George Bush lied in his State of the Union address by including those sixteen words, even though the British stand by their intelliegence. And we're also supposed to believe Joe Wilson's finding that, "...it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place" somehow contradicts the statement made by George Bush in his State of the Union, that Hussein "sought" uranium from Africa. We're suppose to believe these things when according to George Tenet, Wilson reported on his return from Niger that there was such an attempt.

He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

That sounds like confirmation to me. But it gets even better. Joe Wilson, himself, in his book identifies the Iraqi delegate who made the overture.

It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

That's according to a new book by Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium.

So Mighty Joe Wilson in an exhaustive eight day investigation reveals:

1. George Bush was lying about Iraqi attempts to procure uranium in Africa.

2. Iraq was probably trying to procure uranium from Africa.

3. Baghdad Bob was the Iraqi official who was making the overtures.

And let's not forget the New York Times who complain about the Brits who refuse to declassify their intelligence and admit facts about the country from which Iraq was trying to get the uranium. This would presumably buttress the argument that George Bush was lying when he said Iraq sought uranium from Africa, after Iraq sought uranium from Africa.

What a thoroughly entertaining story this continues to be. Puzzles abound. What CIA agent would possibly be at liberty to write a New York Times editorial about what he found on an investigative mission, as Joe Wilson was able to do? And such an editorial! One that contradicts the boss's very important speech! How did the CIA arrange things so that all that could happen? According to George Tenet,

CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

Note the words: "at their own initiative". Was it planned that Big Joe got the call to go to Niger because he would be free to go public later on? Did Joe know before he went to Niger, what he was going to report when he came home? Did the "counter-proliferation experts" also know it? We have a grand jury investigation going on to determine who revealed the name of Joe's wife Valerie, identifying her as a CIA operative, to Robert Novak. Is it possible that Valerie was a counter-proliferation expert? Little hope has been held out that a culprit will be identified, but I have no doubt that it will be a thoroughly entertaining revelation if there is one.

KKK and terrorism

Clayton Cramer says the Klan is a terrorist organiztion. This morning he directs attention to a University of Louisville professor's efforts to ban the KKK from campus as a terrorist organization. Cramer's conclusion:

Now, I can see that there might be problems prohibiting individual Klan members from exercising free speech. The Klan, however, is clearly a terrorist organization. Its lack of activity in recent years doesn't change anything, as far as I am concerned. It has a long history of terror, and anyone that wants to exercise their freedom of speech and yet feels the need to do so under the aegis of the KKK, is doing so for one of two reasons.

1. They are so utterly clueless that I can't take them seriously.

2. They are interested in trading on the Klan's trademark for terrorism.

Banning the KKK from a college campus as a terrorist organization doesn't seem any different from banning al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization. Or have I missed something here?

He's right.

The Federal Marriage Amendment

This is an issue made to order for sensational news coverage. It's perfect. Here we are in an election year, presidential no less, heading into the convention season. Both parties are sure to make competing claims of disaster. Here we have disaster as viewed from the right,

Activist liberal judges are intent on destroying the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

and here we have disaster according to the left..

This would eliminate Vermont's Civil Union bill and the future that ANY states have to institute a similar bill. This could also leave the door open to the abolition of domestic partner benefits in the future.

So where does one come down on this one? One who professes libertarian tendencies, to boot? One thing I've come to realize over the years is that leaving things to be decided by people at the citizen level generally works out OK, so I can't get all worked up about this one. My prediction for the election season is that there will be an awful lot of noise, and in the end one way or another almost everybody will get more or less what they want. Here is the text of the proposed amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.

Note the words "shall be construed to require". These words forbid nothing, outlaw nothing. They also meet the approval of President Bush:

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

It's interesting to note that passage of the amendment by Congress is not a foregone conclusion. And if passage by Congress is successful, then the amendment has to make the rounds of the states where two thirds must approve. It would very likely suffer the same fate as the Equal Rights Amendment, by failing to get approval from the states. And anyway, so what if it did get the required approval of the states? Note Bush's words "while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage". There is growing support for civil unions. I would go so far as to predict a number of states will support the amendment then turn right around and legislatively create civil unions. Massachusetts comes to mind. To get right to the bottom line, let's not get our knickers in a knot over this one.

