Semi-Daily Journal

Fatalities

American soldiers 156
British soldiers 19
---
175 Since May 2

American 295
British 52
---
347 Since March 20

Wounded ~1520

Note: Danish fatality listed with British
Spanish fatality listed with British

Note: American forces have risen to 148,000
British forces have risen to 11,000

"The absence of evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program is not evidence of its absence."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are confusing evidence with proof. Absence of evidence may not be proof of the absence of nukes, but it is undoubtedly evidence of their absence. In fact, given the conundrums of proving a negative, it is the only kind of evidence which can ever be obtained for the absence of nukes.

Amid the wealth of thoughts that post generates, I'll limit myself to three: this is dead with the water in the neutered US media and public; it may have impact in the UK, but since MPs must stand again for election after a vote of No Confidence, don't bet on it; and what was Murdoch's Times thinking when they ran that story? I am confused. In what way does this serve the interests of Rupert Murdoch? A useful question for any item reported in any Murdoch organ.

It just lost the server, but I cleverly copied my comment:
Amid the wealth of thoughts that post generates, I'll limit myself to three: this is dead with the water in the neutered US media and public; it may have impact in the UK, but since MPs must stand again for election after a vote of No Confidence, don't bet on it; and what was Murdoch's Times thinking when they ran that story? I am confused. In what way does this serve the interests of Rupert Murdoch? A useful question for any item reported in any Murdoch organ.

John Isbell:

That's not correct: there would not necessarily be a general election as a consequence of a vote of no confidence. The government would fall, but it would be up to the monarch to decide whether a government carrying the confidence of Parliament could best be created by attempting to form a new government within the current Parliament, or by holding an election. It is most likely that there would be a chance to form another, presumably Labour, government before the Queen took the fairly dramatic step of dissolving Parliament.

And, Lise: since when are Danes and Spaniards "British"? Either the deserve a separate category, or the second figure should be "allies" or something.

Couldn't the case be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg Principles which (along with the UN Charter, Kellog-Briand, etc) are supposed to be upheld as "the supreme ;aw of the land" under Article VI clause II of the US Constitution?

I'm dissapointed Brad, you are neglecting the opportunity cost of the Iraq war in your I think I think statement. The justifiers of the war have to make the case that the 200 Billion+ spent would have added much more to human welfare/security/safety than other uses of the $. Clearly a much smaller sum spent on basic disease prevention would have done much more for human welfare. A smaller sum spent on homeland security plus securing russian scientists + funding greater cooperation abroad in security matters would probably have done more than the Iraq invasion for our security. Anyways, the opportunity cost has to be discussed among serious people.

"I call for a vote of no confidence in Tony Blair...[and] the impeachment of George W. Bush" yes, after Wilsongate and Nigeriagate (that's a Nigeria-letter!), there should probably be a case for it. CalDem's analysis looks pretty fair and balanced too, though I wouldn't expect to hear it on a US TV-station.

The scary part of this are the words, "President Cheney".

On what I sincerely hope is a related issue, General Clark has called a bunch of politicos, financial types and lawyers to a meeting tomorrow (Tuesday). He has reportedly said he has made a decision regarding a presidential run, but declines to say what that decision is.

Two guesses?

Oh, and if you need a hint, Clark began recruiting campaign staff really hard last week.

Hm. Brad DeLong and Kevin Drum are starting to horn in on my territory. The little guy doesn't have much of a chance when in a situation like this. It's like Walmart set up right next to my paranoid little dime store.

Aretino is certainly correct that the absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence supporting the absence of a nuke program. Aretino seems to suggest that absence of evidence is not "proof" of the absence of the nuke program. This depends on what "proof" means. In law, it means the establishment, by evidence, of a requisite degree of belief concerning the existence of a fact in the mind of the trier of fact.

We really don't know anything (except, maybe, our own existence) to a complete certainty. Instead, we believe things, and we believe these things to varying degrees of certitude. In law, this "requisite degree of belief" varies with the issue involved. Sometimes, the trier of fact will conclude that a fact has been "proved" if it believes the existence of the fact "by a preponderance of the evidence"; other times, the trier of fact will conclude that the fact has been "proved" if it believes the existence of the fact "beyond a reasonable doubt"; and so on.

Thus, the question for each of us in determining for ourselves whether the non-existence of a nuke program has been "proved" is whether the absence of evidence persuades us, to whatever degree of certitude that we personally feel is appropriate, to believe that Iraq did not have a reconstituted nuke program.

