Semi-Daily Journal

Well enough already. It's clear, as I have griped here repeatedly, that the Iraq war was a vast mistake. However, interventions even in the face of UN obstinancy are necessary. These are motivated for a range of reasons, from defense (Afghanistan) to strictly humanitarian (Kosovo). Arts & Letters points to

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16350

Once past the extensive litany of malfeasance (most can skip it, I think, since the list has been amply iterated here on Brad's blog), the author provides several reforms and strategies that would enable multilateral action when it is needed, and would make it much more difficult to do the stupid things like Iraq. It's worth some thought, anyway. We are at 200+ and counting for our casualties, and there is no end in sight.

The only surprise is that anyone is surprised. Myself, I believe that we in the rest of the world should work to undercut US hegemony just as an earlier generation in the USA undercut the European empires. The case is as just, the means as slow, and the end as assured, while the outcome can reasonably be expected to be better given that the USA is inherently less well fitted for an imperial role than its predecessors were.

Responsible citizens, in the US and the UK, have to balance two concerns. One is that this administration seems apt to ignore its responsibilities. The other is to convince Bush that past lies will not be forgotten, future lies not tolerated. The problem with this is that disciplining the Bush White House seems very likely to raise the odds Iraqi's will be left to chaos while US forces withdraw to military bases for the long haul.

Another problem, one featured at this site over and over, is that a significant part of the voting public seems unconcerned about the lies it is being told. The war was fought on trumped up charges. Fiscal policy is a sham. African AIDS funding is heralded as a great humanitarian crusade, but paid for with cash from other African development and humanitarian aid accounts. Hydrogen fuel is touted as the great environmental policy of the future, but is no more than another storage medium for coal, oil or nuclear sourced power - no evident environmental gain.

Sorry, very sour this morning.

The Daily Telegraph and this blog discussion mix two strands of thought--one on American hegemony, the other on the quality of American decisionmaking. I am not so sure that the problems we all have on the latter, be they the war, taxes, or broad foreign policy, should be construed as meaning that American hegemony itself is such a bad thing for the world.

I would feel better about our allies if they were less inclined to oppose American power and influence in the world, per se, than if they were more inclined to channel American power and influence in another direction, regarding it as a tool that could serve very broad interests if used wisely. This sense of disappointment in the motives of our allies is very much a factor in Washington policy circles, and it inclines policymakers here to be suspicious of even their freinds overseas--a sad circumstance, but one perhaps not completely their fault.

I would feel better about U.S. leadership in the world if it was based on being the first among equals, rather than on being king of the hill.

To that end, I recommend to George W. Bush the words of a philosopher that even he might be able to comprehend:

"With great power comes great responsibility." -- Peter Parker

Jim, that's blaming the victim. Clinton had respect, and Bush received a gift of tremendous sympathy from the world after 9/11. He deliberately squandered it, and not from necessity. European nations supported the Afghan war, for example, but
not the Iraq war - it's not blind opposition.

The 'sense of disappointment' felt in Washington policy circles is the disappointment felt by a bunch of people who are only getting far more cooperation than they deserve, as opposed to unquestioning obedience. These allies have attempted to channel US power into productive uses, but found that Bush & Co. They wouldn't listen to people who had far more experience with terrorism than the US did.

Bush is a user. Those who cooperate with him (like Blair) get used. It's Bush's actions, Bush's choices, Bush's fault. It's not the fault of those who decline to be used.

Hold on a second! Before the war, not only the US and Britain, but also the UN, France, and Russia didn't doubt Iraq had noxious weapons. They disagreed about what to do with that, or how big of a threat they were, but their existence wasn't in much doubt. Saddam's obstructionist tactics didn't easily make one believe he wasn't hiding something, either. So if the administration was wrong on that one--still an IF--they were in, shall I say, respectable company. Or was the UN, Russia, and France equally stupid, or perhaps part of a deeper conspiracy?

Well, maciej, let's not lump everyone into one basket quite so quickly. Yes, the UN, France, & Russia thought Iraq had _some_ WMD. But none of them thought Iraq posed an "imminent threat." THAT was the basis of the US/UK march to "preemptive" war. THAT was the basis for circumventing the UN. THAT was the basis for convincing Americans to dedicate blood and treasure to "regime change." Not the presence of 2 RVs. Not the presence of mass graves. Not statues falling.