As good as it gets...How good does it have to be?

On one of my frequent visits to the shrine of all blogs, Instapundit, I was reminded of a puzzle that continues to perplex me. It hit me again on a visit to the Minute Man. This is the key sentence that cought my attention at Instapundit:

I know that some people in the blogosphere think we're not taking a tough enough line in Fallujah, but reports like this suggest that we may just have a better plan.(emphasis mine)

And at Just One Minute, it is this one:

We have questioned the extent to which John Kerry, if elected, will commit political capital to redeem George Bush's mistakes in Iraq. (emphasis mine)

Three questions:

Why do seemingly very intelligent people presume to know more, know better, what to do in Iraq, than the administration team that has at its disposal, full weight of the U.S. Federal government, the virtually unlimited resources of the U.S. Treasury, and the most sophisticated military minds in world history?

Second, What mistakes in particular are we talking about? It sort of reminds me of all those people who made charges of dishonesty on the part of George Bush because his economic projections disagreed with theirs.

Finally, how good does it have to get for a guy to get any credit?

Chemical weapons? in Iraq?

The Telegraph reports an artillary shell containing the deadly nerve gas sarin, exploded in Baghdad. This represents the first hard evidence of the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq.

The discovery is the first time the American-led coalition has found definite proof of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt, a coalition spokesman, said the round was a 155-millimetre shell and had been attached to an improvised roadside bomb in the Iraqi capital.

It exploded before the soldiers could defuse it, causing "a very small dispersal of agent". Two explosives experts were treated for minor exposure to the agent.

He said that the blast happened "a couple of days ago" but that the discovery of sarin had been confirmed today by the Iraqi Survey Group, the group which has led the search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Aid and Comfort...

Senator Carl Levin appeared on 'Fox News Sunday' yesterday to press the attack against the administration, this time for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. In spite of Chris Wallace's references to contradictory evidence, the Senator completely ruled out the possibility that the abuses committed by prison guards were acts performed by individuals:

So it's a combination of the report by General Taguba himself, with statements, plus the pictures themselves, and also, by the way, the International Red Cross has those findings, that this was all part of an intelligence-gathering operation, and it was, quote, "part of the process," the acts of humiliation and the abuses were a part of a process, not just the spontaneous actions of a few MPs.

Fox commentator Chris Wallace asked for Levin's explanation of this possible contradiction:

Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who faces a court martial this week, it's turned out that he has told military investigators that the chain of command didn't know about it. Here's what he had to say: "Our commanders would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."
Senator, is there any reason not to believe Jeremy Sivits?

LEVIN: Yes, a lot of reasons: the ones I just gave, including the testimony to General Taguba…

Chris Wallace asked for clarification:

WALLACE: Senator, I want to pick up on General Taguba, who you keep bringing up, because he was asked directly at the hearings that you were at who ordered these actions, and here's what he had to say. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJOR GENERAL ANTONIO TAGUBA: Sir, we did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator?

Been wondering the same thing myself...

Iraqi blogger, A.Y.S., who blogs at Iraq at a Glance, seems to be a bit impatient with the powers that be in his country.

However, let’s talk about our new mini-OBL in a new style; Muqtada, the beloved leader of thieves and murders, his man in Basra ( the monkey.. AlBahadli) announced that they need ‘brave’ men to commit suicide attacks, and they are waiting for them in Al-Sadr office there..
I want to say an important thing here, where is Al-Sistani in this critical time? why doesn’t he declare ‘fatwa’ to forbid the fighting? We don’t hear anything about Al-Sistani except in making objections to decrees regarding the new government and the constitution !

Good question! He closes with this:

M’s thieves took over the police station there and robbed all the arms and ammo....I don’t know how we’ll be able to rule this country after June 30, we need the United States for support...