For myself, I think the absence of evidence is fairly compelling and persuades me to believe that Iraq did not have a reconsituted nuke program. I certainly believe this by a preponderance of the evidence; I am not convinced, however, beyond a reasonable doubt.

John Isbell writes: "what was Murdoch's Times thinking when they ran that story? I am confused. In what way does this serve the interests of Rupert Murdoch? A useful question for any item reported in any Murdoch organ."

Well, if he could gin up a no confidence vote and perhaps a new election, that would provide a chance to get Tony Blair out of the PM seat.

This might not mean the Tories would take control, but Blair's replacement might be someone who'd be easier to run against long-term, due to lack of charisma, or whatever.

ie, getting rid of Blair would put the Tories in a position akin to running against Gore next time, instead of once again running against Clinton in an act of futility.

Randolph Fritz writes:
>
>The scary part of this are the words, "President Cheney".
>

Ooh..that one *is* scary. But I don't think it's anything we need to be very afraid of. If things get anywhere near this bad for the Bush administration, you can be sure that nobody will be working very hard to defend the vice-prez, who might already be getting into some tight spots. So any investigation into his Energy Plan shenanigans are on hold for the moment, but they are a just a smoking gun away from coming back into the (now less vice-prez-friendly) media. Similarly, I think it's way more likely we will find connections between his presence in the White House and no-bid Iraq contracts going to Haliburton than it is that we will find any obvious connection between Saddam and Osama.

No, it won't happen, but I think Cheney is more pinched by the unraveling of the administration than Bush is, because people are going to assume that GWB just didn't know better, while the vice prez did.

"Couldn't the case be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg Principles which (along with the UN Charter, Kellog-Briand, etc) are supposed to be upheld as "the supreme law of the land" under Article VI clause II of the US Constitution?"

In my opinion, the proper way--that is, the way that most limits the government to the Rule of Law, and leaves the greatest amount of power with The People--is to consider ***every*** violation of the U.S. Constitution to be a "high crime." Every violation of the Constitution should be considered a high crime precisely because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, every violation of the Constitution is an offense worthy of impeachment (trial before the Senate) and removal from office.

President G.W. Bush (as with Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc. etc.) has violated the Constitution an uncountable number of times, literally from his first week in office. So there would be no problem picking literally 100s of high crimes. For example (just choosing randomly) waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq without Congressional declarations of war, every single federal act in the utterly unconstitutional federal war on some drugs, signing Campaign Finance Reform legislation, etc. etc. etc.

But the problem with this point of view is that every member of the U.S. House (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) ALSO routinely violates the Constitution. And every member of the Senate also routinely violates the Constitution. Therefore, both the prosecutors (i.e., the House) and the jury (the Senate) would be composed of people who would justifiably be labeled as hypocrites.

Since I've already publicly written (on the Free Republic website) advocating G.W. Bush's impeachment and removal from office, I support Brad DeLong in his call for impeachment. But I would modify or add to the list of charges to involve waging war without a Congressional declaration of war, since that is a simple matter of fact.

However, considering that I'm sure Brad DeLong didn't call for the impeachment, let alone removal from office, of Bill Clinton for any of *his* high crimes, I doubt Brad DeLong's call will carry much weight. :-/

