On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:55:37 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims
to the validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that
*Bush* believed the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this
point in the game, I certainly would question the validity of the
intelligence as do many others.

It may have been the intelligence process was flawed. I found these
articles interesting.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...512fa_fact#top

I found the following interesting:

Capturing the 'Ace of Spades'
By Cal Thomas
Published December 17, 2003


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


The ultimate weapon of mass destruction has been captured in Iraq. Saddam
Hussein was found hiding in a "hole in the ground," like the rat he is, in a
farmhouse on the outskirts of Tikrit. His end came not as a self-styled heroic
leader of millions, but as a wimp who resembled a bedraggled homeless man,
unable to muster the nerve to take his own life with the gun on his hip.
The arrest of Saddam is a triumph for the long-suffering Iraqi people and,
depending on the reaction of Iraqis and whether insurgents can be defeated, it
could be the ultimate triumph of the Bush administration's policy of
pre-emption.
The critics -- political and journalistic -- who said the administration's
efforts were failing have been proved wrong. These would include not only the
United Nations, but also France and Germany and much of the liberal media
establishment, especially the virulently anti-Bush and anti-American British
press.
Critics of American intelligence were also wrong. This was classic police
work as U.S. forces slowly and systematically interviewed people who provided
pieces of information that led to other interviews and ever-closer steps toward
their objective.
The immediate debate will be over how to bring Saddam to justice. For
political reasons, he will probably be tried in an Iraqi court and not a
Nuremberg-type tribunal. Some will call for a trial before a "world court."
Given the weakness of the Arab nations and much of the rest of the world and the
reluctance of most European countries to confront Saddam when he held power, it
is unlikely they could muster the fortitude necessary to give Saddam his just
deserts.
France and Germany must be nervous about what a trial could reveal about
their complicity in enabling Saddam for three decades. American companies and
politicians might also be concerned because their policies and decisions could
also be made public. Good. Embarrassment should not be a reason for any
cover-up. Like those in the West who enabled the Soviet Union for seven decades
and provided gas and armaments for Adolf Hitler's Germany, whoever helped Saddam
in his murderous ways should be exposed to the light of public accountability.
As important as the capture of Saddam Hussein is, the war against terror is
far from over. President Bush said as much in a statement from the White House
on Sunday. He again declared this is a different kind of war, and he reminded
Americans it will continue to be conducted "capture by capture, cell by cell and
victory by victory." The president wisely warned the public Saddam's arrest
"does not mean the end of violence in Iraq." Evil dies hard.
The hatred of all things Western, Jewish, Christian and modern is deep
throughout much of the Middle East. Children are taught to hate before they
learn to walk. The Arab and Palestinian media are packed with anger and
vituperation against the United States and the West. The danger, though, is to
think evil is incarnated in a single leader. Saddam Hussein is just one of many
tyrants who are threats to the freedom and existence of all humankind. Just as
other mass murderers rose to power after Hitler's demise, so, too, will new
tyrants step forward to inherit Saddam's bloody mantle.
Politically, Saddam's capture creates a predicament for the Democratic
presidential candidates. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said
Howard Dean "has gotten smaller" and is "the big loser." Mr. Dean has been
sharply, even personally, critical of the president for his Iraq policy and the
"failure" to find Saddam. Only Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, can
claim a measure of support for the administration's Iraq policy, but it is
doubtful he will receive a political boost.
The man who has the most to worry about now -- aside from Saddam Hussein,
who it is hoped will be executed after he is confronted by relatives of those he
tortured, raped and murdered -- is Osama bin Laden. The steps he hears may not
be millions marching to his drumbeat, but the boots of American soldiers headed
toward whatever hole he has dug for himself.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.


