Hillary Tougher Talk on Iran than Commander in Chief

Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton.  When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally.  During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq.  She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength.  I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.

Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt.  Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities.  President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year.  To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel.  One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.

Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran.  Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.

Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs:  Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government

Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due.  Hillary made the right comments today about Iran.  The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009.  Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House.  Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best.  Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears. 

More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide.  We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran.  Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled.  The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces.  We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran.  Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority.  Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.

Hillary-Hsu Photo Flap Smears Security Crew

In their eagerness to contend that Hillary Clinton knew about Norman Hsu's status as a fugitive evading a warrant for grand theft in California before accepting $850,000 he collected through fundraising efforts, conservatives and Democratic opponents are unfairly and inaccurately maligning the work of the United States Secret Service.

In a Cybercast News Service article today titled, "Clinton Campaign Denies Secret Service Vetting of Fugitive," writer Fred Lucas argued that Hillary Clinton must have known about Hsu's fugitive status for one simple reason: the Secret Service performs background checks of everyone who comes in contact with the former first lady. CNS interviewed law enforcement "experts" who made several statements that, if true, would establish a Clinton conspiracy in which Hillary's campaign staff or Hillary herself were ordering the Secret Service to ignore an outstanding criminal warrant to protect Senator Clinton from embarrassment. The CNS article contained a number of factual errors put forth by the so-called experts who contributed to the story.

The article opened by stating the contention that since Norman Hsu has been seen in news photographs standing next to Hillary at fundraising events, he must have been "vetted" by the Secret Service. According to the first "expert" cited by CNS:

"I would absolutely be shocked if the protective intelligence division of the Secret Service was not fully aware of Mr. Hsu's status as a fugitive," Carl Rowan, a federal agent with both the FBI and the U.S. Marshalls for a decade, said in an interview. Rowan, now president of Securitas, a private security firm, said he has worked closely with the U.S. Secret Service in the past.

"It is standard operating procedure to run the names and Social Security numbers of anyone who will be close to the protectee," Rowan continued. "Besides the safety concerns, the Secret Service works hard to avoid embarrassing situations for the protectee."

Rowan claimed to have worked closely with the Secret Service during his ten year federal career split between two agencies, but his contention that the Secret Service "works hard to avoid embarrassing situations for the protectee" was overstated and not applicable to the Hsu donations debacle.

The Secret Service provides physical security by employing a number of protective measures, all of which are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, thus allowing a protectee to go about their business in a safe environment. Of course, unobtrusive becomes unrealistic when it comes to the security surrounding a sitting president or vice president, but even in that high threat environment a protectee still retains ample opportunity for embarrassing himself or herself. Rowan's contention is simply false from an operational perspective. The Secret Service is there to provide a secure environment but allows a protectee to engage in personal or political behavior that could be embarrassing as long as that behavior does not compromise the safety of the protectee.

The media criticized the Secret Service years ago when President Bush's twin daughters were caught by local police in Texas while drinking underage and using fake identification when ordering drinks. The criticisms then, as now, were focused on the perception that agents failed to protect the daughters from drinking underage and the ensuing embarrassment to the president and first lady. However, the Secret Service fulfilled its role in providing a secure environment and safely transporting the daughters home after their escapade to face the ire of their father and a media firestorm. The family suffered ample embarrassment due to the daughters' behavior, and it was not the Secret Service's duty to prevent the daughters from doing something that could lead to embarrassment.

Likewise, if the Secret Service was mandated to help a protectee avoid potential embarrassment, agents never would have allowed candidate Michael Dukakis to be photographed in a tank, or John Kerry to ski with news photographers in Idaho, where he promptly fell and berated his security detail with ample profanity for getting in his way. The Secret Service would surely never have allowed then-President Bill Clinton to "entertain" Monica Lewinsky anywhere, especially not in the Oval Office. The Secret Service does its job remarkably well, and the result is that protectees operate in an environment where they are perfectly safe enough to occasionally make fools of themselves.

CNS next cited another "expert":

"There are all kinds of levels of background checks that would make law enforcement raise their eyebrows," said Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

"I'm sure the Secret Service knew he was a wanted felon fugitive. What a scandal it would be if they didn't warn a president or first lady they were standing next to a convicted felon," he added.

It's standard operating procedure to check the Social Security number and date of birth of anyone who is going to be in a room with the president or first lady, Deeds said.

"If the Secret Service did not do the basic due-diligence check, then the questions are even more pointed," said Deeds. "Who ordered them not to do it and why? Was the Clinton campaign, and by extension the Democrat fundraising machine, so focused on money that they would violate basic security protocol?"

Deeds, like Rowan, may have some association with law enforcement, but apparently insufficient to have obtained accurate information about the Secret Service. It is entirely possible that the Secret Service had no idea that Hsu was a fugitive in a financial crime case, and it is also possible that a high level donor such as Hsu could be photographed next to Hillary Clinton without having been name checked. Since those two possibilities are separate issues, we will address them individually.

First we will tackle Deeds' inaccurate statement that the Social Security and date of birth of everyone who will be in the room with Hillary Clinton is checked. Imagine this scenario: Hillary Clinton will make a campaign appearance at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. The arena seats approximately 18,000, and Hillary's campaign staff estimates that 8,000 free tickets have been distributed for the event. Hillary will, as Deeds contended, "be in a room" with this crowd of 8,000, but did her campaign staff record the name, date of birth, and social security number of every person who received a free ticket to the Staples Center event? No, because the event was free and open to anyone who wanted a ticket. Without that information, can the Secret Service perform name checks for everyone who will "be in a room" with Hillary during that event? The answer is obvious.

It is precisely because such name checks cannot be conducted for large crowds that those wishing to attend must pass through metal detectors and purse/bag screening before they can "be in a room" with Hillary. The environment for the protectee is safe of weapons and the Secret Service can provide close personal protection. As Hillary shakes hands with the crowd, photographs are routinely taken, thus on any given day her picture is taken with many voters or donors without providing their personal identifying information. Hillary is safe, but certainly unaware of the criminal records of the 8,000 in attendance.