oh! the pleasures of "i told you so" are so much less in the realisation than anticipation. and the spectacle of the slow awakening from dogmatic
slumbers to face the glaringly obvious so little instructive. you "think you think" that the removal of sadam hussein was worth the cost, but , of course, cost to whom? iraq was attacked because the regime was assumed, largely correctly,
to be so rotten within as to easily crumble. but this means that there were possible policy alternatives to bring about such an eventuality. opportunity cost, indeed. and the cost to international law, our cooperative alliances, multilateral frameworks? for it is only on the basis of an internationally accepted multilateral effort that a successful/legitimate (to iraqi eyes) reconstruction of iraq is conceivably practicable, requiring ample arab and u.n. assistence. but these are precisely the folks to be chastised. it is estimated that the dammage done to iraq in the 1st gulf war was $100 billion and the dammage of 12 years of sanctions $150 billion, a total of roughly $10,000 per head. and it is bootless now to blame that all on sadam, since it is "we" who left him in power, acquiescing in the slaughter of tens of thousands, who were encouraged to revolt, when "we" had absoltuely no endgame planned, and failed to resolve the issue ever since. as it stands now "we" are in serious danger of precipitating a devastating civil war in iraq (lebanon), regardless if our "coalition" forces remain in iraq or beat a retreat. it is too soon to calculate the cost/ benefit ratio from the delation of this political bubble. yes, tony blair must go. i'm sure gordon brown is polishing his finger nails as we speak. it is not as yet clear, but it seems to be emerging from the british press that tony blair agreed to join bush in the invasion of iraq at a meeting either in the spring or late summer 2002. thus the whole political/diplomatic buildup to the war would be a charade of gargantuan proportions. tickling the fancy of self-respecting public opinion is a delicate, but necessary operation. but tony blair will not go easily. like clinton, he will cling to power with indignant self-insistence, for those at the top of the power hierarchy are addicts: it has taken so long to get there and at such cost in the sacrifice of the fullness of life (such as a simple appreciation of truth or a nonmanipulated respect for others) that to give way can only leave them bereft- "the judgment of history" is an insufficiently satisfying form of adulation. i think, not only should the incoming reports precipitate a vote of no confidence, but a constitutional crisis for the u.k., since it was blair's "presidential" style of leadership that got him and them into this mess, and reforms are needed to make sure such a style never takes hold again. there is good reason why major policy decisions should not be made on a notional whim in accordance with one's self-regarding ideological prejudices, for the world is really at no one,s beck and call. does anyone much more familiar with u.k. politics than i know if it would at all be possible to replace the current government with a coalition between the brownites and charles kennedy and his lib-dems, since brown<while intellectually deeper than blair reputedly lacks the social and personal graces, is a bit of a hunchback, while kennedy, the most trusted and popular party leader personally, took his party into opposition to the war and to the left of new labor on public spending/ social services issues? this would seem to be a way to bring back public balance to u.k. governance, while renewing the project of advancing a modernized social democratic project after 6 years of blair's dithering, though i am sure they despise one another, this being politics. as for bush, he will never be impeached, obviously. the supreme court five should have been impeached, since their decision was blatently unconstitutional (how many supreme court decisions
explicitly declare that they do not set a precedent?), and impeachment is the only way to bring federal judges to public accountability. but not a peep was heard from the House at the time, not even from cynthia mckinney or maxine waters. bush should have been elected by the house, as provided in the constitution, since the principle is that power derives from the will of the people and only the will of the people expressed through elections, or, failing that, their elected representatives, periodically renew the whole constitutional framework. we are all reduced to the forlorn hope of cubs fans- wait till next year. let's keep our finger nails sharp and polished.

Can you imagine what all the guys who say I am being "shrill" here would have said had Bill Clinton claimed that:

--Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were a clear and present danger to the United States.

--Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and could have an atom bomb within a year.

--Iraq had close ties with Al-Qaeda.

Had Clinton claimed these, attacked Iraq, and been wrong? Can you imagine?

Brad--

Why stop with Clinton being WRONG? Let's pretend he did everything RIGHT! Let's forget Iran, and pretend that the very first WTC attack in 1993 had been more "successful", killing, shall we say, 3,000 people. Let's pretend that Bill Clinton then launched an attack against the Taliban regime then harboring OBL (a little bit of poetic license with our time machines and all, but you know where I'm going).

Two years later (1995?) we STILL had not managed to nail OBL himself. We can all be CERTAIN that CNN and MSNBC (nost just Fox) would have had daily counters: Day 735 without capturing OBL...
Bush, apparently, no longer even speaks the NAME of the evildoer (whoever he is.... oh yes, Saddam!)

In regards to the last two comments.

Given the nonsense dished out by the right during Kosovo and Sudan and now the reciprocal fusillade of charges over the last 2 years, it would seem that more people might be inclined towards moderation in their invective.

But I'm not holding my breath on it.

The only substantive comment I wanted to add is that intelligence is not the same as evidence. It has been said that intelligence begins where evidence leaves off. I think that the US reliance on technological intelligence (signals, imagery) have caused some to start assuming that this black art is somehow capable of creating clear concrete answers.

It's not particularly good at it. In the open-source material put out by the UN, media and governmental entities, there has been a pretty uniform and consistent opinion that Iraq failed to rid itself of bio and chem weapons. On the nuke issue, the IAEA reports prior to the war all indicated that the IAEA had high confidence that Iraq had rid itself of its nuclear program. Even that was proven to be a less comprehensive statement than they would have liked, given the discovery of the Rose Bush Centrifuge.

But the underlying point that a supression of the final report on WMD is just plain bad is undenyable. In the same way that the Warren Commission report has been a source of speculation far longer than it probably deserves, such report findings could have the same kind of life. If Clinton showed US Presidents nothing else, its that its sometimes easier to take the hit than try to spin indefinitely.

In regards to the last two comments.

Given the nonsense dished out by the right during Kosovo and Sudan and now the reciprocal fusillade of charges over the last 2 years, it would seem that more people might be inclined towards moderation in their invective.

But I'm not holding my breath on it.

The only substantive comment I wanted to add is that intelligence is not the same as evidence. It has been said that intelligence begins where evidence leaves off. I think that the US reliance on technological intelligence (signals, imagery) have caused some to start assuming that this black art is somehow capable of creating clear concrete answers.

It's not particularly good at it. In the open-source material put out by the UN, media and governmental entities, there has been a pretty uniform and consistent opinion that Iraq failed to rid itself of bio and chem weapons. On the nuke issue, the IAEA reports prior to the war all indicated that the IAEA had high confidence that Iraq had rid itself of its nuclear program. Even that was proven to be a less comprehensive statement than they would have liked, given the discovery of the Rose Bush Centrifuge.

But the underlying point that a supression of the final report on WMD is just plain bad is undenyable. In the same way that the Warren Commission report has been a source of speculation far longer than it probably deserves, such report findings could have the same kind of life. If Clinton showed US Presidents nothing else, its that its sometimes easier to take the hit than try to spin indefinitely.

Without respect to anything said here or elsewhere:

Why do we only count the civilian dead in Iraq? Even the soldiers who weren't conscripts were defending their country. Shouldn't we count their deaths too?

from the disolution of parliament to the return of the new members, would be a few weeks, blair could go, without an election, the members perks are too good to risk,and a new labour government formed.

Obviously Brad I agree.

There is the question though as to whether the lying is getting any worse (remember please Watergate) or whether 25 years ago there wasn't all this electronic media around to make life impossible. In the UK you could just put a 'D' notice and all the press would conform. Now, even if they wanted to, they can't, in case some blogger starts to make them look silly.

Reduction of information amd search costs - not a historic decline in veracity - that's the real problem.

Didn’t we get rid of the biggest weapon of mass destruction: Saddam Hussein and his sons. How many soldiers did he kill in the war against Iran, Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom?
How many Kurds were gassed and killed? Also the ecological mess that he did to the Kurdish region?
How many political opponents were disappeared? Women and children raped? The hectares of marshland destroyed? I think we got rid of the biggest weapon of mass destruction.

Though it saddens me to say so, I must disagree strongly with the call to impeach. This is not a based directly on principle, but rather one step removed from principle - a look at the practicalities of principle.

We have just impeached a president. We have just allowed the Supreme Court to select a president for us. We are now watching the spectacle of an attempt to recall the duly and democratically elected governor of the largest US state. Another large state is in the process of deciding whether raw political power is sufficient justification to jigger political boundaries in favor of the ruling party at random, rather than on a regular schedule.

We are already well down the slippery slope. If we were to even seriously entertain the notion of another presidential impeachment, no matter how justly deserved, our political system might become irretrievable. It is already lost to us, but there remains a hope of getting it back. This is not a question of proportionality. It doesn't matter if sending US soldiers to kill and die on a whim, driving fiscal policy to such an extreme that billions in taxes paid may come to far less than was promised to workers upon retirement, not because the economy cannot support those promises, but becuase our leaders simply didn't want to pay them. Yes, these things are more important than lying about sex, but this is not a question of proportionality. It is all or nothing.

In every instance listed above, it is Republicans who have put winning power ahead of respect for democracy and our political traditions. If Democrats did to Bush what Republicans did to Clinton, a party already willing to do just about anything to gather power would be able to claim that Democrats are are no different, that trickery is as good a path to political power as the voting booth. They apparently already think so. Even if the case for impeachment is clear, Democrats must set an example, take their lumps and find another way to unseat Bush. The next move should be to take control of the House from Tom Delay. The Senate, for all its faults, has not been a source of degradation to our political system on anything like the scale of the House.

K Harris -

I think you're wrong - the remedy of impeachment is in the Constitution for a reason. This paticular Administration took us to war based on lies and in violation of international law. If they aren't held accountable, what example will that set?

"Can you imagine what all the guys who say I am being "shrill" here would have said had Bill Clinton claimed that:

1. --Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were a clear and present danger to the United States.