The value of persistence
By Tony Blankley
Published December 17, 2003

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

So, what does the capture of Saddam Hussein mean for Iraq, America, Howard
Dean and the price of tea in China? The specialists came out of their spider
holes in Washington and elsewhere to start weaving their intricate webs of
analysis. For allegedly thoughtful people, it is wondrous how little thought
they needed to precede commentary. By about 9 a.m. Sunday, every network had
panels of these specialists explaining this remarkable event so that even we
simple-minded non area specialists could know for certain what the future would
hold.
There were some differences of opinion. But, by and large, those
specialists who one suspects were against the war in the first place saw dark
implications for America and President Bush. For them, the man who 12 hours
before was our greatest danger, was, by, say noon Sunday, a meaningless figure
who might not know anything much about Iraq. For these specialists, the world
had already passed Saddam by -- and in fact, the resistance was only likely to
increase. Pro-war specialists were more hopeful.
Obviously, it is too soon for empirical, scientific measurement of the
event's impact. Even the early polls mean little. The polls taken of Americans
during the day on Sunday couldn't help but capture a more positive public view
of Mr. Bush. Whether that uptick (or, arguably, surge) will weather the
following weeks and months of typically rough press coverage, who can know.
Likewise, whether Saddam cooperates and gives us vital information or not is --
at this early point -- still unknown even to Saddam himself. After all, it is in
the nature of professional interrogation to elicit useful information from
unwilling subjects. We can't know the future. But we can assess the event
itself, for its inherent nature.
In that regard, Saddam's arrest is a singular moment of perceived justice.
Except for the most devoted Saddam loyalists amongst his Iraqi fellow tribesmen
and Euro-American left-wing Bushophobes, the fact that this awful mass killer
will face the consequences of his actions in a court of law is a deeply
heartening assurance that the world is not completely unjust. We should not
underestimate the significance of this fact. In a world filled with daily
evidence that wickedness and brutality usually rewards people far more than
modesty and charity, the idea of justice accomplished can be very powerful. We
are, after all, homo sapiens -- thinking men. Ideas matter. The Soviet Union,
with all its nuclear weapons, tanks and millions of soldiers, collapsed when the
idea took hold of them that their system couldn't compete.
Not since the Nazi leadership was shipped off to Nuremberg has so major a
world villain been brought to justice. This fact makes the Iraq war a far better
thing than it was. Whether or not it turns out a geo-strategic success, the
Iraqi war has accomplished something very good -- it has delivered a deeply
deserved and yearned for justice. Howard Dean's line -- that it was the wrong
war at the wrong time -- has lost its thundering righteousness. Anyone with a
sense of justice and decency would be embarrassed to continue reciting that line
after Sunday morning. On Monday, Mr. Dean continued to thunder away. But even if
one agrees with his technical analysis (such as it may be), the moral quotient
has been subtracted from his message -- and his persona. Either he doesn't fully
believe what he continues to say, or, if he does, we must think less of him for
it.
The other useful idea that Saddam's arrest has presented the world is that
America cannot be stopped. By our sheer magnitude and organized persistence, we
will eventually find all enemies and accomplish all objectives. The Romans
sometimes were opposed by better generals and equally courageous warriors. The
odd legion might even be massacred. But they maintained a Roman Peace for half a
millennium by the perceived certainty of their ultimate success. Finding one rat
in a hole in the ground in the middle of a vast land cannot help but be a vastly
dispiriting fact to many of our current enemies.
Thus Saddam's arrest discloses to the world that America is both an
instrument for exemplary human justice and a remorseless, inevitably successful
enemy if we are opposed. That's not a bad day's work for the 4th Armored
Infantry Division.



Quagmire on their faces
By Thomas Sowell
Published December 17, 2003

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

The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news to virtually everyone, except
those who have been looking for a quagmire in Iraq from Day One. Back when the
war was just getting under way last spring, a dust storm that temporarily
stopped the American troops advancing toward Baghdad was loudly proclaimed as a
quagmire by some media deep thinkers.
With all the complaints about what has not yet been done in Iraq, we need to
step back and think about the fact that less than a year has elapsed since the
war began. This should be in the Guinness Book of World Records as the shortest
quagmire in history.
Nothing is easier than to sit on the sidelines and demand there be a "plan"
showing what will be done when and how -- as if wars can be run on a timetable,
like a railroad. Even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, there is still a war
going on in Iraq -- a terrorist war fought by both outsiders and members of the
murderous old regime who think they can drive us out by making the country too
hot for us.
Like a baseball game, wars are not over until they are over. Wars don't run
on a clock like football. No previous generation was so hopelessly unrealistic
that this had to be explained to them.
The capture of Saddam Hussein should signal to both the terrorists and the
Iraqi people alike that the old regime is not coming back. Maybe that will save
some American lives.
What should be done with Saddam Hussein? For reasons unknown, the American
occupation authorities have suspended the death penalty in Iraq. But it would be
an abomination and a mockery if this man were allowed to live, after all his
mass killings of innocent civilians, including women and children.
It can only be hoped the trial and punishment of Saddam Hussein will be left
in the hands of the new Iraqi authorities, and that they have not bought into
the weak-kneed squeamishness that has saved so many murderers in the United
States and still more so in Europe.
The last thing we need is an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein.
Do we really want the Libyans or the Cubans playing international politics with
this? Do we want some French judge to sentence Saddam to so many hours of
community service?
For that matter, do we even want American laws applied in a country with
such wholly different traditions? Certainly we do not need some lawyer like
Johnnie Cochran to obfuscate the issues or -- heaven help us -- a 5-4 decision
by our Supreme Court, after years of innumerable appeals.
Since stoning people to death is a tradition in parts of the Middle East,
that might be the most appropriate way to execute Saddam Hussein.
If each relative of someone murdered by Saddam were allowed to throw a
stone, the line might stretch back for miles. Television pictures of that line,
broadcast throughout the Arab world, could completely undermine any notion that
this is just an American vendetta against Muslims.
By the time the last person in line got a chance to throw his stone, Saddam
would probably already be dead. But it could still be a catharsis for those who
could feel they had done something to avenge their loved ones.
Presiding over a matter of this magnitude and applying traditional laws and
practices could help establish the credibility of the new Iraqi authorities. To
our inevitable critics in Europe and elsewhere, we could say: "This is not the
American way of doing things. But this is the Iraqis' country."
Moreover, some of our troops might start packing up while we were saying it.
We don't need to stay there any longer than is necessary for the internal
security of the country.
The worst thing we can do is bring in an international army of occupation.
The United Nations has already cut and run after the recent terrorist attacks in
Iraq. That is par for the course for the U.N.
There is something about international operations that attracts the
intelligentsia like a moth to a flame. But it has been known for centuries that
too many cooks spoil the broth -- and power in the hands of people who are
accountable to no one is still a formula for disaster.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Dean campaign calamity
By Martin L. Gross
Published December 17, 2003