People on both sides will, for the most part, be surprised if we never uncover more than we have so far. But the burden of proof on the Bush administration is "imminent threat." Inferences based on past Iraqi diplomatic actions don't count - actual, physical evidence of WMD does. 6 weeks after the war ended, we have nothing resembling that proof.

Speaking of lies, the Hasting's piece is one from start to finish. Say, this:

" Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Defence Secretary, disclosed that the US wilfully exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction."

The transcript has been released by the Pentagon, and it is clear that Wolfowitz said no such thing.

It was enscribed:

Speaking of lies, the Hasting's piece is one from start to finish. Say, this:

" Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Defence Secretary, disclosed that the US wilfully exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction."

The transcript has been released by the Pentagon, and it is clear that Wolfowitz said no such thing.

I've read that transcript, and I read it as saying that.

JRoth,

I'm not going to get into the spectral analysis of the meanings of "imminent"; suffice it to say that it's not exactly an unambigous term. I will make to other comments, though. 1) Part of the rationale for the war was to prevent Al Qaida types from getting hold of WMD. Given that the same Telegraph (if I remember right) found documents relating travel arrangements of the group's operatives to Baghdad, in my mind that rationale still stands. 2) The Russians still can't account for all the nukes they had before the Soviets broke up. And they were in charge. So harping that we can't, after six weeks, find anything substantial, strikes me as somewhat disingenous. We are talking about a short time period, a sizable country which we don't fully control, without a functioning government from which to extract info, but which used practice deception for decades, and may have destroyed/shipped out parts/all of the offensive materiel. Looks to me like a desperate attempt to find some fault with the administration.

"I would feel better about our allies if they were less inclined to oppose American power and influence in the world, per se ..."

This is an ironic statement given that it is public US doctrine to oppose all other, possibly competing, powers and their influence in the world, per se. Such a doctrine, while perfectly rational, has undeniable consequences for the way in which the US in return will be perceived.

"...than if they were more inclined to channel American power and influence in another direction, regarding it as a tool that could serve very broad interests if used wisely."

How exactly are other countries supposed to "channel" and "influence" the US? The only countries I can think of that have attempted this are Israel and the UK. The former thanks to powerful lobby factions within the US, factions which most countries do not have working for them in DC. The latter has tried the "hand guiding the steering wheel" approach, but I honestly cannot see what the UK has gotten out of the bargain in return: the current invasion of Iraq is costing the UK money and troops, and Blair political capital and considerable international goodwill. In return they have gotten nothing: no expenses refunded, no reconstruction pork, no favourable trade agrements. During wars or minor tiffs (such as the Falklands or the perennial squabbles over Gibraltar) the UK gets no support whatsoever from the US. Sentiment aside, one has to ask exactly what the UK is obtaining from this one-sided relationship other than free visits for Blair to the Bush ranch in Texas.

"... should [not neccesarily] be construed as meaning that American hegemony itself is such a bad thing for the world."

As a non-American I would resent the erosion of what little rights and civil liberties I have left by a foreign hegemony which is utterly unaccountable to me, and in which I have no vote, no representation at any level, and no means of redress other than appeal to US public opinion. I'm sure you would too were the tables turned.

JRoth,

I'm not going to get into the spectral analysis of the meanings of "imminent"; suffice it to say that it's not exactly an unambigous term. I will make to other comments, though. 1) Part of the rationale for the war was to prevent Al Qaida types from getting hold of WMD. Given that the same Telegraph (if I remember right) found documents relating travel arrangements of the group's operatives to Baghdad, in my mind that rationale still stands. 2) The Russians still can't account for all the nukes they had before the Soviets broke up. And they were in charge. So harping that we can't, after six weeks, find anything substantial, strikes me as somewhat disingenous. We are talking about a short time period, a sizable country which we don't fully control, without a functioning government from which to extract info, but which used practice deception for decades, and may have destroyed/shipped out parts/all of the offensive materiel. Looks to me like a desperate attempt to find some fault with the administration.

"[Saddam's government] may have destroyed/shipped out parts/all of the offensive materiel. Looks to me like a desperate attempt to find some fault with the administration."