2. --Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and could have an atom bomb within a year.

3. --Iraq had close ties with Al-Qaeda.

Had Clinton claimed these, attacked Iraq, and been wrong? Can you imagine? (Numbers inserted for clarity)"

------------------

Yes, so it is fortunate that Bush said none of these things.

1. Here is what President Bush told the world during his 2003 State of the Union Address about the rationale behind his response to intelligence data suggesting continued Iraqi development of WMD:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

2. Here is Mr. Bush's remarks related to Iraqi nuclear weapons capabilities from his infamous Cincinnati speech of October 7, 2002:

"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists."

Not much here, it seems. But additionally, I ask you, can you cite an UNMOVIC, British, French, German or U.S. intelligence report that contradicts these statements?

3. What is your point here? Bush never said that going to war with Iraq had anything directly to do with fighting Al Qaeda, though he did outline known intelligence regarding Iraqi/Al Qaeda in the Cincinnati speech. Now,
here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544377.shtml)is Mr. Bush's March 17, 2003 speech to the world outlining why military action should be taken against Iraq. A crisp Franklin to anyone who can find the words "Al Qaeda". In fact, how about 10 Franklins to anyone who can find in this speech any of these strawmen.

That's what I thought.

There are plenty of good arguments as to why the Iraq war was the wrong strategic and/or military move. Which makes it more the pity that strawmen are employed against it.

"Can you imagine what all the guys who say I am being "shrill" here would have said had Bill Clinton claimed that:

1. --Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were a clear and present danger to the United States.

2. --Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and could have an atom bomb within a year.

3. --Iraq had close ties with Al-Qaeda.

Had Clinton claimed these, attacked Iraq, and been wrong? Can you imagine? (Numbers inserted for clarity)"

------------------

Yes, so it is fortunate that Bush said none of these things.

1. Here is what President Bush told the world during his 2003 State of the Union Address about the rationale behind his response to intelligence data suggesting continued Iraqi development of WMD:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

2. Here is Mr. Bush's remarks related to Iraqi nuclear weapons capabilities from his infamous Cincinnati speech of October 7, 2002:

"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists."

Not much here, it seems. But additionally, I ask you, can you cite an UNMOVIC, British, French, German or U.S. intelligence report that contradicts these statements?

3. What is your point here? Bush never said that going to war with Iraq had anything directly to do with fighting Al Qaeda, though he did outline known intelligence regarding Iraqi/Al Qaeda connections in the Cincinnati speech. Now,
here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544377.shtml)is Mr. Bush's March 17, 2003 speech to the world outlining why military action should be taken against Iraq. A crisp Franklin to anyone who can find the words "Al Qaeda". In fact, how about 10 Franklins to anyone who can find in this speech any of these strawmen.

That's what I thought.

There are plenty of good arguments as to why the Iraq war was the wrong strategic and/or military move. Which makes it more the pity that strawmen are employed against it.

I think K Harris is wrong for another reason. Human altruism possibly evolved through the mechanism of reciprocal altruism--a series of prisoner dilemmas. With this in mind, it's quite clear that the Republicans "defect" all the time. Why should the Democrats "cooperate" in response? A good rule of thumb is that, all things being equal, "tit for tat" is an effective strategy. (I know: all things aren't equal in electoral politics.)

To enlarge on MaB's point, it depends on the offense. The fact that the Republicans impeached Clinton for what he did---even their strongest argument, perjury (not sex) is a joke, all things considered---is so offensive, not to retaliate doesn't seem very wise. Now we have a president who (unlike Clinton) definitely lied about a matter of state---and if you read what Cheney said last weekend on TV, the prevarication is thoroughly unapologetic and knows no bounds.

Sorry for the double post...

I think K Harris is wrong for another reason. Human altruism possibly evolved through the mechanism of reciprocal altruism--a series of prisoner dilemmas. With this in mind, it's quite clear that the Republicans "defect" all the time. Why should the Democrats "cooperate" in response? A good rule of thumb is that, all things being equal, "tit for tat" is an effective strategy. (I know: all things aren't equal in electoral politics.)

To enlarge on MaB's point, it depends on the offense. The fact that the Republicans impeached Clinton for what he did---even their strongest argument, perjury (not sex) is a joke, all things considered---is so offensive, not to retaliate doesn't seem very wise. Now we have a president who (unlike Clinton) definitely lied about a matter of state---and if you read what Cheney said last weekend on TV, the prevarication is thoroughly unapologetic and knows no bounds.

