One of my least favorite of all commentators, points to reasons to avoid war with Iraq, a confrontation he describes as a "murderously foolhardy adventure led by our unelected and wholly unqualified fratboy/chickenhawk President". Let's take a look at some of them.
First, this story in the Houston Chronicle, which claims that:
While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.
Sounds pretty disturbing, just who ARE these people, and how much credence should we give their views? Well, there's the rub, because:
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.
No one who was interviewed disagreed.
Ahhhh, so analysts at the "working level" of the intelligence community, who won't go on the record. And we found a dozen other people, also off the record, who agreed with the initial "analyst". In other words, we found 12 people who expressed misgivings about the war, but wouldn't let us tell you who they are, or why you should care about their analysis.
Then there's this swill by Robert Scheer. Just look at the list of past articles he's written on the subject and you understand that the only evidence he will accept as a reason to remove Saddam is right after the nuke with "made in Iraq" on it explodes in Washington DC.
Ahhh, and then we have the Guardian's contribution to the debate. You know, the UK paper that published pieces blasting Bush's speech before it was even delivered? The thing that strikes me the most about this piece is who it chooses to quote (and who it chooses to ignore). Let's see, who are the dignitaries the Guardian consulted: well, there's
Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.
David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector
Bob Baer, a former CIA agent
A department of energy specialist.
A source familiar with the September 11 investigation
Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral
Well, with a crew like that, how can you not believe the Guardian? Of course, they also throw a little Machiavelli in there, namely:
"CIA assessments are being put aside by the defense department in favor of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now."
I guess the Guardian doesn't feel as if all of the "formers" and "retireds" they interviewed are a little bit like exiles; out of the loop, and possibly with a grudge to share.
How about this Salon entry, which states:
Sept. 11 and wars of the world
Osama and Saddam pose real threats, but the Bush administration may be too incompetent -- and too arrogant -- to stop them.
I'm not even sure what to say about this. I guess the way Bush and his military advisors completely bungled Afghanistan left a bad taste in this guy's mouth. But wait, you might say, Bush and Co. didn't bungle Afghanistan. To that, all I can reply is "Exactly".
And the Washinton Post's entry, quoting yet another retired military officer. Although to be fair, this article is the most objective of the lot. Basically Zinni, the retired military advisor, says that he thinks Saddam is containable "for the moment" and that there are other priorities "right now". Heady stuff indeed.
This story, about a couple of JFK aids who disagree with Bush's "preemptive strike" interpretation of the Cuban missile crisis seems pretty much on the level (gee, another objective story from the Washington Post). They disagree with the way Bush is interpreting JFK's words, they helped craft those words, so perhaps they know what they are talking about. Let's hope we never have to deal with a nuclear armed Saddam to find out if JFK's strategy was the right one, or not.
I only have 2 words for this Altercation entry on why we shouldn't trust Bush: Kristof and New York Times (OK, actually 4 words, but you get my drift). Go read it if you want to.
This New York Times Editorial seems pretty innocuous as well. The author points out that we need to tread carefully, explore all of our options with unconditional inspections before we go to war, and be prepared to help Iraq post-Saddam. Well, duh.
As for Alterman's final anti-war argument, I refuse to link to the Nation. If you want to read it, then go find it yourself. Hint, the author describes himself as a "Europhile" that is delighted that "German Chancellor Gerhard Schrader and other European statesmen continue to express such doubts" about the wisdom of engaging Iraq.
Wow, Eric. Your overwhelming intelligence against war with Iraq, provided by former spies and has-been military men and speechwriters ,along with a little Europhile vilification of Bush certainly makes a strong argument for sitting back and letting Hussein continue on his merry way. But if it's all the same to you, I'll pass. Maybe because of things like this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and especially this make me think I want to go ahead and remove Saddam from power.