Weapons of mass destruction serious enough to warrant the short-circuiting of the UN inspections process in March and start a fullscale pre-emptive war that has cost the lives of more than 5000 Iraqi civilians so far and possibly tens of thousands of Iraqi troops ....

... may now in part or wholly been SHIPPED OUT ? And saying this is "a desperate attempt to find some fault with the administration" ??

A couple of paragraphs earlier you just stated "Part of the rationale for the war was to prevent Al Qaida types from getting hold of WMD."

Hello? Are we on the same planet here?

"I'm not going to get into the spectral analysis of the meanings of "imminent"; suffice it to say that it's not exactly an unambigous term." -maciej

The Bush Administration made their meaning of "imminent" perfectly clear. They repeatedly said we had to take action against Iraq NOW, not a year from now, not even 6 months from now, with the undeniable implication that if action wasn't taken NOW, something terrible was going to happen.

To date, absolutely nothing has turned up to justify that analysis. The Bush Administration said Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Just about everyone else in the world said it wasn't. Now the Bushies are being asked to provide proof that they were right and, so far, they can't. If no such proof is ever produced than the Bushies were liars or they were stupid and everyone who believed them without question were fools.

Mike

Well, I'm on earth. I don't know what planet you are on. Maybe everyone is nice on your planet, except the US, of course. (For the record, I also am a non-American.)

Mr. Sullivan:

I don't know Mr. Sjostrom, but I'll take Max Hastings word for what Mr. Hastings thinks anytime over Mr. Sjostrom's.

From the article by Max Hastings, excerpted on this blog, the exact same article you are commenting upon:

"I was among those who thought the war mistaken, but reluctantly accepted the arguments for British participation, to preserve the Atlantic alliance and to maintain some marginal influence upon American policy. Today, given the behaviour of the US Administration, that case is in tatters."

This means exactly that Mr. Hastings did support British participation in the war, just as Paul Krugman writes. There's no need for him to modify his statement.

It's perfectly accurate to say:
" Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war...."

He might indeed not have supported the war, but that's not anything claimed here.

And it's a most dishonest and disingeneous tactic to then put hypothethical, weaselly quasi-retractions into Paul Krugman's mouth.
If you think he's dishonest, why don't you take on something he actually said?

Night after night on the news we are told that Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq. Well not really found. Almost found. Almost found if they were not already destroyed or if they were not toxic waste or if there were no scouring of mobile labs that might really not have been labs except we they look like they were labs but who can say except that we say.

I get it.

Jim,

Another strand of thought we ought to keep in mind is respect for democracy. If the French public wants it government to resist US hegemony, then the French government ought to do so. A reponsible government will not at the same time run around trying to drum up resistance to US leadership among the French public unless it sees a good reason for doing so.

Washington policy circles are disappointed in the lack of support for US actions? Such a shame. Maybe if our leaders were willing to be a bit more honest about their motives, they would find more support. Maybe if they allowed themselves to be guided by the interests and concerns of other countries, rather than imposing our own interests and concerns as supreme, there would be more support. I do not believe that US diplomacy needs to be inept. There are lots of professionals in the Service who are willing and able to further US interests. But US diplomacy has been inept, or at least alienating to our allies.

Hegemony implies dominance. Dominance is inevitable. We are biggest, richest, strongest. Hegemony, to my ear, implies a certain level of compulsion. "We lead and you follow, by god," rather than gaining followers because our acts and principles are attractive to those outside our borders. On that basis, of course there will be efforts to Gulliverize us. And more power to 'em.

Peter Lawrence wisely writes "Myself, I believe that we in the rest of the world should work to undercut US hegemony just as an earlier generation in the USA undercut the European empires. The case is as just, the means as slow, and the end as assured, while the outcome can reasonably be expected to be better given that the USA is inherently less well fitted for an imperial role than its predecessors were."

Your problem here is that things already look like about thrity years after the Peloponnesian Wars, when democratic Athens felt it had the duty to chop off the heads of anybody who was not sufficiently free.

When Condie Rice mutters imprecations about how Canada should be punished for a good long time, it sounds like she's spent an Aegean vaction checking her boats in the Piraeus for dry rot.

Is Peter's policy not that of bringing the wrath of Athens down on us all sooner rather than later?

