The assertions made in this commentary by the Illinois congressman who led the Republican efforts to impeach Clinton just couldn't be left unchallenged. I sincerely doubt they'll publish my response (just as they didn't publish my letter three weeks ago responding to their editorial that tried to justify the Iraq war despite the absence of WMD).
Anyway, here's Mr. Hyde's commentary, followed by my response:
DELIVERING OURSELVES FROM EVIL
Bush is laying the foundation for a comprehensive root-and-branch approach to the mortal danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
By U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations CommitteePublished February 20, 2004Over the years, I have found myself in ever-greater agreement with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), who have incessantly warned us of the real danger of weapons of mass destruction finding their way into the hands of our enemies.
Since the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has transformed our entire approach to this staggering challenge by crafting and implementing an unprecedented, multifaceted, global, action-oriented effort, of which Iraq is an integral part. I need not rehearse the arguments regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, other than to point out that every intelligence agency--along with the United Nations, Saddam Hussein's own generals and even many of today's critics--believed that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to last year's invasion by coalition forces.
In our vulnerable world, to wait until compelling evidence of a threat is imminent is to wait for our destruction--to err on the side of annihilation. It is specious and naive to talk of intelligence failures as shocking surprises, as though these estimates and extrapolated predictions could ever be more than imperfect. We had valuable but incomplete intelligence preceding Sept. 11 and largely ignored it. Is that the model to which critics of President Bush's actions in Iraq would have us adhere? When is it wise to risk the safety of the American people? Because that is the outcome that a demand for certainty will guarantee.
Now making the rounds is the view that the United States has lost credibility around the world due to its failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I suggest that is too narrow an understanding of credibility. We have, in fact, gained enormous, immensely valuable, even decisive credibility from our actions. For the next time the United States, or at least this president, warns some foreign despot to cease actions we believe are threatening to our security, my hunch is that he will listen, and listen carefully.
<snip>
Read the entire commentary:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0402200316feb20,1,3903316.storyHere is my responseIn his February 20 commentary "Delivering ourselves from evil" Henry J. Hyde employs the same kind of distortions and fear mongering that characterized the president’s prewar rhetoric. He says he agrees with Richard Lugar and Sam Nunn concerning weapons of mass destruction, but their program to keep the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union from falling into the wrong hands has been neglected under the Bush administration. Mr. Hyde also asserts that
"every intelligence agency – along with the United Nations" believed Iraq possessed WMD prior to last year’s invasion. The fact is that most agencies disputed the extreme claims made by the United States. Dick Cheney declared Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons" when the International Atomic Energy Agency determined Iraq had not resumed its nuclear program. The IAEA has been proven right, and Cheney wrong.
Henry Hyde would have us believe the world’s only superpower would be risking
"annihilation" to wait for compelling evidence before taking preemptive action against a battered and broken country 6000 miles away (which just happens to sit atop the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves). The only credibility we have left, which Mr. Hyde redefines for us, is the threat of military assault. The basic premise of his argument is that if we had not invaded Iraq we would not be making progress with Libya, Iran, and North Korea. One could just as easily argue the Bush foreign policy has escalated the North Korean threat, and the breakthrough with Libya resulted from a decade of multinational efforts and Libya’s desire to rejoin the world community.
The truth is that our military is already badly overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are in no shape to launch another war against a country that would offer considerably more resistance. And when it comes to nuclear proliferation, the Bush administration is the worst offender with its program to develop and deploy mini-nukes as offensive weapons for actual use. This strikes fear in our enemies, but also in our ever-shrinking circle of friends. The America of Bush, Cheney and Hyde relies on weapons of mass destruction to enforce our will abroad, and tactics of mass deception to maintain power at home. What we really need to fear is another four years in their hands.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