Some good news from Iraq

From Omar at Iraq the Model:

The first week of this month brought good news to the Iraqi retired governmental employees. They started to receive salaries instead of the emergency payments they used to get during the last 12 months.
Each one of them used to receive 80 $ every three months (compared with an average of 20 $ on Saddam's days) but now they're getting paid about 200 $ every three months. And this is just the beginning...

So who was Nicholas Berg?

Without wishing to downplay the horror and tragedy of Nicholas Berg's death, I have to say is there are things that seem more than a little odd. My early impression is that he was a patriotic free spirit who went over to Iraq to do his part to to help in the rebuilding. Berg's family didn't share his enthusiasm for the mission in Iraq.

The slain man’s father, Michael Berg, laid the blame for his son’s death Thursday at the feet of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this,” Berg said in the interview with radio station KYW-AM of Philadelphia.

Berg, who put a sign on the front lawn reading “War Is Not The Answer,” also attacked Bush administration for its invasion of Iraq and its sponsorship of the USA Patriot Act, which gave increased powers of surveillance to the federal government.

We often hear that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. My liberal family members often wonder what tree I fell out of, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that this apple apparently fell quite some distance from his tree.

Berg's parents and brother and sisters are liberals and anti-Bush and antiwar in equal measure, according to friends and the bumper stickers on their cars. Nick was not. He believed in President Bush and the liberation of Iraq. He went out to play football with Lorenz and another friend last December. It was a balmy day and, as always, they talked about everything. Toward the end, Berg spoke of going to Iraq, where he would climb and fix communications towers -- and put American flags on top.

So it comes as a surprise to learn that there is this strange coincidence. A computer password he used in college was found on the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker. The FBI concluded there was nothing sinister about that, and it seems unlikely that it would be anything more than a coincidence. But it is a bizarre coincidence. We add to it, this according to MSNBC:

In an e-mail message his family gave to The New York Times, Berg wrote to his parents after his April 6 release that federal agents had questioned him about whether he had ever built a pipe bomb or had been in Iran.

We hear that federal agents questioned him, but U.S. authorities said they never had him in their custody. They say the Iraqi police had him. But the Iraqi police claim they never had him in their custody. So in whose custody was he? According to an aquaintance, Berg claimed he was arrested by Iraqis because his passport carried an Israeli stamp on it. His family believes he was transferred to American custody but...

U.S. spokesman Dan Senor would not explain, but insisted that Berg was held by Iraqi and not American authorities.

After his release, when U.S. officials offered him a flight out of the country, he refused.

His father, Michael, said his son declined the offer out of fears that the travel to the airport was too dangerous. Attacks had taken place in the areas his son would need to drive through, Michael Berg said.

He was fearful of making the trip from a Baghdad hotel to the Baghdad airport, but

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Berg was detained by Iraqi authorities ''for his own protection'' because his behavior in Mosul seemed unusual for a Westerner.

He had been seen traveling in taxis and moving about the dangerous city without any escort, the official said. He added that Berg, who was Jewish, had in his possession texts that were ''anti-Semitic'' in tone, the official said without elaborating.

That seems to present something of a contradiction - utterly fearless in Mosul, but too fearful to take a ride to the airport in Baghdad. Of course it is very possible that his outlook underwent dramatic change between the time he was in Mosul and his return to Baghdad. Consider this other little wrinkle to the story. There is a family connection in Mosul.

Michael Berg told the AP that Nicholas’ paternal aunt, now dead, married an Iraqi man named Mudafer, who became close to Nicholas. In one of the e-mails, Nicholas Berg describes going to the northern city of Mosul where he introduced himself to Mudafer’s brother, identified as Moffak Mustaffa.

“We got along splendidly,” Berg wrote. “We spent a few hours and I helped him establish an e-mail account.”

Berg notes that “my presence ... made him more concerned (about his own safety and probably mine too) than I’ve been the entire time I’ve been here.”

Something happened in Mosul that changed him. He was known to be a good man with an enthusiasm that was infectious. He seemed to have a "can do" attitude, one that could win the hearts and minds of Iraqis who knew him. That would certainly make him an undesirable from the terrorist perspective. And of course we should not overlook the tin foil hat crowd. At a moment of U.S. global embarrassment over Abu Ghraib, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi leaps forward to steal the spotlight with this utterly gruesome murder. Not a terrorist PR coup. Even Hezbollah and Hamas condemned the murder. It's all so strange.