The rationale used for waging war by the American and British leadership appears to have been either based on most faulty intelligence analysis or a distortion of intelligence analysis. Waging war on premises that are incorrect or false should be intolerable for a democratic state. That Iraq had a most vicious government was not the point. Self-defense was the point and was evidently not an issue.

I saw a recent poll that 57% of Americans believe that Saddam possessed WOMD when we invaded. Most Americans don't realize that WOMD have yet to be found! It looks like Bush may get a free pass. It does not matter much that Krugman writes because most people already are convinced otherwise.

However, Tony Blair is in a stew of trouble. It is even bet that failure to find WOMD will bring down his government. There is a big difference between the European media and the American media.

Blaming Blair for lying is like blaming a skunk for stinking.

Only a few years back, they wanted to impeach a US president for lying about an affair with a White House intern. Nobody got killed even though, we have to assume, a small number of people - namely those involved - got hurt. Contrast that with the current situation...

OK. Now I get it. From the posts so far, I gather that:

- The US public is stupid
- Israel is exerting extraordinary influence on the US policy
- No sin is more grave than failure to adore at the altar of the UN
- The US leaders are morally obliged to allow themselves to be guided by the interests of others
- The ships are ready. Canada is going to be our Melos (and when, or when, is the Sicilian expedition coming?)
- After serious consideration, it has to be concluded that Saddam was truthful and harmless
- Bush, Blair, and the CIA were lying and/or incompetent. Preferably both.

maciej

DLJ's reasoning is sound but limited, since it only compares the timing of destruction offered by two different policies and not their alternatives of the slim hope of escape versus none. So it draws the wrong inference as to the best course to follow.

No doubt one or another Greek in the cave with Odysseus advised him not to risk bringing the wrath of the Cyclops down on them all at once; but Odysseus knew that one Greek would always be eaten per day. Things would have been different if they had known that precisely five (say) would be eaten - then each would have had an individual incentive to collaborate.

Where Arabs accuse the USA of being racist, of only being willing to do these things to the third world and not to (say) Belgium, I have no such fond hope - I don't suspect we are protected by US racism at all. I think we are merely lower on the list, and I remember the Bonhoeffer quotation ending roughly "... and when they came for me there was nobody else left to turn to for help".

Besides, we can always ring bark first, act more openly later.

C'mon people. Hasn't there been enough lying already? If you think both that there could be no WMD in Iraq AND also that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, doesn't that mean that you are really kind of crazy? I mean, take down your defense mechanisms for a minute and listen to yourselves. This is some kind of sickness, and it makes me sad.

maciej, don't let reason get in the way of a good witch hunt. Facts are meaningless for this rabid anti-war effort. A case in point:

JRoth: "Yes, the UN, France, & Russia thought Iraq had _some_ WMD. But none of them thought Iraq posed an 'imminent threat.'" Of course this is nonsense since they all voted for 1441.

As Patrick pointed out Wolfowitz didn't say what these people want to quote him as saying anyhow. Funny thing is, its not like the other reasons weren't given prior to the war, but then the cry was that the Administration couldn't stick to one reason.

Mr. Bush is a liar and a con-man. So are many of the extremists in the GOP today. I am not at all surprised that Mr. Hastings has come to feel soiled by his trust in our president. No doubt, he finds himself in growing company.

It doesn't even come down to the ethics and rationale of invading Iraq. An honest debate is, or was, possible between ethical and reasonable people about what to do and how to do it. No, the core problem has to do with the suspension of reality that is necessary to trust these con-men whose only competence is lying.

Perhaps members of the media are beginning to realize that they have been all-too-complicit with this dangerous and dishonest regime.

Brad -

1) One columnist attacking the war doesn't mean that the Daily Telegraph is "filled" with "unhappy campers".

2) Go back and look at the articles Sir Max Hastings wrote before the war. He never supported it, except "reluctantly", to try to influence or manage America. His columns are full of snide, superior references to American diplomacy by unnamed British diplomats. He is, I would say, one of those old British imperialists who've never reconciled themselves to American dominance - see his rather muddled, rambilng columns of 19th January and 16th March.

3) Hastings also has an anti-Blair agenda. Fair enough - Blair is a disingenuous piece of )*!%, and his government is, in my opinion, the sleaziest England has had in years. But I think he lets it influence his commentary on whether the Iraq war was justified or not.