The second inaccuracy set forth by Deeds and further supported by another "expert" quoted by CNS was the notion that Hillary's staff could have ordered the Secret Service not to perform a name check on Hsu (or anyone else), and that the more likely explanation was that the Secret Service knew Hsu was a fugitive but Hillary's staff told agents to ignore the outstanding warrant. This, according to CNS and the "experts" cited, is the only conceivable way that a fugitive who donated $850,000 could be photographed standing next to Hillary. This is how CNS's third expert stated it:

Clinton critic Gary Aldrich - an FBI agent for 26 years who was assigned from 1990 to 1995 to the White House during both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations to conduct background checks - thinks the Secret Service must have told someone on the campaign staff about the shady past of certain donors.

"Fundraising events, you don't want to be melees, so the guest list is carefully scrutinized," Aldrich told Cybercast News Service.

"It's likely the Secret Service would see there was a warrant for someone's arrest, and go to the point person. They may have been told to disregard the warrant. The Secret Service wouldn't tell the candidate, but the handlers, so she (Clinton) would have plausible deniability," he added.

Aldrich clearly knows very little about the Secret Service despite his assignment at the White House in the 1990's. Many people volunteer to work for political campaigns, usually as local volunteers. When their volunteer duties might bring them in proximity to a protectee like Hillary, perhaps as a driver of a staff car in a motorcade, the Secret Service demands personal identifying information and performs standard name checks. If a volunteer is found to have a criminal history that suggests a potential security risk, that volunteer is rejected and the Secret Service advises the permanent political staff to find another volunteer. The political staff cannot override the rejection.

The same principle applies to donors or celebrities who will be in close contact, such as meeting in small groups, with Hillary. If the Secret Service, in performing name checks for such meetings discovered that a potential guest was the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant, the agency would contact the jurisdiction that issued the warrant, verify that it is a currently valid warrant, and notify that jurisdiction of the subject's location. Aldrich, a known Clinton critic, also ignored the possibility that the state of California may have been unwilling to extradite Hsu. It is possible, if a name check was performed for Hsu, that the Secret Service contacted California officials, established that the warrant for Hsu was valid, but also learned that California would not extradite Hsu for a financial crime as opposed to a violent crime.

Not all local law enforcement agencies have the resources or legal authority to extradite fugitives, especially non-violent fugitives, from other states or Washington, DC. In that circumstance, the Secret Service would only be concerned with whether Hsu posed a safety risk to Hillary, which he clearly did not, and allow him access as requested by her staff. Unless California was willing to extradite, the Secret Service could not request that local police take Hsu into custody.

Conservative Clinton critics have seized upon the photos of Hsu standing with Hillary as proof positive that either she or the Secret Service, or both, knew about his warrant and did nothing about it either out of greed for campaign donations or a desire to avoid embarrassing a protectee. In the Hsu donation situation, however, there are more than enough plausible explanations to establish reasonable doubt that Hillary, her staff, or the Secret Service were aware of the outstanding warrant for Hsu. Best-selling fiction author Vince Flynn and the Clint Eastwood action thriller In the Line of Fire both offered plausible scenarios in which wealthy campaign donors get close to a protectee without raising red flags with the political staff or security detail. Political staff members have far too much freedom to personally vouch for visitors, which under some circumstances can bypass the Secret Service altogether. That was the weak link in security that Vince Flynn captured effectively in his novel Transfer of Power. A similar tactic is employed by John Malkovich's character in the film In the Line of Fire.

Rather than launching an opportunistic attack on Hillary Clinton by maligning the integrity and professionalism of the Secret Service, CNS should have more thoroughly researched the working relationships between a protectee's staff and security detail and the very different roles each plays. A political staff concerns itself with avoiding embarrassment, and Hillary's staff has vowed to be more proactive in checking the backgrounds of significant donors. The security detail concerns itself with keeping a protectee safe from harm, not embarrassment. Not surprisingly, the Secret Service declined to comment to CNS on the Hsu situation, as it is a political rather than security matter.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton Norman Hsu Campaign Donations Fugitive Secret Service Campaign Staff Presidential Candidates

Morris' Outrageous Outrage at ex-Lobbyist Thompson

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a clever phrase that is often true, but when it comes to Hillary-hater Dick Morris, conservatives have accepted the phrase far too trustingly. Because Morris so vehemently and convincingly attacks the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, conservatives tend to laud him as a shrewd political genius who confirms the worst opinions of Hillary with insights only an insider could offer. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris may differ in political party affiliation, yet both are working almost in tandem to "derail the Hillary Express" and thwart her campaign for the presidency. Listening to both men on Fox News programming, there is little that distinguishes one from the other when it comes to their near obsession with defeating Hillary. The political differences between the two remain intact, but are suppressed in the service of a higher cause.

There is no doubt that Morris is an accomplished political adviser who knew the ins and outs of the Clinton White House, but for conservatives there is the potential for great folly in taking the entire spectrum of Morris' political views at face value. Political pitfalls await conservatives who subscribe to Morris' general political predictions and theories simply because he despises Hillary Clinton as much as or more than they do.

Morris has made a lucrative living by stoking the fires of anti-Clinton sentiment, authoring bestselling books, writing columns for The Hill and other publications, and appearing on Fox News as a political analyst. His writings and television appearances are embraced warmly by conservatives seeking for validation of their Clinton suspicions from a Democrat who worked closely with the Clintons and learned to loathe them.

Yet, in the glee over finding such a bitterly avowed enemy of their enemy coming to their aid, conservatives tend to lose sight of an important fact: Morris will do anything to prevent another Clinton presidency, but his loyalties remain squarely in the liberal camp, and thus his books, columns, and commentary on other political figures, especially conservatives, should be viewed with a far more critical eye than his views on the Clintons.