So who was Nicholas Berg?

Questions from Sarmad...

Sarmad posted a list of questions the other day at his blog, Road of a Nation. In it he solicits answers from his American readers on behalf his Iraqi friends and himself. This post is my open response to those questions as I think they ought to be answered. I've put each of Sarmad's questions in bold type, with my responses in normal font indented beneath.

Here is Sarmad:
Lets change the positions here and we will ask and you answer ,here is some questions for some Iraqis I meet them in my dally life ,and there is the most important questions they wont to here ,some answers ,and I wish to here your answers and I will ,print and publish it to the people who ask these questions ,hopping to clear the view to them :

1. Some people asking that there is something called "authority" and "law" ,and this is represented by the united nation ,America ignored all that ,and start the war ,with out considering the "authority" and "law" ,Why?

There are two things to consider, the first being the situation created by 9/11, and the second being the nature of the UN, itself.

The situation: An American policy change occurred as a result of the 9/11 attack. Prior to that a country needed to be considered in danger of “imminent attack” before it could go to war with UN support. After the 9/11 attack it was clear that it would be unwise and dangerous to wait for the “imminent threat” to emerge. With technology advancing by leaps and bonds, it becomes only a matter of time before a terrorist can set off a weapon that kills people by the hundreds of thousands or millions. Saddam was not an imminent threat, but with his ongoing weapons programs, he or Qusay or Uday would ultimately become an inescapable threat if left unchecked. Saddam and Qusay and Uday were going to have to be stopped sooner or later, with the very real possibility that later would be too late.

The nature of UN: The UN represents the world’s hope that conflict between nations can be resolved without war. Obviously, the hope has not yet become the reality. In fact I might go so far as to say that it rarely comes even close to reality. This leaves the responsibility for the defense of a nation where it has always been: on that nation. The UN is an organization of individuals representing nations. Those individuals at the UN do not always live up to the high standards of integrity that we would hope to see in an organization that deals with such important issues. Many of the countries represented at the UN would rejoice at the defeat of America. For those two reasons Americans believe it would be unwise to rely on the UN for defense, or to be subject to UN permission to act in its own defense.

2. "Why are Americans sacrificing lives and spending so much money"?"what is the price?"

We are fighting because we think that we are not going to defeat the terrorists any other way. We believe that it was necessary to prevent the terrorists from using Iraq as a safe haven, and also to demonstrate to the terrorists that we are willing to take the fight to them no matter where they are. We considered Saddam a sponsor of terrorism. You may have felt the same way about him. As to the price, we hope Iraq will be our ally. It’s not about the oil. If it were about the oil, we could simply have told Saddam what a great guy he was, removed sanctions, and started buying it from him. It would have been a lot cheaper.

3. What you wont from Iraq and Iraqis?

We want Iraqis to take control of their country in a way that sets an example for the world. We believe Iraqis have yearned to be free, and we believe that Iraqis are capable of self government if given the proper chance. We want Iraqis to grab the chance. We want Iraqis to join us in the fight against terror. We want Iraqis to create a just and free society based on equal protection of the law for all their people. We want Iraqis to rebuild their country and in so doing raise the level of prosperity for all their people. We want the Iraqis to understand what freedom is, and what responsibility it involves. We want Iraqis not to throw away their freedom at the first opportunity.

4. Are you really good people and the situations got out of your hands or you won't that plan for all that?

We think you should be the ones to decide if we are good people or not. We don't believe the situation is out of hand, and we believe the fight will have been worth it. We don’t think the situation is lost. We think our hopes for the Iraqi people will be fulfilled. However, we don’t think it’s like making a cup of instant coffee where you just pour in the water and stir and there you have it. We think it might be more on the order of building a house where you have to lay the foundation and be sure that it’s sound before you start raising the walls. It takes a little time. We ask for your help.

5. The American could contain the Iraqi people by accept simple needs of the majority"make the Iraqi people content" ,why you didn’t that?