4) Why, as a matter of interest, do you never highlight British liberals or socialists who supported the war (Christopher Hitchens, Ann Clwyd, et al.), but only British conservatives who opposed it?

Sorry - I should have added that the third-last paragraph of Hastings' June article also makes the point I mention in my 2).

The Fool writes, "If you think both that there could be no WMD in Iraq AND also that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, doesn't that mean that you are really kind of crazy?"

The only crazy people that I know of would be people who thought there COULD be no WMD in Iraq. Not only did most sane people think there COULD be WMD in Iraq, most sane people thought there WERE WMD in Iraq, as evidenced by this quote, in the New York Times, in January 2003:

Iraq "must be made to account for the thousands of tons of chemical precursors, the thousands of liters of biological warfare agents, the thousands of missing chemical munitions, the unaccounted-for Scud missiles, and the weaponized VX poison that the United Nations has itself declared missing."

Pop quiz...were the people who wrote this:

a) liars?

b) crazy?

c) former members of the Clinton Administration, with special expertise on the Middle East and Iraq?

"OK. Now I get it. From the posts so far, I gather that:- The US public is stupid" -maciej

I wouldn't say that. But maybe people who are interested enough in this topic to write here should realize that the Bush administration was disingenous in selling the war. They used "evidence" that has shown to be dubious or fruadulent, and they said they had evidence that could not be presented, because it would comprimise intelligece sources. There seems to have been no such secret evidence (maybe thats why they didn't want to let the congress know about it).

If you don't beleive you have been lied to, well you are much less intelligent than the "US public" however ignorent it may be.

"Pop quiz...were the people who wrote this:..."

So far, they appear to be rather profoundly mistaken, regardless of their party affiliation.

It has been almost 90 days since the invasion began. Where are the defectors? Where are the informed scientists who know where the secrets are buried? Thousands of interrogations have been conducted so far. And there has been essentially zilch in the evidence department so far.

But BushCo has invaded this foreign country because they were so damn sure. Check out the Nuremberg trials. It's all about how invading other countries is illegal. Does that mean nothing?

I know that the GOP true believers in general think they are above the law (Iran/Contra, Watergate, the Florida Recount Mob and Supreme Court intervention, DeLay's latest Texas lawbreaking) and are flabbergasted when people call them on their bullsh** (Gingrich/Livingston/Hyde hypocrisies). But, really...isn't international warfare serious enough to require a little evidence, even after the fact? Is that too to ask for as Bush turns our nation into a violent criminal in the eyes of the world? I mean it's only war, death and world history...I know, I know--asking for a little hard proof is probably just being liberal...

Final point: suppose you "pre-emptively" kill someone you hate (and supposedly fear) and then claim your violence was justified by self-defense. You had better be able to show that you were actually in real, imminent danger--not just perceived danger. Otherwise, you have committed a murder, and exhibited either malice, paranoia or incredibly poor judgment. If you are a political leader and do such a thing, it is an abuse of authority of the highest order.

ntb, a thug has just killed three people with a knife and there are 500 witnesses. He threatens everybody there with it. A cop kills him after demanding that he put the knife down, yet, oddly, nobody can find the knife. In your eyes that means the cop is paranoid?

markmeyer, even the French thought Saddam had WMD. Chirac's argument was that the inspections were working. If those are mobile biological weapons labs, isn't that argument false? Wouldn't they likely never be found by UN inspectors? We could have rested assured that Saddam would never, ever use his refrigerator or two of Anthrax since he obviously disapproved of violence. And you think that maciej is misled?

I wrote, ""Pop quiz...were the people who wrote this:..."

...and gave possible answers, "a," "b," or "c."

Ntb responded: "So far, they appear to be rather profoundly mistaken, regardless of their party affiliation."

BZZZZZ! Sorry, ntb! I gave you choices of doors a, b, or c. You chose door d. You lose. Please try again, later! :-)

I understand *why* you chose door d. It's because you're a Democrat, and you don't have sufficient courage and/or honesty to choose one of the doors offered. This is an unfortunately typical aspect of political discussion today: both Democrats and Republicans (and yes, some Libertarians...not to mention Greens and Reforms) don't have sufficient courage/honesty to admit when the other side has a legitimate point.

