Another point you bring out in this post is about lying.

Lying about sex = impeachable and A Constitutional crisis
Lying about everything else = restoring honor and dignity and integrity to the White House.

The reason Nathan Newman outdoes even America's enemies and adversaries in attacking American foreign policy is not because he hates America. This would at least have the virtue of honesty.

Rather it is simply because he hates the present administration. (Notice that the president's name appears four times in the space of less than 200 words.) The same moves by a Gore administration would have received his unwavering support.

However, it seems that Dr. Newman is aware that the decision of the Democratic leadership to side with the French on Iraq is sure to bring unwelcome repercussions for them in 2004. This is the reason for his new-found enthusiasm for the super-majority for judicial confirmations.

Not that I am always friendly to DLC-style Democrats like Gore and Clinton (you don't read my blog much, do you Jack?), but the same moves around the war would not have occurred under Gore. Maybe war would be threatened, but it would not be done in defiance of allies, based on threats against Mexico, Turkey and Chile, all while allowing the economy to go to hell.

But yes, you are right that most people opposing this war do not hate America. They love it. They do just hate this reckless, stupid and dangerous administration-- as does most of the world at this point.

Jack,

Every reader of this blog should recognize what you are doing...

Instead of countering Nathan's argument ("manipulating votes", "ignoring global opinion", "subverting democracy"), you have attacked him personally.

The *ad hominem* attack reveals how weak your position really is.

(And no, despite the last name I am no relation to Nathan, unless you count the "brotherhood of man" as such!)

Hey Jack, guess what: I count Gore for 1 and the Democrats for 2, in about 120 words. So 2/120 vs. 4/200, which only bests Nathan slightly.

So I guess you are basically just a dishonest guy who hates Democrats.

PS: BTW, I do hate this adminstration. As should everybody whose pockets that they aren't directly shoveling cash into, since if you are just merely a wealthy producer of goods you gotta realize that their insane fiscal policies are going to wipe out your middle-class customers. Not every rich guy got off the Titanic.

My goodness. What I said was that Dr. Newman attacks American foreign policy because he hates the present administration. This he has now confirmed for us. Where is the ad hominem?

What Gore would or wouldn't do in these circumstances is beside the point. The point is that you allow your antipathy for the current adminstration to taint your treatment of American diplomacy.

The French are defying us, and not the other way around. (In any case, it is painfully clear by this point that they are no longer our "allies.")
I could go on, but won't.

This is the best left wing blog on the Web, as far as I've seen.
It's refreshing, and I appreciate it. Thanks.

"The French are defying us"?

You make them sound like peasants resisting their master, which is how Bush is treating most of the world right now. Which is why he is losing so badly on the diplomatic stage.

Countries don't "defy" each other diplomatically-- they disagree, but there is no room for disagreement in the Bush world.

And the idea that France is no longer an ally because of that disagreement is the most dangerous idea being promoted. This is a democratic country which, like Germany and India and other countries "defying us", supports core values the American people hold dear. Of course they are allies; at least they are allies of the American people, if not the Bush administration, which seems to share the Nixonian trait of "enemies lists" where anyone who is not with them is against them.

"Countries don't 'defy' each other diplomatically"

If countries don't defy each other diplomatically, then what was the sense of your earlier remark (above) that the administration is acting "in defiance of allies"?

France rejected Britain's 6 step test before Iraq even had a chance to respond to it. This is not "disagreement"; it is unprinicpled defiance of an erstwhile ally in pursuit of political gain (i.e., to harm Blair).

... But you just keep right on defending the French. Encore!

Okay, Jack, you got me on a rhetorical slip :)

I would say that Bush is defying the United Nations and international law if he goes to war without authoritization.

But the idea that Chiraq is just seeking to "harm Blair" is ridiculous. France was against authorizing war long before Blair brought up his list of demands. Folks are disagreeing here. It's called democratic debate.

The only problem is that Bush, if he loses the debate and the UN vote, intends to ignore democracy and go to war in violation of international law. Bush, Chiraq, Blair and whoever have the perfect democratic right to call each other names in the heat of debate. But Bush is trying to put himself and the US above the law and democratic accountability altogether.