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

The capture of Saddam Hussein was magnificent news for America, for all in
the world who value freedom, and exceedingly bad news for the Democratic Party
and its leading exponent of defeat, former Gov. Howard Dean.
Ever since the anti-Americans took over the machinery of the Democratic
Party with George McGovern's disastrous campaign of 1972, the Democrats have
always been in the forefront of inaction and defeatism in world affairs,
culminating this year in the momentum of Howard Dean with his messages of fear
and antiwar propaganda. Our joint victories in Afghanistan and Iraq trouble
those like him who would rather see America lose, and thus advance anarchy and
tyranny in the world.
Mr. Dean has based his campaign on defeatism, on the theory America had best
leave the world to its most negative and destructive instincts, while President
Bush has brought the fight against Muslim extremism to its heightened need --
war against those who would enslave others, whether through secular murder or
religious intolerance.
Mr. Dean represents weakness and shallow opportunism in American politics,
yet he supposedly has the momentum that gives him a shot at the White House. His
goal is to embarrass America, to heighten the fears and tribulations of America
on the loss of every one of its sons and daughters fighting overseas --
culminating in our abandonment of Iraq.
Now that will surely not happen as America's goals are redefined and
strengthened by the capture of Saddam Hussein and by the exultation of the Iraqi
people at that happy event.
If the Democrats have even a vestige of political sanity left, they will
realize they are on the wrong side of history and will abandon Howard Dean as
swiftly as the Iraqis will now abandon Saddam and his evil memory. The Democrats
need to turn to someone with greater pro-American instincts, perhaps Joe
Lieberman or to the former minority leader, Richard Gephardt -- even though both
prostituted themselves by imitating Mr. Dean in seeming to gloat over American
difficulties in Iraq.
Of course, this does not mean that if the Democrats have the good sense to
dump Mr. Dean, who has been foremost in giving comfort to the enemy, that they
will take the White House. Good Americans, who value freedom and its spread
around the world, know action in face of danger is the best guarantee that one
day America will be surrounded by free people, and not by enemies, and they will
vote that conviction.
In this difficult world, we may be entering an era in which the Democrats --
through their own defeatism -- will gain an irreplaceable reputation for
cowardice and anti-Americanism. If they refuse to dump Howard Dean, they may be
signing their own fate as a retrogressive, unneeded force in American politics.

Martin L. Gross, the author of several New York Times best sellers on
American politics, and a frequent contributor to these pages, is a former
official of the Democratic Party.


Constitutional sleuthing
By Walter Williams
Published December 17, 2003

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

I would like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of
detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence.
The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander
Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the Constitution.
In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: "The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and
indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as
war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of
taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several
States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal
order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers
of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the states
are few and defined, we would describe today's America.
Was Madison just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress?
Before making our judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly
misinformed Americans.
In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of
Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither the
purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity
require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In 1854,
President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill,
saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity,"
adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the
spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the
Union of these States is founded."
President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally
hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in
the late 1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an
appropriation in the Constitution."
Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they
can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and
previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority
for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I don't believe
in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the Constitution, looking to see
whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on
bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and
thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.
Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might
interpret as a blank check authorization -- the "general welfare clause." Then I
investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general welfare
clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to
provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The
Constitution's father, James Madison said: "With respect to the two words
'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of
powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would
be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of
proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first
is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only
constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's
today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's
Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or
president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and
feathered.

Walter Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD