Considerettes

Daniel Pipes has a thoughtful article that, while ultimately being a piece that describes why Europe is balking at the prospect of war, gives us a very good history of appeasement in the 20th century, and why sometimes it works and sometimes it’s disastrous. And why this time it would be the latter.

Once again, a good lesson in history trumps Bush-as-Hitler protest signs.

And now, from the same world body that brought us a Libyan presiding over a human rights commission, we now have Iraq about to get its turn presiding over the UN’s Conference on Disarmament. Apparently, the UN understands what a PR fiasco this is. According to WorldNetDaily, Kofi Annan has previously has been bolstering this conference as the place he hopes will ultimately deal with all major disarmament issues, but now UN spokesman Farhan Haq is downplaying the committee. “Since it’s not exactly a body that has been meeting to deal with issues substantively for several years, the main worry is not about a procedural issue such as who is the chair; it’s about what it can do,” he said. That’s PR, plain and simple; on one side investing great hope in a conference’s work, while defending an oxymoron by suggesting it’s a bureaucracy looking for a direction (after 25 years of existence).

This is a classic example of blind, liberal, value-free “fairness”. Fairness for the sake of fairness, and without regard for suitability, and afraid of making judgements because it’s afraid of setting standards. It appeals to (and appeases) the lowest common denominator, and thus that’s exactly what it gets. And all this mushy policy is attached to a conference that doesn’t know what to do. Thanks so much, “United” Nations.

James Taranto, on today’s “Best of the Web Today” column, reminds us of recent history:

It’s a misconception that the decision now facing America and the U.N. is whether to go to war with Iraq. The U.S. and the U.N. are already at war with Iraq, and they have been for 12 years. There was no surrender or peace treaty that ended the Gulf War; instead, the allies accepted a ceasefire predicated upon Iraq’s compliance with a series of demands, embodied in various U.N. resolutions, concerning disarmament, human rights, sanctions, reparations to Kuwait, repatriation of war criminals, etc. These restrictions are supposed to be temporary: Baghdad’s compliance was to restore both peace and Iraq’s sovereignty.

This speaks directly to the smear by some anti-war pundits that Bush Jr. is trying to exact revenge on Hussein for thumbing his nose at Bush Sr.’s conditions. This is further pointed out each time there’s an attack on coalition forces patrolling the no-fly zones. We’re still at war, folks. And the only reason we are is that Hussein won’t comply with the conditions of the ceasefire.

So, if you’re anti-war, you’re 12 years too late. Get out of the way and let the good guys enforce the peace the way it was agreed it would be done by the international community, even if the international community has forgotten what they decided last year (or last decade), and even if it has to be done by force. (And no, that’s not an oxymoron. A peace or ceasefire treaty has to have teeth or it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.)

UN Weapons Inspections: Day 62: I heard a great observation on the Fox News Channel over the weekend. In typical Fox “fair and balanced” fashion, Rita Cosby had two guests on at the same time, one who believed that war should be an option and one that didn’t. The fellow who supported the Bush administration said that weapons inspections, given the anti-war crowd’s reasoning, were a catch-22. If weapons are not found, they’d say we shouldn’t go in. If weapons were found, they’d say we should continue inspections. His point was similar to Condoleezza Rice’s point last week; the method by which a country should disarm is very well established by many countries, notable those of the former Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein is not following that pattern.

In fact, today we find out more details from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that Hussein is sabotaging the whole effort by buying off inspectors, and otherwise getting spies into the mix that tip off the Iraqis as to what the next site to be inspected will be. Additionally, Iraq is still playing a shell game with weapons, moving them constantly so that intelligence as to where they’ve been hidden has to be incredibly current to be of any use. (The link above goes to today’s World Tribune story, but the full text of Wolfowitz’s speech, given last Thursday to the Council on Foreign Relations is here.)

Hans Blix has also been knocking the Iraqis. “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it, ” he said today. Inspectors have not been told about the fate of biological weapons (like VX nerve gas and anthras), or been allowed to use a reconnaissance plane to better hut for weapons, or talked privately with scientists.

This, then, is the way out of the catch-22. In order for the results of weapons inspections to be of any use, the process must be trustworthy. If it isn’t, due to manipulation by Hussein, that is a material breach of the UN resolution saying that inspections must be unhindered. Sabotage, shell-game strategies and stonewalling are hindrances.

The evidence continues to mount, but the anti-war crowd insists that we can’t go in because Saddam has hidden his weapons so well.

Global Warming Update: Here in Georgia the temps were in the low single-digits last night, and as late as 9am it still hadn’t broken 10 degrees where I am. Across the South, the story was the same; record lows being broken going as far back as 1940.

Required reading: “Why We Know Iraq is Lying”, by Condoleezza Rice. The “Reader’s Digest” version of the smoking gun. Anti-war protestors and UN member states can no longer say that the Bush administration hasn’t made the case. Key paragraph:

There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites, answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction. The critical common elements of these efforts include a high-level political commitment to disarm, national initiatives to dismantle weapons programs, and full cooperation and transparency.