Let me tell you a story about Little League baseball. I was the coach for the team on which my 12 year old son played. He was a good ball player. One of my responsibilities as coach was to pick a couple of the best players to play in the all star game at the end of the season. My son was clearly good enough to play, but there were several other boys who were good enough to be picked for it too. My problem was that I could only pick two players from my team. Should I pick my son or not? To make a long story short, I put him on the all star team. Was I showing favoritism? I’m sure some of those other players thought so. Would it be wrong to show favoritism? I thought so. Other coaches didn’t think so. One coach told me “The reason I coach is so my kid will get to play.”

My father was not faced with the same situation. When I was a kid playing Little League ball, fathers and sons were not allowed to be on the same team. That meant when the coaches made their all star picks, they couldn’t pick their own sons. The choice had to be made solely on the basis of the player’s skill. I should also point out that when a father has his own son among the choices, it can go either way. Some fathers would pick other kids even when their sons were better players, to be absolutely certain that no one could accuse them of favoritism. Well, that’s not fair either.

So which is the better structure for the league? Would you have players picked because of family relationships, or would you have players picked on the basis of their skill? The point here is that no matter how great or how minor, people in power will inevitably be tempted to use that power for their own benefit, whatever they happen to think their benefit might be. In the league where I played, the coaches were not faced with that temptation. In the league where I coached it was clear that family was a factor in all star selections.

So now let me put the question to you. If we Americans “accept simple needs of the majority”, will that give you a government that safeguards you against the abuse of power? Is that all it takes to structure your government so that those who govern will not be tempted to use their power to benefit themselves at the expense of the people? Or will your democracy evaporate in a week or two once the elections are over? Will you eventually elect another Saddam who will then decide that future elections are unnecessary? There are loads of examples of phony democracies around the world. Will it be your goal to become another one? How will you avoid it?

6. Are the American plantations dreams will be on the Iraqis blood.

I’m not sure about the meaning of this question, but I would like to point Iraqi dreams are beginning to be made possible, and it is by American blood as well as Iraqi blood that it is happening.

7. Do the American look to the Iraqis as" masters looking at slaves"

No.

8. Who should we blame if all that thing didn’t work out?

This is not an encouraging question. Are you already trying to figure out who can be blamed? Let’s not accept defeat. Things will work out when we Americans and Iraqis make them work out.

9. Are you really going to transition power to the Iraqis?

Absolutely.

10. Do your troops go to leave Iraq ?when?

Yes, but it will be years from now. I expect Iraqis will have a great deal to say about when the troops can leave.

11. Do you think you won the war? or will win? or are winning?

We know it's not over, but we're confident that in the end Iraqi will be a prosperous and free country. We have some hurdles. I think one of the things that will help greatly is for Iraqis to become believers, and to find ways to help. I know it’s not easy.

12. Are you committed to Iraq?

Absolutely.

13. How is your policy developed? or How is your policy going (meaning, is it successful)? or Where is your policy heading (meaning, how will it change)?

From my perspective things seem to be going as well or better than can be realistically expected.

14. Do you allow us to help "rebuild" our country in our own way?

We believe you must be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, and we realize that it's your country and you don't want to make it into something that is not Iraqi. But there are two things I can think of that we Americans ought to demand. First, Iraq must be a country that is run by rule of law, meaning each Iraqi citizen is entitled the same protections of the law as every other Iraqi citizen, including those at the very top. This means the new government is not government by whim of those who govern, but government by Iraqi law. This puts limits on the powers of those who govern, which leads right into the second requirement.

Iraqis must be a free people – free to voice opinions, free to practice a religion of individual choice, free to own property. The list could go on but I think you get the idea. Now, here’s an important point. I’m going to mention what half the world thinks of as a dirty word, and the other half thinks of as the greatest thing since sliced bread: capitalism. If you can remain a free people, and if you can maintain a free market, free enterprise, capitalist system, you will be a top-10 world power in 20 years, you’ll enjoy a very high standard of living, and I’m going out on a limb to predict you will be at peace with the world.