(I'll rescind this criticism, should you or any other Democrat--Dr. DeLong this definitely includes you ;-)--have the courage/honesty to actually ANSWER my quiz, using the possible answers I gave.)

"And there has been essentially zilch in the evidence department so far."

Well, "zilch," other than:

1) Two mobile biological laboratories, whose most logical purpose would be to build biological weapons,

2) A #@$% of a lot of Iraqi chemical weapons suits and atropine (chemical weapons antidote). (Why would Iraq have these things, unless they thought they might be attacked with chemical weapons? And why would they think that, if they themselves didn't have chemical weapons? Do you think they thought the U.S. would use chemical weapons first? Why would they think this, since the U.S. has not used chemical weapons since at least WWI...and maybe not even then?)

3) An Al Tuwaitha nuclear research facility that seems to be quite contaminated with radioactive materials. (Or do you think that the research stopped a very long time ago...but the radioactivity hasn't decayed, due to long half-lives?)

4) Documentation that, by all knowledgeable accounts, does NOT document the destruction of weapons that everyone (Republicans, Democrats, U.N. inspectors...EVERYONE) was certain Iraq had...at least at one time.

I could probably come up with another handful of exceptions to this "zilch" characterization. So "zilch" isn't a terribly accurate assessment of the situation.

"I know that the GOP true believers in general think they are above the law (Iran/Contra, Watergate,..."

I know that essentially EVERY Democrat legislator, President, and Supreme Court justice, since FDR, has thought that THEY were above the law (that they did not have to follow the Constitution).

"Is that too to ask for as Bush turns our nation into a violent criminal in the eyes of the world?"

Our country should already be considered a violent criminal in the eyes of the world. If Osama bin Laden had done what Bill Clinton did to the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, it properly would have been called an act of international terrorism. The American People thought so little of blowing up a privately owned pharmaceutical factory in a country wracked by civil war, that the fact that Bill Clinton ordered the destruction of the plant (and refused to admit the truth that he'd blown up a pharmaceutical plant) wasn't even among the articles of impeachment. By the way, I don't suppose you contacted anyone in the government, or wrote anything to any newspaper, to try to address that act of international terrorism? (Or do you think it's OK to blow up a privately-owned pharmaceutical plant, killing one person immediately, and perhaps 100s or 1000s from lack of medicines...and then fail to make any attempt to correct the situation?)

"know, I know--asking for a little hard proof is probably just being liberal..."

Frankly, ntb, I don't think of you as being liberal. I'M liberal. I think of you as being "liberal." (Faux liberal.)

"Final point: suppose you "pre-emptively" kill someone you hate (and supposedly fear) and then claim your violence was justified by self-defense. You had better be able to show that you were actually in real, imminent danger--not just perceived danger. Otherwise, you have committed a murder,..."

Exactly. I completely agree. Do you think the U.S. was in "imminent danger" from a privately owned pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan?

"If you are a political leader and do such a thing, it is an abuse of authority of the highest order."

Yes, that's why I thought the attack on Al Shifa (and subsequent failure to admit the truth, and make restitution) should have been in the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. (In fact, I wouldn't even have tooooo much of a problem for him being tried criminally for that.)

By the way, I also agree with you about Iraq. I have already written (on the Free Republic website, which is a conservative news forum) that G.W. Bush should be impeached (tried before the Senate) for going to war against Iraq, without a declaration of war from the Congress.

The same should have happened to Clinton for the attack on Yugoslavia (over Kosovo). And G.H.W. Bush for Panama. And Ronald Reagan for the civil war in Lebanon (and Iran/Contra...especially the Contra part). And LBJ for Vietnam. And...

In short, I think EVERY President should follow the Constitution TO THE LETTER, as he takes an oath to do; if not, I support that that President should be impeached and removed from office. I think this should apply to Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, and even Libertarian Presidents (in the hopeful event that I ever see such a President).

not to harp on an incredibly trivial issue...

well, actually, to do exactly that...

"With great power comes great responsibility" was said by Peter's uncle, Ben Parker.

Which became Peter's inspiration, after his refusal to help stop a thief led to the death of Uncle Ben, for using his incredible Spider-Born Powers, not for personal gain, but to fight criminals and protect the helpless in the guise of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN!

...sorry. Got carried away there.