Morris has deep-seated and understandable motives for his anti-Clinton crusade, but he still considers conservatives to be political infidels. He likewise has motives for his attacks on conservative politicians and presidential candidates. If looked at from the proper perspective, the motives for his verbal and written criticisms of conservative figures are no different than Hillary's; both are working to defeat conservatives, conservatism, and to elect Democrats who champion liberal causes.

Morris' latest diatribe against a conservative presidential candidate appeared in his regular FoxNews.com column, "Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President." When reading the following excerpts, your blood may start boiling about lobbyists, greed, and Fred Thompson's cozy embrace of lobbyists who have joined his campaign staff. After the initial "Outrage" subsides, we will look more closely at Morris' argument and at the messenger himself:

We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

...Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms.

...So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

It is no secret that Fred Thompson worked as a paid lobbyist for various organizations and corporations prior to and after his service in the Senate. It is likewise no secret that Morris' most recent book Outrage presents a fairly damning case against lobbyists and political influence peddling in the nation's capital. Clearly, lobbyist influence is a legitimate issue of concern, but Morris' newly found aversion to lobbying and politicians who accept soft money from lobbyists seems more than just a little contrived.

During the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the Clinton's made an art form out of accepting lobbyist donations, brazenly taking money from a wide variety of shady shell corporations. Later, the Clinton-Gore White House accepted campaign donations very clearly traceable back to foreign governments, specifically China. Taking this soft money from the seediest of lobbyists was bad enough, but the Clintons demonstrated their appreciation for these donations by providing China with military technologies that significantly reduced the technology gap between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. Where was Morris' "Outrage" over lobbyist donations and influence during his former employers' terms in the White House?

Here Morris is performing at his shrewdest level, smearing Thompson with the tainted label of lobbyist and thus implying that Thompson is not presidential material. Are we expected to forget that when given the opportunity to strut the halls of the White House, Morris was perfectly comfortable affiliating himself with the Clintons and considering Bill Clinton worthy of the presidency despite his campaign war chests overflowing with lobbyist donations? Having read "Outrage" we know that Morris now considers the American Trial Lawyers Association to be a powerful and overly influential political lobbying group, but we're still researching to find one instance where Morris spoke out against the Trial Lawyers' donations to the Clintons while Morris worked for and with them or urged the Clintons to give the money back to the lawyers. Somehow we think that search will be a long and fruitless one.

Apparently, in Morris' view being a former lobbyist or accepting lobbyist money should disqualify only a Republican candidate like Thompson for the presidency, while such corrupting influences in no way affected Bill Clinton's loyalties and agenda as a candidate or as president. Morris is right to point out the lobbyist corruption saturating both parties in his book "Outrage" but his well researched arguments might carry more weight if he had not proven so willing to overlook the corruption when speaking out about it might have hurt his career as a political adviser. Morris was silent on the issue until his falling out with the Clintons and subsequent celebrity status as a Fox News political expert and prolific author.

Morris has attacked presidential candidate Mitt Romney by characterizing him as a "flip-flopper" on certain issues, and now assails Thompson for his former employment as a lobbyist. Yet it is Morris who has "flip-flopped" on the entire issue of lobbying and lobbyist donations, having once turned a blind eye to them but now wielding the issue like a crusader's sword against the newly declared and potentially formidable presidential candidate Thompson.

Conservatives should continue to enjoy Morris' personal quest to defeat Hillary in 2008 while keeping in mind that his expertise on the Clintons does not also signal general expertise as a political analyst. Rather than viewing Morris only in context of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," conservatives should adopt an added slogan: "the conservative Morris attacks most is he whom liberals fear most."

Based on Morris's opening salvo against Fred Thompson's candidacy, containing as it did name lists of known lobbyists who have donated to or work for the Thompson campaign and portrayals of Thompson as an unsavory character beholden to special interest groups, the liberal fear factor Thompson induces feels almost palpable. Morris only attacks those who pose a risk to his personal or political interests. Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, respectively, appear to pose the greatest risks for Morris in each category.

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Outrage, Fred Thompson, Lobbyists, Influence Peddling, Campaign Donations, Presidential Candidates

Hillary's Iraq Village Puppet Show

Hillary Clinton believes it takes a village to raise a child, but what is her solution when the one being raised prefers independence and resents interference from Hillary’s village? The concept of village influence seems to be the centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy goals, and it manifests itself most clearly in her ever-evolving policy statements on Iraq. Most recently the 2008 presidential candidate joined the shrill and gratingly off-key chorus of Carl Levin, most congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans auditioning for cabinet positions, who have called for an Iraqi no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his removal despite an on-going war. Not content to allow Iraqis the fundamental right of self-rule, Hillary applied her “it takes a village” approach to the realm of diplomacy, apparently convinced that the best way for Iraq to resolve its internal disputes was to have the world village step in and try to settle them rather than patiently allowing Iraqis to do it themselves.

It is an interesting irony that Senators Clinton and Levin refuse to adhere to diplomatic protocol in their interactions with and comments about Iraq. Both act as if the fact that America has nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq gives American congressmen carte blanche in what they say about that nation’s elected government. Even Republican Mitch McConnell described the Iraqi government as a “huge disappointment.” America does not have 150,000 troops in France, and there is no question that we considered former French President Jacque Chirac’s government to be a huge disappointment. Yet neither the Republicans nor Democrats in congress publicly stated that sentiment because France deserves respect and decorum from the American government as a sovereign nation. Senators Levin and Clinton do not extend such diplomatic courtesies to Iraq’s Prime Minister, and they should be required to explain the disparate treatment.

Likewise, our elected officials do not attempt to inject themselves into the internal political workings of other, longer-established nations yet think nothing of calling for the ouster of al-Maliki. Where are the cries from Democrats for Fidel Castro’s ouster, or Hugo Chavez’s ouster? Both of those leaders are sworn enemies of America, while al-Maliki risks his own safety each day working with America to preserve a budding democracy in Iraq.