That is the problem.

Was France against authorizing war when they signed onto resolution 1441, which warned Iraq of "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"?

It really is time for those who oppose war to reread 1441:
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

The UN declaration seems pretty clear, albeit in a diplomatic legalese type way.

The two trigger clauses are #4, a less than full disclosure of banned weapons and #11, a critical report from UNMOVIC/IAEA that Iraq is interfering with the inspection process or otherwise failing to comply with its disarmament obligations.

If the clauses are invoked the resolution states the Security Council will reconvene to consider the situation (item #12). That's all. Item #13, the money clause states (quote):

"Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

It doesn't say offensive action will be automatically undertaken if a breach is found, just that the USNC will talk about it some more.

Yes, well, would anyone care to defend either Iraq's disclosure or its compliance heretofore? Didn't think so.

1441 clearly envisages military action in the event of continued Iraqi intransigence. It absolutely can NOT be read to encompass either (a) months of further inspections, or (b) the "peace" movement as a whole.

Let's get on with it, ladies and gentlemen.

"Let's get on with it ladies and gentleman"

This isn't a boxing match this is a war

And as far as Nathan referring to Bush 4 times in his column. guess what, that is because Bush is our president, duh. In talking about foreign policy you have to talk about Bush.

"France is no longer our ally"

Oh, so sense they don't agree with us they are no longer our ally. That is pathetic.

However Saudi Arabia is still our ally. Kuwait is still our ally. Pakistan is still our ally. All these countries are repressive dictatorships who abuse their citizens just as bad as that hated Saddam Hussein does. So cry me a friggin river about your hate of France. I'll defend France anyday over some of our supposed allies that we have.

And before you get started on WWII and how the French have short memories. Let's remember who helped us by giving us arms, and money when we fought the British during the Revolutionary War. Not to mention they gave us about 35 percent of this nation at a bargain basement price. I guess you probably want to send the Statue of Liberty back to France too, huh?

While I won't be quite as blunt as Davarro, I do believe alot of these attacks on France are sophmoric and stupid. I mean do our representatives have nothing better to do than to change the names of French Fries and French Toast. People tend to forget that George W. Bush stated that he wanted to have a "humble foreign policy".

Jack,

I am a veteran of Vietnam where I lost a leg and I to oppose this war against Iraq. not because I hate my country or my president but because I love my country and I love the people that are in Kuwait right now ready to risk there life for the country they love just like I was when I was a young kid in Vietnam. I believe this war is immoral, unjust, and ill-conceived. When we go to war I will support our troops and I hope they do well. However, I cannot support a policy that uses war as a primary means of foreign policy. You can disagree with me on this all you want but don't you dare say I am worse than our enemy like you did Mr. Newman because I have the scars and the wounds to prove it.

Sir, I don't know you so I am not going to ask where you came from and what you have done for your country but for you to call Mr. Newman "worse than the enemy" is the worst form of demagoguery. It contributes nothing to our society and brings about a nasty form of debate that leads to divisiveness and hate.

War is at times necessary and just such as I believe the first Gulf War was, as was the war in Afghanistan and WWII. However, in this war I believe the ends do not justify the means.

This is funny, next thing you know Jack Stephens will probably send Nathan Newman to Britain to sue him for slander and then call him a terrorist.

Man this is ridiculous, France is no longer our ally. Oh yeah, I guess we should bomb France next. Hey like Bush said you are either with us against us right? Maybe we can add France to the Axis of Evil. Then we could call it the quadrant of people who don't support the US policy. I just love our new Foreign Policy it ought to be called slogan diplomacy.

People seem to have this antipathy and hatred toward France but not any of the other countries that are against us in this war. Such as Russia, Germany, and the list goes on and on. Maybe it is because France is an easy target. I remember back in 1995 when Rush Limbaugh was singing Jacque Chirac's praises as where many conservatives for blowing up nuclear bombs in the Pacific Ocean. Now these same people have a hate for Chirac unlike anything I have seen in a while. It's almost like Chirac is worse than the Saudi Royal Family. oh wait, the Saudi Royal Family is our ally

global democracy

No such thing.