The article goes into specifics. Enjoy.

(The NY Times requires free registration in order to read their articles on-line.)

Here’s another Ann Coulter piece that is very instructive. It’s one of those “turnabout” arguments, where an attempt is made to show that the prevailing conventional wisdom on a particular topic is in fact completely upside-down. I recall a local Atlanta radio talk show host of the liberal persuasion try to make the case that political correctness came from the conservatives (ignoring, conveniently, that it began in liberal academia). That case couldn’t be made, but in Coulter’s piece, she has history and statistics on her side as she shows that it’s more the Democrats that have been reluctant about removing racism. Further, all the liberal pundits that equate alumni or sports preferences in university admission with race preferences conveniently ignore how we fought a Civil War partially over race issues, or that the Supreme Court has said that the “equal protection” clause in the constitution does apply to race (not athletic ability or musical talent), or that a (Republican) president had to force a (Democrat) governor to allow integration in schools.

It’s a great history review for those who’ve forgotten it.

I wonder if those folks from “We The People” would be willing to defend against an onslaught that has killed over 42 million in this country alone (a whole lot more than Bush ever has or will)? I speak, of course, of abortion on this 30th anniversary of the rewriting of the Constitution that was Roe v. Wade. This “judicial legislation” has killed far, far more people than any dictator, fascist or communist you can name. And today Democrats and liberals in general are trotting out the same tired and misleading catch-phrases that their constituents just eat up.

From Rep. Dick Gephardt: “There is nothing moral in strong-arming a personal belief, and there is nothing moral to a presidency that imposes personal morality through acts of government power.” Murder is not a “personal” morality. It most certainly involves at least two people, only one of whom gets a vote. That’s the real imposition of moral values.

From Sen. John Edwards: “The right to choose is an essential ingredient to realize the full equality of America.” Of course, he means that the right to kill one’s child is sacrosanct while other rights to choose, like where to educate one’s child, must not be given to the parents. Isn’t it obvious from his statement? Of course not, because admitting that would show the hypocracy inherent in those two positions.

From Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women: “…we will not be the generation that both won and lost reproductive rights in our lifetime.” Again, we’re seeing a very general phrase being used to mean something very specific, and hoping no one notices. “Reproductive rights” is her codephrase for “abortion”, but those rights begin at a point much earlier than Ms. Gandy recognizes. If you don’t want to get pregnant, there’s still a 100% effective means of insuring that. (And of course, that’s another choice liberals don’t want presented either.)

Being pro-abortion is a postion that cannot be honestly defended, and that tradition is being carried on faithfully. Consider that.

See also: My essay, “Just One Question About Abortion”.

Wanna volunteer for the Iraqi defense force? A number of folks are with a group called “We The People”. They, a hundred or so communists from the Romanian Workers Party and an eclectic mix of other countries are shipping out to become Saddam’s human shields. They bristle, of course, at the suggestion that they’re essentially working for Hussein. Still, the Baghdad government is welcoming them with open arms, since it beats having to kidnap Westerners or getting off a lucky shot and taking down a British air force pilot. Saves time and money for Saddam, while boosting his PR campaign. And somehow this isn’t working for him?

Well, the head of “We The People”, Ken Nichols, says that, no, he’s not working for Saddam because we gave him his biological weapons in the first place. Now there’s a non-sequiter if there ever was one. If we gave him those weapons, that doesn’t negate the treaty he signed to get rid of them. That has nothing at all to do with people going overseas with the intention of giving their lives for a murderous dictator. Regardless of the origin of his weapons, going there to promote his cause is “working for him”. This is a pro-Saddam move, plain and simple.

It’s also demonstrably an anti-American move as well. Nichols goes on to say that George W. Bush is the biggest threat to world security at this time, not Hussein. I guess I’d really like to know what his definition of “world security” is. Sounds like a new war joke in the making. “Hey, what’s the difference between Bush and Hussein? One kills his own people, ignores treaties he’s signed, shoots at UN-sanctioned patrols, won’t explain where all his VX nerve gas went and cavorts with Al-Qaeda terrorists…and the other is a threat to world security.”

But wait, there’s more! Nichols started this group partially in “penance” for his participation in the Gulf War. He’s so sorry and beside himself over having liberated a country and returning stability to the region, that he’s going to make up for it by protecting the dictator that overran Kuwait in an attempt to gain more power for himself by controlling more oil fields (Saddam being the actual “Blood for Oil” guy). Perhaps Nichols ought to take his alleged “penance” all the way, and fight in the Iraqi Republican Guard to retake Kuwait, since he’s so sorry for kicking Saddam out of there.

This is not just blindly anti-war, it’s overtly anti-American, plainly pro-Saddam, and completely unjustifiable.

Would you vote to have a member of the Taliban government head a international group on reducing terrorism? Or how about making a Lybian head of a human rights comission? Preposterous? Well, the first one might be, but the second one has happened, courtesy of that bulwark of sanity, the United Nations. Of course, it’s not all that strange given that Cuba, the Sudan and Syria have seats on the commission as well.

And still there are those that think this body should speak for the world.