Al-Maliki, a man under constant threat of physical attack by insurgents and al-Qaeda linked terrorists, was not cowed by Levin’s and Hillary’s harsh criticisms. Demonstrating his mastery of the sound byte and his familiarity with America’s distaste for Hillary’s vision of the global village, al-Maliki fired back brilliantly at Senator Clinton:

Maliki hit back on Sunday, saying: "There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin."

"This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy," he said. "I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."

The semantic slap regarding Democrats acting undemocratically was well-crafted and effective. It is shameful that an elected Prime Minister of a nation we are working with closely in a sensitive region felt compelled to defend himself against a barrage of criticism from the American Congress and remind our self-important congressmen that speaking respectfully about Iraq is an expected aspect of diplomatic protocol that many have neglected.

Lost in the verbal exchange between al-Maliki and America’s congressional vultures circling Iraq’s demise with great expectation was the failure of media outlets to press Senators Levin and Clinton on what would seem to be a critical question: who would they suggest take al-Maliki’s place as Prime Minister? Neither has come forward with any suggested replacements even though both have access to raw intelligence regarding the current political situation in Iraq. Likewise, neither addresses the obvious difficulty al-Maliki’s replacement would face from being labeled an American puppet leader. It is highly unlikely that Iraq would become more stable under different leadership if the Iraqi perception was that America called for al-Maliki’s removal and chose his successor. Middle Eastern governments considered puppets of America do not have a history of long-term survival.

On Sunday, leaders representing Iraq’s Shiite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish communities made further progress in resolving internal disputes. The leaders agreed on provisions to make it easier for former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party to serve in Iraq’s government and military, facilitated the future release of Sunni’s detained and held without charge, and endorsed a draft oil revenue sharing law. Each of these must survive parliamentary debate and votes, but the agreements were a clear show of unity and progress in direct refutation of Senator Clinton’s and Senator Levin’s low opinion of the Iraqi government.

America’s patience with Iraq’s government should not be dictated by our presidential campaign schedule. A stable and free Iraq deserves support beyond the 2008 election and merits respect regardless of which party wins the White House. Expecting Iraq to resolve all of its internal political squabbles and secure itself from foreign terrorists by next month or next year is imposing our will and political timetable on a free people. Factions within a government arguing, boycotting, and stalling important legislation are hallmarks of America’s Congress and should not be considered disappointing characteristics of Iraq’s fledgling democracy.

The Iraqis do not want to be considered throughout the world as America’s puppet, nor do they want their government to be raised and nurtured by Hillary’s global village. She should stop treating al-Maliki’s government like a child and let the Iraqis experience their own political maturation.

Technorati Tags:
Al-Maliki, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Puppet Government, Iraqi Government, Diplomacy, It Takes A Village

Obama, Nukes, and "American Hiroshima"

When Barack Obama is wrong, he is really wrong. When he is right, it is often unintentional. Obama’s risky and impulsive recent foray into tough-sounding foreign policy declarations illustrated that sometimes a candidate can be spectacularly wrong from a policy perspective but correct tactically even if it was likely unintentional. Such may have been the case with his comments about never using nuclear weapons against terrorists.

To frame the issue in context, the previous criticism heaped upon Obama for proclaiming that if elected president he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like Iran was justified. Keeping oppressive regimes isolated politically and economically from the United States is an effective way to create unrest and citizen dissatisfaction in such countries that might lead to internal reform or overthrow of the undesirable regime. Meeting with such leaders would merely remove a useful diplomatic tool and increase reliance on potential military conflict to achieve the same end. Hillary Clinton was right to call Obama’s position naïve and irresponsible.

Not content to look the fool on only one major foreign policy issue, Obama decided to announce that if elected president he would send troops into a sovereign Muslim nation armed with nuclear weapons, Pakistan, to eliminate al Qaeda regardless of whether Pakistan’s government authorized the invasion. I have argued strenuously against the U.S. taking any such action in previous posts, and will not restate those arguments here, but I found Obama’s hypocrisy in talking tough to Pakistan remarkable. In essence, Obama would remove troops from Iraq, where they are engaging al Qaeda daily, and redeploy them into a nuclear-armed Muslim nation without that nation’s permission so they can, drum roll please, engage al Qaeda daily. Removing our troops from Iraq will not result in al Qaeda leaving Iraq and redeploying along with us. Al Qaeda will remain in Iraq, destroy the fragile Iraqi democracy, and considerably expand al Qaeda’s territorial reach and resources. Critics of Obama’s desire to invade Pakistan were correct to call him ignorant and naïve on this issue.

Most sensible candidates would realize that after turning the other cheek and having that one slapped too there is no third cheek to turn to opponents, but Obama found one nonetheless. After talking tough of invasions of Pakistan and taking the fight to al Qaeda leadership, Obama clarified that he would never use nuclear weapons in the War on Terror. He began his comment about nuclear weapons use by stating that he would not use such weapons to fight terrorists in circumstances involving innocent civilians, but immediately retracted that position and declared he would not use them under any circumstance in fighting terrorism. Hillary Clinton and other critics in both parties seized on this comment as a further illustration of Obama’s foreign policy ignorance and evidence that he lacks the mettle to be commander-in-chief. They cited perhaps the most overused cliché in Washington, “never take anything off the table,” as the best position for a leader to take, but Obama, albeit inadvertently, raised an important tactical issue that comes part and parcel with a policy of threatening nomadic terrorists with nuclear annihilation: the terrorists are not officially tied to any foreign governments.

What Obama should ask his critics in both parties to explain, for this is a bipartisan issue, is under what specific scenarios they would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in the War on Terror. A logical follow-up question would be to ask what it would take for them to reach the point of unleashing a nuclear weapon, such as terrorists detonating nuclear devices in America, and how they would determine whom to strike in retaliation. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have truly examined this issue and its tactical implications, but some have, in their efforts to sound forceful, stated they would strike in knee-jerk reaction against nearly any available target. For example, presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, who fought admirably to defeat the recent illegal immigration amnesty bill, stated that America should threaten to detonate nuclear weapons at Muslim holy sites as a deterrent, apparently believing that terrorists will equivocate on their “American Hiroshima” plans if they are convinced we would destroy Mecca or a similar sacred place if provoked.