Nathan, if you're going to make an international law argument about the legality of the war, it seems to me that you shouldn't leave out Iraq's violations of international law.

"You shouldn't leave out Iraq's violations of International Law

How about Kuwait's violations of human rights, Saudi Arabia's violations of human rights, and Pakistan's violations of human rights. oh wait, they are our allies.

Argus, *you* are the only one who has used the expression "worse than the enemy." What I said was that Nathan was outdoing our enemies and adversaries in attacking American foreign policy. Presumably we can leave it to Nathan to object to what others might say to him. He's a big boy.

So guys, let's just scrap 1441, then, eh? Or what?
Just pull the troops home? Is that what you want?

"What do you think outdoing our enemies and adversaries in attacking american foriegn policy means. It means you was trying to link Nathan Newman to our enemies. What you used is a rhetorical word play to denigrate the person you was arguing with so that you can back away from it when somebody calls you on it.

Davarro,

W-M-D.

Davarro,

W-M-D.

Andrew:

If you have something more concrete than fake uranium purchases from Niger, some missiles that flew "too far" in less than a third of their tests, and a remote-controlled airplane that's somehow gonna kill us all, please share it with Colin Powell. It could help to also show why proof of his massive WMD programs hasn't surfaced in the past several months. Then go ahead and explain why the same standards don't apply to Israel, Pakistan, North Korea or even India. Go ahead, "wow" me.

Really, we wouldn't be having this discussion if people were in imminent danger of being killed by Saddam's weapons. If you can show he's a threat and we need, absolutely *need* military action right now I'll be happy to back down and march along with everyone else to war.

Last time I checked, Pakistan had weapons of mass destruction. But oh wait, they our are ally.

When you can find me evidence other than a drone that is made of balsa wood and duct tape then you can start talking about weapons of mass destruction.

Davarro, the problem is that thousands of liters of anthrax are unaccounted for. Other stores of chemical and biological weapons are unaccounted for. That's the the WMD issue with Iraq.

Pakistan is different. Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism. Pakistan is not. That's the biggest difference. Perhaps there are some out there who say they were in the past. Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant, because today Pakistan is not a state sponsor of terrorism.

Furthermore, Pakistan is actively engaged in fighting the war on terrorism. Obviously, Iraq is not.

Pakistan is not a state sponsor of terrorism????
Don't go to India and say that. As matter of fact Pakistan is the major sponsors of many terrorist organizations in the Kashmir region. Some of whom who have direct links to Al-Qaida

Syria is a sponsor of terrorism as is Iran. Saudi Arabia sponsors thousands of educational facilities which train terrorists all over the world. There have been claims that Syria has biological and chemical weapons and Iran has nuclear weapons.

No matter what you say are the president Iraq is not linked nor has never been linked to Al Qaida either. As matter of fact there have been rumors for quite some time that Osama Bin Laden has been trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein for many years now.There are three terrorist organizations that Iraq has been linked too one is a group of Iran dissidents, the other two are Hamas and Hezbollah, they have gave money to the families of suicide bombers as does Saudi Arabia, Iran Syria, Libya, and a host of other countries.

Davarro, there are rumors to that effect. There are signs that the government is engaged in a process of abandoning that practice. In any case, Pakistan is cooperating with the US war on terrorism. In fact, they are turning out to be valiant allies.

Saudi Arabia is a close ally of the US. There are concerns about the fomenting of ideological hatred, but that would of course not justify military action.

Syria has chemical weapons. There are indeed serious questions about Syria. Nevertheless, Syria has not showed itself to be an expansionist power like Iraq. Nor is Syria trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons. In fact, there is not any clear evidence yet that Iran is even trying to build them.

Oh, really? Bin Laden was trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein? Well, why do you think he would do that? To steal Iraq's WMD, especially nuclear materials, if any. That's another good reason to go into Iraq.

To summarize: the problem with Iraq is a combination of: chemical weapons stockpiling, missile stockpiling, biological weapons stockpiling, the seeking of nuclear weapons, territorial expansionism, state support for terrorism, and massive human rights abuses. North Korea fits the picture as well, but they're holding a gun to our head in the form of artillery pointed at Seoul. Thus, we can't deal with NK like we can Iraq.

