Saddam Hussein is a despot, a dictator, a torturer, and a fiend. That’s not the question. To be sure, the Iraqi people would be better off in a democracy. And perhaps Saddam really is hiding weapons he should not have (though convincing evidence has yet to be presented). The issue, rather, is whether risking the lives and health of American troops, provoking likely terrorist attacks on New York and other U.S. targets, and most certainly wiping out many thousands of Iraqis—the UN predicts upwards of half a million Iraqis requiring medical treatment as a result of “direct or indirect injuries” related to the war—is the best way to disarm Saddam and improve the lives of the people suffering under his rule. Not to mention the related consequences of gutting civil liberties and eviscerating social spending here, and taking the chance of regional conflagration in the Middle East.
Village Voice
Whose Smoking Gun? Powell’s evidence shouldn’t mean war:
Iraq hawks are troubled by the failure of some Americans to fall in line behind President Bush after Wednesday’s impressive performance by Colin Powell. Now that Powell has so clearly shown that Iraq has illegal weapons, they ask, how could anyone argue for continuing United Nations weapons inspections, rather than just fast forwarding to war? Actually, it’s not as hard as you’d think. — Robert Wright,
Slate
Failing to make the case for war:
The White House’s arguments for war all along have been less conclusions based on evidence than evidence based on conclusions – less like the determination of a judge, and more like the lawyers arguing to the jury. Powell’s presentation to the U.N., with its more concrete evidence and its more sober demeanor, should be considered every bit as critically, and skeptically, as those of the more hyperbolic prosecutors preceding him.
And, to quote the late, wondrous Peggy Lee: Is that all there is? — Geov Parrish,
AlterNet
Powell’s dubious case for war:
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council today wasn’t likely to win over anyone not already on his side. He ignored the crucial fact that in the past several days (in Sunday’s New York Times and in his Feb. 4 briefing of UN journalists) Hans Blix denied key components of Powell’s claims.
Blix, who directs the UN inspection team in Iraq, said the UNMOVIC inspectors have seen “no evidence” of mobile biological weapons labs, have “no persuasive indications” of Iraq-al Qaeda links, and no evidence of Iraq hiding and moving material used for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) either outside or inside Iraq. Dr. Blix also said there was no evidence of Iraq sending scientists out of the country, of Iraqi intelligence agents posing as scientists, of UNMOVIC conversations being monitored, or of UNMOVIC being penetrated. — Phyllis Bennis,
Foreign Policy in Focus via AlterNet
The inspections flap: both sides are wrong:
The verbal fight about the search for weapons in Iraq is a waste of words. This fractious debate, like the search for the weapons themselves, is a red herring – a diversion from the real reasons for war. Oddly, those who oppose the war are trapped by the inspection regime’s logic every bit as much as President Bush is. In a mirror image of each other, both are beholden to the wrong standards, pretending to follow the rules, and letting more important issues slide by. — John Tirman,
AlterNet
Trust Colin Powell? A retrospective:
The U.S. news media promoted two “themes” about Secretary of State Colin Powell’s trip to the United Nations where he buttressed George W. Bush’s case for war with Iraq by presenting satellite photographs of trucks outside buildings and snippets of intercepted conversations.
While the “evidence” on its face didn’t seem to prove much of anything, the media’s first “theme” was that Powell is a trustworthy man of principle, a straight talker who wouldn’t be part of some cheap propaganda ploy. The second “theme” was that Powell’s appearance before the United Nations was a kind of sequel to Adlai Stevenson’s convincing case that Soviet missiles had been installed in Cuba in 1962.
But both themes – Powell’s trustworthiness and the Cuban missile precedent – may be misleading, as articles below from the Consortiumnews.com Archives will demonstrate.
The Consortium
E.J. Dionne and David Brooks, NPR’s Friday evening political pundits summarizing the week’s news on “All Things Considered”, come at it from the supposed two sides of the political spectrum, but they agreed in this evening’s commentary that the American public’s debate about the war is over after the State of the Union address and the Powell U.N. speech. If indeed the American public has been convinced, shame on them. First, if we had all this evidence for so long, why wait until now to pull it out of the hat? I just don’t buy the business about an intense debate within the administration about whether to jeopardize intelligence sources. We would never have insisted on reestablishing the inspection process if we already had proof (not to mention that it is proof that is not supported from on the ground, according to the chief inspector…). Secondly, all the evidence about Iraq’s concealing weapons misses the point, upon which the Europeans continue to insist, that there is no imminent threat from Iraq. Thirdly, to attempt to make the case for a clear and present danger by linking Iraq and al Qaeda is a stretch so huge that it was painfully embarrassing to listen to. Finally, and most important, it has been the dysadministration’s game of three card monte all along to configure this debate around WMD, which is only the pretext for war. Oh, so that’s why the big charade about the inspection process. If you’re only paying attention to what’s going on in my right hand, I can do anything I want with my left.. But:
In a host of developments yesterday, the Pentagon said 113,000 US troops were in the Gulf, on course for the target of 150,000 the accepted minimum for a war by 15 February. An important unit, the 20,000-strong 101st Airborne Division, was ordered to the Gulf.
Independent UK
Since Chirac has signalled that France will not change its position, and would use its UN Security Council veto to stop a second resolution authorizing force, the US will fall back on its “coalition of the willing” with its new toadies in eastern Europe, and exercise the right upon which it has insisted to go it without UN authorization. William Saletan, writing in
Slate, tallies How Powell Did in the Security Council:
In his presentation to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday morning, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sought to convince the council of three things: 1) that his evidence was solid and damning; 2) that Iraq’s current level of cooperation was unacceptable under Security Council Resolution 1441, thereby justifying war; and 3) that this failure to cooperate rendered inspections futile, clearing the way for an imminent war decision.
After Powell spoke, representatives of the remaining 14 council members delivered their preliminary judgments of his presentation. Their comments on the three key questions, summarized in the table below, indicate that Powell succeeded on the first question and gained the upper hand on the second but failed to attract enough support on the third. The bottom line is that the council’s sanctions on Iraq will stay in place, and if the United States can wait, the council (as presently constituted) will eventually authorize war. But if the United States insists on going to war now, it will have to do so without that authorization.
So it is coming soon — the buildup, the rhetoric and the logistics say it has to be this year rather than next when the Presidential campaign will be gearing up, and it has to be before it gets too hot. Oh, and by the way,
France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance “must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance” the head of the Pentagon’s top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.
Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon’s Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.
UPI
To cap it off,
Sydney Morning Herald.