It is not clear who is more ignorant, Obama or Tancredo, when it comes to nuclear weapons use in the War on Terror, but there is no mistaking that both are fundamentally unqualified and naïve on how their positions would be interpreted by our Islamic terrorist enemies. Whereas Obama would never use nuclear weapons, Tancredo would, especially if provoked by a nuclear detonation on American soil, retaliate against Islam itself rather than any specific enemy. In his view, an attack motivated by religion demands a response that targets that religion. The logic behind such action is severely flawed. The terrorists worship martyrdom and would consider the destruction of holy sites as collateral loss in a permanently escalated war. If they are willing to martyr themselves and their children for the cause, they will merely shrug at the loss of buildings and other material representations of their faith. Additionally, the world’s moderate Muslims would not remain moderate after Tancredo wiped out the symbols of their faith.

Tancredo’s nuclear gunslinger mentality is symptomatic of the thinking of many in Washington. America’s reliance on Mutually Assured Destruction in the Cold War has created a false sense of security that the threat of our nuclear arsenal will protect us from traditional powers like Russia or China as well as Islamic terrorists. Internet forums are filled with comments about “turning the whole area into a sea of glass,” or “they won’t realize what they’ve unleashed if they set off a nuke in America,” and other similar boasts. Our military might blinds us to the reality that if terrorists detonate a nuclear device in America, Obama’s position on using our nuclear weapons might actually be the most correct because of one simple question: whom and where would we strike in retaliation?

Our American bravado and outrage after such an event would make us want to react decisively; to punish and avenge; to destroy everyone responsible for the heinous act. The pressure on an American president to retaliate against someone, anyone, would be unbearable. The initial impulse would be to consider any Muslim nation known to harbor terrorists as targets, and the ignorant among us would believe in those moments that all Muslims everywhere are the enemy and thus fair game for nuclear annihilation. Consider for a moment the dilemma a president would face after such a cataclysmic event in America. What if al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the nuclear detonation in America? Would we bomb all of Iraq in response? What if Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah claimed responsibility? Would we bomb all of Iran in retaliation? What of the millions of Iranians who are reportedly pro-western but are ruled by a radical regime? What if al Qaeda elements hiding in Pakistan gloated that they nuked America? Would we bomb Pakistan, a Muslim nation also armed with nuclear weapons?

Thus is the paradox of leaving nuclear weapons on the table as a response to terrorism. Terrorists know no borders; they blend into local civilian populations; they strike and move, rarely remaining in place long enough to be hit by initial retaliations; the terrorists usually do not represent the political or even religious views of the majority of their countrymen, thus retaliation against an entire nation merely punishes millions of innocent foreign citizens as recompense for the deaths of millions of American citizens. Such a response, while it may appeal to our baser instincts, would be tactically unsound and surely result in further nuclear destruction and literal fallout across the globe. How would we have responded to 9/11 had it been a nuclear detonation in New York perpetrated by the same group of nineteen al Qaeda operatives? They were natives of Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among other nations. Would we have retaliated against each of those nations for the actions of their rogue citizens?

Unless a nuclear terrorist attack could be proven to have been the sovereign decision of a foreign government, a nuclear retaliation by America against an entire nation would be counterproductive. It is not an act of war by a nation if some of its radical residents, unaffiliated with that nation’s government, perpetrate an attack on another nation. Thus a measured response is essential. It is perfectly justifiable to issue ultimatums to that nation to capture those responsible immediately or allow us to do so, but an emotional and rash nuclear response against an entire nation to punish a small group hiding therein would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Harry Truman approved the use of atomic weapons against Japan in WWII because tactically it made sense to demonstrate destructive power to Japan’s government in order to convince it to surrender. The government of Japan, not wanting to see any more of its citizens annihilated, surrendered, ultimately saving millions of lives in both nations. Nuclear response against terrorists is an entirely different matter. There is no central government anywhere that can be intimidated into halting all terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals. Likewise, the deaths of possibly millions of innocent Muslims would be viewed as merely the creation of millions more martyrs to the cause and further incentive to continue targeting America and our allies. Use of nuclear weapons in a declared war between nations, as tragic as it is, makes tactical sense. Using them against an enemy hidden within nearly every nation on earth would be logically unsound and tactically impractical.

Obama likely did not weigh such considerations before arriving at his decision to never use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. It is far more likely that his opposition to such weapons is purely ideological and reflects the influence of the view held by many on the anti-war left that nuclear weapons are innately evil and never should be used under any circumstances regardless of the enemy we face. However, as it applies to combating terrorism, an undefined and nomadic enemy, Obama was right to suggest that nuclear weapons not be used. Nuclear weapons carry a finality that never can be undone.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Tom Tancredo, Nuclear Weapons, War on Terror, Mecca, Muslim Holy Sites, Radical Islam

WSJ Better Off With Murdoch Than Burkle

There is a neglected question surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal: why were critics of the purchase and Dow Jones and Wall Street employees themselves up in arms over the threat to journalistic independence posed by Murdoch but none of them seemed even slightly concerned over the potential danger to literary freedom that might have occurred under a different buyer? The media attention Murdoch’s purchase garnered revolved around the assumption that Murdoch might meddle with the Wall Street Journal and compromise its journalistic integrity while there seemed to be very little concern that an owner other than Murdoch might inject his or her own ideology into the paper’s news coverage.