Tongue Boy wrote:

"'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?'" Meaningless. You have to make *some* kind of estimate of who the terrorists are, and what their intentions are. If not, Bush could nuke Kansas and claim that Kansas was a terrorist state.

"'Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites.'"

But that's just evidence that the IAEA was *effective*.

"'That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.'"

I don't know about *this* particular defector, but (a) defector testimonials are notoriously unrealiable and must be treated with care, (b) at least one Iraqi (captured or defector, I don't remember) had his words signficantly distorted by the administration, (c) one defector's testimony alone is very weak evidence, (d) "nuclear *program*"---program is a weasel word, since almost anything could be construed as a nuclear *program*.

"'Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.'"

Big deal. Anyone who know the history of nuclear weapons development knows the real obstacle is the industrial plant needed to either enrich uranium or produce plutonium. Having some very smart guys who know *how* to build the nukes isn't the obstacle.

"'Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.'" Uh huh. Just like all those photos Powell used in his UN speech.

"'Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.'" Outright deception. Data now in the public record indicate that these tubes almost certainly were for rocket launchers. Either the administration was lying through its teeth, or their incompetence in matters of military intelligence is truly stunning.

"'If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.'"

But, as I mentioned before, that puts the cart before the horse. The real difficulty is getting ahold of the enriched uranium, not building a bomb once you have it.

"'And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America.'" Not so clear. *Maybe* he could blackmail effectively. But the US could counterthreaten that it would turn Bagdad into a parking lot if he used his nuke. There's nothing in Hussein's actual actions to think he's any less rational than any other *state* actor in this regard.

"'And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.' Uh huh. Those same terrorists who considered Hussein to be a secularist infidel?

"Bush never said that going to war with Iraq had anything directly to do with fighting Al Qaeda..." Uh, have you actually been listening to Bush's speeches? He constantly conflates fighting Iraq with fighting terrorism. While he might not come out directly and say "Iraq was behind Al Qaeda," he doesn't have to in order to shape public opinion---all he has to do is make vague references, interlace references, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/opinion/16SAND.html

Veiled and Worried in Baghdad
By LAUREN SANDLER

BAGHDAD, Iraq

A single word is on the tight, pencil-lined lips of women here. You'll hear it spoken over lunch at a women's leadership conference in a restaurant off busy Al Nidal Street, in a shade-darkened beauty shop in upscale Mansour, in the ramshackle ghettos of Sadr City. The word is "himaya," or security. With an intensity reminiscent of how they feared Saddam Hussein, women now fear the abduction, rape and murder that have become rampant here since his regime fell. Life for Iraqi women has been reduced to one need that must be met before anything else can happen.

"Under Saddam we could drive, we could walk down the street until two in the morning," a young designer told me as she bounced her 4-year-old daughter on her lap. "Who would have thought the Americans could have made it worse for women? This is liberation?"

In their palace surrounded by armed soldiers, officials from the occupying forces talk about democracy. But in the same cool marble rooms, when one mentions the fears of the majority of Iraq's population, one can hear a representative of the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees the police, say, "We don't do women." What they don't seem to realize is that you can't do democracy if you don't do women....

Brad DeLong writes, "Can you imagine what all the guys who say I am being "shrill" here would have said had Bill Clinton claimed that:

--Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were a clear and present danger to the United States.

--Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program and could have an atom bomb within a year.

--Iraq had close ties with Al-Qaeda.

Had Clinton claimed these, attacked Iraq, and been wrong? Can you imagine?"

Brad, he blew up a privately owned pharmaceutical plant, and claimed it made chemical weapons, right after lying in his Grand Jury testimony, for crying out loud! Any reasonable reading of blowing up a privately owned pharmaceutical plant, and then not providing any compensation at all (including no effort to replace the destroyed drug production) would be as an act of international terrorism.

And you also don't seem to remember that he bombed the h@ll out of Iraq on December 16, 1998, on the very night before the House considered impeachment proceedings.

Of course, **Bill Clinton** did it--on the night before impeachment proceedings--because of all the WMD that Iraq possessed. (Thank G@d that brilliant man was able to destroy them all. :-/ Oy, vey!)

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/17/impeachment/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike"

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 United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Seriously, Brad, you seem to have a very good head on your shoulders EXCEPT when you talk politics. How do you think what Bill Clinton did bombing the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, and his bombing Iraq (on the eve of impeachment deliberations in the House) is very different from what G.W. Bush has done in Iraq?