Osama Assassinating Saddam

Huh dude, Osama was trying to killSaddam because Saddam has murdered a large amount of Muslim Clerics during his tenure as leader it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. The argument you are trying to make here doesn't make any sense. We should get rid of Saddam because Osama wants to kill him?

If anything this would lend itself to an argument against the war. If Saddam does indeed have weapons of mass destruction then we go to war and the army folds quickly. then who is looking after the chemical weapons? the answer is nobody. This would lend Al-qaida are just some thieves who want to sell chemical weapons on the black market to have easy access to all the stockpiles they want. In any regime change especially during a war there is a period of mass chaos. This has been shown throughout history.

There is no clear evidence that Iran is building Nuclear weapons.

There is no clear evidence that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. and there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq has tried to acquire nuclear weapons. The documents that the United States used to claim this have been proven to be a forgery and now our government even disavows these documents.

Pakistan is cooperating

They are cooperating up to the point it comes to them. As late as last November there was a State Department report as well as a UN report that stated Pakistan was still a major sponsor of Kashmiri seperatist groups.

North Korea

Once again, your argument does not make logical sense. Basically what you are saying is that we should attack Iraq because they will be easier to destroy than North Korea. If you feel it is morally justified to attack Iraq then you should feel it no matter what the consequences are, just because we will walk over Iraq is not a reason either for war or against war. Likewise just because it would be difficult to fight North Korea is not a reason against war.

Saudi Arabia

So what you are saying is that because Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States they should be allowed to foment hatred of the United States, sponsor terrorism, and abuse human beings, two of these are reasons that you justify war with Iraq. I think the fomenting hatred of the United States with the funding of the wahibbi religious schools is as big a reason for Al-qaida as Bin-Laden

Serious questions about Syria.

Syria is a more immediate threat to giving Chemical weapons to terror groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-qaida than Saddam is. Syria and Iran are the primary sponsors of Hamas, and Hezbollah.

The point is that UBL is desperate for WMD. If UNMOVIC and the IAEA won't stop Iraq, the US and the UK will. The USMC will be all over the CBW and any U that SH has. OK?

Iraq has WMD and has sought nuclear weapons. link. The Niger evidence was only one bit of evidence. There is a lot of other evidence not tainted.

The response is not to destroy Iraq. It is to remove the regime.

Some kind of response to the varying issues presented by Syria and SA needs to come about. It will probably happen in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative.

You keep switching positions. I believe you are arguing dishonestly. Thus, I will refrain from further discussion in this thread.

"Switching positions"

You are the one who keeps switching positions. and makes ludicrous arguments without backing them up with fact, such as Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, when there is no clear evidence they do. I don't know whether they do are not and you don't either. And please, everybody knows Iraq tried to seek nuclear weapons in the 1980's. you cannot and will not find any evidence other than evidence that was forged that they have tried to pursue Nuclear Weapons since the first Gulf War. It is intellectually dishonest for you to say that they have been trying to pursue Nuclear weapons and you know it.

How will the USMC be on top of any U that SH has? because you said so? what type of dream world do y'all live in? do you think USMC are just going to magically come down and find everything when the whole weight of world history does not back this up?

It is also intellectually dishonest to say that you want a regime change without destroying Iraq. what do you think happens during a war? the destruction of the infrastructure of a country. It is if some of you who are for the war think that war does not have any consequences. War has consequences and the destruction of Iraq is going to be one of those consequences!!! why do you think we are already trying to set up funds to rebuild it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the thing about some of these people for the war Davarro. when there argument cannot back them up they go out on personal attacks and call people liars and unpatriotic.

For this guy to argue that the advent of war is just going to bring regime change and not the destruction of Iraq and its infrastructure is totally assanine.

Davarro,

I think Andrew has this belief that because the president says Iraq has WMD's then it must be true.

The bottom line is nobody knows if Iraq has WMD's and Andrew doesn't either no matter how much belly-shouting and pontificating he does.

Andrew,

when you go to war you are going to inflict serious infrastructural damage to the country which could lend one to say you want to destroy the country. This is logical common sense.