Before Murdoch and the Bancroft family, owners of Dow Jones, entered into the latest intense round of purchase negotiations that ended with this morning’s announced final decision to sell to Murdoch, the names of other potential buyers made brief splashes on media pages, only to be obscured by the long shadow cast by Murdoch’s media empire. One billionaire who expressed significant interest in purchasing Dow Jones, parent company of the Wall Street Journal, was Ron Burkle, former grocery store magnate and unquestionably the closest influential and wealthy friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, both during Bill’s presidency and after.

Since leaving the White House, the Clinton’s have flown more mileage around the globe on Burkle’s private jet, an ostentatious Boeing 757, than on all other aircraft combined. Burkle’s Bel Air (Los Angeles) estate has hosted countless parties, fundraisers, rallies, and private retreats for the Clintons, as president and former president. Further cementing his position at the Clintons’ side, Burkle has consistently ranked as one of the top individual donors to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary’s election and reelection campaigns for the Senate, and currently to her presidential campaign.

I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about this cozy financial and political relationship. Wealthy and influential individuals in both parties have always ingratiated themselves with political figures for a variety of personal or business reasons. Likewise, I am not impugning Burkle’s motives for his desire to bankroll and provide free transportation to the Clintons to further their political ambitions. The significance of this relationship lies in the complete lack of attention given to it by the media and Dow Jones employees while Burkle was floating multi-billion dollar offers that many found more appealing than selling to Murdoch. While Murdoch was vilified for his personal involvement in making changes to previous news enterprises he had acquired, no one gave any serious consideration to how the Wall Street Journal might have covered news under Burkle’s ownership in light of his close ties to the Clintons.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), largely because of its foundations in American business, has usually been a reliably conservative publication, with a few exceptions such as its advocacy of open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Even in taking that position, as flawed as it was, the WSJ was consistent with the views of many influential businesses that utilize cheap labor. Aside from that issue, though, the WSJ’s conservative news coverage and Op/Ed pieces are a welcome alternative to the brazenly liberal news coverage offered by the New York Times and most major dailies in America’s cities. As “meddling” as Murdoch’s takeovers and purchases of various media outlets may have been, few would argue that his influence has ideologically altered the news coverage of those outlets. It is certainly true that he has employed certain tactics such as shocking headlines and stories with some reference to sex to generate attention, particularly in some of his international publications. Yet he established Fox News as a more conservative alternative to liberal CNN and traditional network news offerings, and after more than a decade of broadcasting, Fox News remains dedicated to providing that conservative perspective. Dow Jones and WSJ employees should consider that aspect of Murdoch’s track record and breathe a little easier than they might have if Burkle had successfully purchased Dow Jones.

The Clintons already have an influential and widely read publication consistently doing their bidding: the New York Times. Their reach would have been enormously increased if Burkle had purchased the WSJ. It is extremely unlikely that an aggressive businessman like Burkle, who enjoys personal involvement in running his enterprises, would have been an absentee owner who would have kept his hands off of the WSJ’s journalistic ideology. Burkle is highly active in the DNC and his personal relationship with the Clintons would certainly have influenced what he would or would not want to read in his version of the WSJ. Why would he have paid billions of dollars to purchase Dow Jones and the WSJ only to allow it to undo his political activism through articles or Op/Ed pieces critical of his party and specifically the Clintons? That would not have been a wise return on his investment. Under Burkle’s ownership, the WSJ likely would have embarked on a slow but steady drift to the left, something neither its readers nor its employees would have appreciated.

It is easy to understand why Dow Jones and WSJ employees feared a Murdoch takeover, but they had much more to fear, including their jobs as conservative journalists, had a less controversial buyer like Burkle gotten his hands on the WSJ. Murdoch will be under enormous pressure to maintain the WSJ’s reputation and broad readership. He will surely tinker with the WSJ, attempting to make it more widely available, or perhaps bring it into more direct competition with the New York Times or even USA Today. Some of those efforts might achieve spectacular success, and some might prove to be dismal failures. The good news for WSJ employees is that his track record with Fox News indicates that he will not alter the generally conservative bent of the WSJ, which is the source of the paper’s journalistic independence in a news media world dominated by liberal lock-step ideology.

Technorati Tags:
Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, Takeovers, News Integrity, Ron Burkle, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton

Conservative Defends Hillary from Obama

Conservatives should rise to defend Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama’s assault on her Iraq War authorization vote. Why, my readers will ask, should conservatives support Hillary in any way? The answer is quite simple: our nation’s survival may depend on such action. By that I do not mean that supporting Hillary in and of itself will save the nation, but rather finding common ground for agreement on that one issue, the rightfulness of a war authorization vote, will help liberals and conservatives alike to recognize that some situations require military intervention, and WMD development or concealment is one such situation.

Yes, Hillary has flip-flopped on her support for the Iraq War as her 2008 presidential campaign has advanced, and yes, her criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war have been shrill at times. She merits the conservative disdain she has reaped through such behavior and calculated political maneuvering. However, conservatives and fair-minded liberals should consider the consequences of not defending Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of military force to enforce UN Resolution 1441 against Saddam Hussein’s reported WMD stockpiles, especially in light of the rapidly approaching showdown with Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts.

Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the Iran will “never abandon” its nuclear ambitions regardless of how many UN resolutions or sanctions are employed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. In the face of such recalcitrance, strong and decisive leadership will be needed, and undoubtedly there will be future votes in the House and Senate to approve or disapprove of the use of military force against Iran. I am certainly not implying that Hillary would provide such leadership if elected president. My views on her politics and personality are known to Capital Cloak readers. Her disdain for the military is well known. However, if Barack Obama succeeds in convincing a majority of the Democratic Party, or worse, a majority of all American voters, that Hillary’s war authorization vote was “irresponsible and naïve,” as he has characterized it, it will signal that even when presented with overwhelming intelligence from every allied nation worldwide, America might likewise consider military action against future foes like Iran as “irresponsible and naïve.” That form of national paralysis could prove fatal in confrontations with determined enemies.

Specifically, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to authorize a war “without asking how we were going to get out.” That is an opportunistic argument coming as it does from one who has never been in position to make such difficult decisions. Obama, of course, was not a senator yet when the Iraq War vote took place, and was not privy to the intelligence documents that the colleagues he now derides as naïve were briefed on prior to committing troops to Iraq. For any nation embarking upon a war effort, the way out is obvious: win, and win decisively. The eventual outcome of war is not perfectly predictable, and history proves that war strategies often change mid-course, usually after initial campaigns meet with unexpected or underestimated resistance. Perhaps Obama should study the initial battles of our own Civil War, paying particular attention to the overconfidence and short-sighted planning of the Union’s early generals. That war, which eventually ended slavery in America, was entered into by the Union army with virtually no prior planning for “how we were going to get out.” Does Obama consider Abraham Lincoln to have been “irresponsible and naïve” to enter a war with poor prior planning?

I suspect that Obama is glad today that Lincoln ignored his critics at the time and pressed forward in a just cause. Obama, despite being a senator from Illinois, is certainly no Lincoln when it comes to perseverance in wars for freedom. Or perhaps he does not consider the Iraqi right to freedom to be as inalienable as his own.

In the case of Iraq, winning the war involved more than removing Saddam Hussein, a task that was even simpler than our military planners projected. Removing Saddam and accounting for his WMD were merely the great opening battles of the war for Iraqi freedom (hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom). The way out of Iraq, which Obama and unfortunately now Hillary as well fail to see is an Iraqi parliament capable of sustaining and defending itself from domestic and foreign efforts to topple it. In that sense, Obama and others should limit their criticism to the fact that our goals in Iraq have not been reached rather than condemn the initial decision to act against Saddam’s defiance toward the UN over his well-documented WMD programs.

It is no coincidence that former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell, who recently claimed in dramatic Monday morning quarterback fashion to have urged President Bush no to invade Iraq despite the overwhelming intelligence detailing Saddam’s WMD facilities and ambitions, has been advising Obama on military and foreign policy issues. Whereas criticisms of the decision to invade Iraq from Obama are truly “irresponsible and naïve,” they merely reflect the influence of General Powell.

There is clearly little common ground between conservatives and Hillary Clinton. After all, she burned whatever rickety bridges may have once existed when she blamed the “vast right wing conspiracy” for damaging her husband’s self-destructive presidency. Yet when a political opportunist like Obama criticizes Hillary for voting to remove an oppressive dictator and secure the WMD the world was convinced he possessed, we should defend her for making that decision. Despite her current efforts to cast herself as a candidate who would work to end the war, she was right to vote as she did. At least in Hillary’s case America knows that in a sobering moment with long-term consequences, she once voted to eliminate a rogue nation’s WMD programs. Obama, on the other hand, never has faced such a decision but we can conclude from his criticisms and General Powell’s influence that were Obama to be president, he would be loathe to act when facing the threat of WMD acquisition by rogue nations.

For conservatives, neither of these candidates is politically appealing, but Obama’s contagious depiction of Hillary or anyone else who voted to authorize the Iraq War as “irresponsible and naïve” must be prevented from infecting our future decisions when faced with similar or more dangerous threats, such as Iran. Liberals and conservatives can disagree on a host of social, moral, and economic issues, but on the issue of preventing radical Islamic regimes from enriching uranium and proliferating nuclear weapons or technology, there must be unity and shared determination. Regardless of her current views of the Iraq War, Hillary was right to authorize it, as was President Bush to request it, based on the intelligence available at that time. President Bush or his successor, Democrat or Republican, will face the decision to act against Iran since Iran has made it clear it will never halt its uranium enrichment. Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s war vote are irresponsibly making it more difficult for a president to make a convincing case for future military action of any kind to Americans.

Having never faced a difficult decision like a war vote, Obama can conveniently profit from hindsight and impugn the responsibility and motives of those who voted for the Iraq War. Of Obama I would ask the same question I posed to General Powell in a previous post: what further evidence would you have needed to convince you that action against Saddam was necessary given the intelligence already in hand? There is no more clear evidence of Obama’s disingenuous criticism of Hillary on this issue than the words of Obama’s consultant on foreign policy and military issues, General Powell. Powell himself made the case for war to the UN, including the following dramatic statement:

…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

I’m still waiting to see a news headline that reads, “Obama Calls Own Adviser Powell ‘Irresponsible and Naïve’ for Launching Iraq War.” After all, the entire House and Senate voted to authorize war based on what leaders such as Powell recommended at the time. If Hillary was “irresponsible and naïve” for following Powell’s advice, Obama must by default be equally irresponsible and naïve for taking current advice from the same source.

For conservatives and liberals alike, it is important to separate the rightfulness of the decision to invade Iraq from the subsequent execution of the war or its current status. There is always room for improvement in the handling of wars, and the one constant of conflict is that human error is inescapable. However, the drive to impugn the motives of those who voted to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein will only serve to cripple our national resolve to take similar actions in the future when necessary. Taking Ahmadinejad’s words at face value, such actions will be necessary again soon.

Hillary gets a lot of things wrong, but deserves positive reinforcement when she does something that is in the best interest of America and global security. Her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do at the right time. If conservatives do not defend such action by a liberal when it is hypocritically and opportunistically attacked, then we will have only ourselves to blame if fewer liberals choose to make sound national security decisions in the future.


Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War Vote, Colin Powell, 2008 Campaign, Presidential Candidates, Conservatives, Liberals

Colin Powell's Oscar-Worthy UN Iraq Act

Colin Powell, once the military name most respected by everyday Americans, is becoming increasingly synonymous with Hillary Clinton's well earned moniker of “America’s Greatest Iraq Monday Morning Quarterback.” Hillary, who joined her husband in condemning Saddam Hussein and claiming that nothing short of military action would remove the threat he posed to the world, voted to authorize President Bush’s decision to act militarily to disarm and remove Hussein from power. Now that she is running for the Democratic nomination in a party largely controlled by MoveOn.org and other radical anti-war groups, however, Hillary made the outrageously disingenuous claim that “if she knew then what she knows now,” as president in 2003 she never would have authorized a war in Iraq. The accounts of Hillary’s pre-war and pre-2006 press conferences and Senate speeches are legion, and they all contain a shared theme: Saddam possessed WMD, was unstable, and the security of the United States and the Middle East demanded that action be taken against him due to his continued violation of UN resolutions. The Monday morning quarterbacking Hillary now employs in her harangues against the Bush administration’s Iraq War policies is hypocritical but not surprising from the presidential candidate looking to establish ideological roots wherever fertile political soil is found, but Monday morning quarterbacking about the invasion of Iraq now made public by Colin Powell was less expected and in some ways more bereft of character than Hillary’s hypocrisies.

Hillary is a power-coveting politician, and as such her approach to support or opposition to the Iraq War vacillates depending on which way the political wind blows each day. This is not to suggest that her Gumby-like stretching into publicly desired positions is right, but rather it is expected. Colin Powell, on the other hand, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and an integral figure in the previous Gulf War to contain Saddam’s aggressions, was considered by many to be a man of honor, integrity, and military expertise. However, his Monday morning quarterbacking of the president’s Iraq War decision as reported in yesterday’s UK Sunday Times revealed a level of hypocrisy previously unknown to the American public. From the UK Times story:

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

…According to Powell: “We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be.” He believes that, even if the military surge has been a partial success in areas such as Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have turned on Al-Qaeda, it has not been accompanied by the vital political and economic “surge” and reconciliation process promised by the Iraqi government.

The assertion that Powell tried valiantly to avoid the war by talking President Bush out of an invasion is, to say the least, difficult to swallow. If Powell’s statement in Colorado was true, then perhaps Powell could explain what arm-twisting or blackmail was employed to force him into personally appearing before the UN Security Council in February 2003 as Secretary of State to present the administration’s case for war against Saddam Hussein. If Powell felt so strongly that invading Iraq was a mistake at the time, why is it that only now, after 4 years of a war he lent his personal credibility to in order to garner international support, does Powell mention that he was actually opposed to the war before it began? Who can forget the mountains of evidence Powell brought to bear in support of war against Saddam? Surveillance photos of WMD sites, recorded testimony of intelligence sources, financial transaction records revealing weapons funding in violation of UN resolutions while starving Iraqis received none of the food assistance the UN funds were supposed to purchase under the “Oil for Food” program. The list of documents brought to bear is staggering, and Powell eloquently explained the danger to the world that would result from allowing Saddam to ignore UN resolutions and continue his quest for WMD.

Powell’s case was so compelling that a coalition of allies voted to support the invasion and lent proportional military support. So credible was Powell’s UN testimony that Democrats and Republicans, reviewing the same intelligence data, voted overwhelmingly to authorize the invasion, with much bipartisan pontification about the potential threat to the world from Saddam’s WMD ambitions. Powell’s recent claim that he tried in vain to prevent the war lacks any corroborative evidence to support it. If Powell was as morally opposed to invasion as he now claims, then his performance at the UN Security Council was Oscar-worthy. A stronger case has never been made for war by someone who allegedly opposed it.

For the complete text of Powell’s testimony to the UN Security Council, click here. The following are brief selected excerpts from Powell’s command performance. Decide for yourselves if these were the words of a man who supposedly tried hard to talk the president out of war with Iraq:

The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

…I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling....

…Everything we have seen and heard indicates that, instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

…Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors.

…Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.

…Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.

…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

It is equally curious that, if Powell’s new claim is to be believed, he was not convinced by the military and intelligence data he personally presented to the UN Security Council. One wonders what further evidence Powell wanted in order to quell his supposedly troubled conscience on the issue of invasion. How many UN resolution violations was Powell willing to tolerate? How many satellite images of WMD storage and production facilities did he need to convince him that action was needed? It is telling that Powell offered no explanation for why he allegedly opposed the invasion, limiting his condemnation of the Iraq War to the current results rather than the situation and available information at the time the decision to invade was reached. Perhaps it speaks volumes about Powell’s lack of qualifications for high office that allegedly he alone was unconvinced by overwhelming intelligence data from virtually every international agency. It is the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacking for Powell to look at today’s news reports from Iraq and claim that he foresaw the current situation and if only the president had listened to Powell, the violence and casualties could have been avoided.

There were many options available to Powell once he allegedly realized he could not change the president’s mind. He could have spoken to a reporter on condition of anonymity and leaked the story of his own opposition to the invasion and kept his job as Secretary of State. He could have resigned as Secretary of State in protest and made it clear to the press and public why he was resigning. Even later, when he resigned long after the invasion, he cited personal reasons like family time for his decision rather than publicly challenge a decision to invade a foreign nation. Instead, Powell mounted no principled opposition to a plan he claims to have argued against. Where is the integrity and honor in that?

The UK Times pointed out that Powell has consulted twice with the Barack Obama campaign, and that Obama’s position on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq has been revised to more closely dovetail with Hillary’s desired gradual troop force reductions. It is telling that Powell, who claims to have attempted to talk President Bush out of invading Iraq, is not counseling Obama to demand an immediate and complete removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If the invasion was a mistake, as Powell allegedly asserted to the president already in 2002-2003, then why is Powell not recommending a complete reversal of the decision by “bringing the troops home” as quickly as possible? Certainly the anti-war wing of Obama’s party demands this, so why counsel the young, inexperienced Senator to call for gradual troop reductions or redeployment in the region?

While Powell uses clever language in describing the U.S. military effort in Iraq as putting “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew,” Americans should keep in mind that Powell agreed to lend his personal credibility to placing the stew on the stove and turning up the heat when he presented the government’s case for war in Iraq. He should apply his own words when it comes to his claim that he tried to prevent the war and put a lid on it.

Technorati Tags:
Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, Monday Morning Quarterback, War Opposition, UN Security Council, Saddam Hussein, War Critics, Bush Administration