Boortz's Iraq war justifications
I thought it was about time we had a look at Mr. Boortz's actual reasoning behind his support for invading Iraq. Maybe later, when I have the time and inclination to do so, I will respond to each of his points in turn; but for now, I'm more interested in hearing what other people have to say on the subject.
First, I've pasted below a "Nealz Nuze" entry from May 7, 2003.
There's also an April 29 WorldNetDaily column, which uses reasoning much the same as the above. I didn't copy this article below, but here's the URL:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32290
Lastly, we have his more recent (but very similar) thoughts, as expressed in an excerpt from his Oct. 7 WorldNetDaily column, also pasted below.
*************************************************************
http://boortz.com/includes/archive/
May 7, 2003
WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN?
Well, the answer to that question is clear. We have to go over this time after time because there are certain people out there, we'll call them "liberals," who are still in a state of despair and shock over President Bush's successful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
Day after day we read newS stories, columns and various opinion pieces from the Molly Ivins brigade trumpeting Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This presumably means that the entire Iraqi effort was illegitimate and, perhaps, that Bush ought to be defeated in 2004, at best, or impeached, at worst for his failure.
OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
1.Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
2.The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
3.Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
4.Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
5.Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
6.After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
7.Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
8.Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
9.Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
10.The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.
It's just that easy. Any questions?
------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34961
Demonizing George Bush
Posted: October 7, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
(excerpt from complete column)
Do the facts matter here? I think that they do, and if a little spoon feeding is necessary, spoon feeding it shall be.
OK, we knew that Saddam had the weapons. We also knew that he had used those weapons, as did the families of the thousands of people who ended their lives locked into grotesque poses of death in the streets of Iraq coated in Saddam's chemical residues.
Further, Saddam had taken steps to bring an end to the weapons inspections in 1998. Those inspections were discontinued until four years later, and then resumed to suffer the constant harassment of Saddam and his henchmen. For a little icing on the weapons cake, we have Saddam's refusal to abide by any of the 17 resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council from 1991 onward.
So, America invades. Documents are found, equipment is found, scientists who worked on the weapons are found, but the weapons themselves aren't. This, according to the Democrats and their sycophants in the media, is all the evidence we need to condemn Bush's war to oust Saddam.
Is that so?
So, what to do? Do you let him go? Do you apologize for the raid? You know he had those bills. You know that because he actually passed them! He has the press, the paper, the ink and the plates … but no bills. Was your whole effort a miserable failure?
Of course, it wasn't a failure. The counterfeiter is out of business. He won't be printing any bogus bills any time soon. To turn him loose simply because he didn't have any actual bills on him, or you couldn't find any bills he had hidden away would be pure idiocy.
OK, I'll put away the spoon. If this little allegory hasn't turned on a light somewhere you need to reset your circuit breakers.
Posted by Jeff Smith at December 18, 2003 09:54 PM | TrackBackIn the first article, Boortz repeats the Big Lie that Saddam "kicked out" the U.N. inspectors. In the second he avoids the outright lie by the circomlocution "took steps". This still ignores the role of U.S. and U.N. actions in the 1998 collapse of the inspections regime. I'll bet Boortz never admitted to the lie in the earlier article.
The Iraqis claimed their bio and chem weapons were all destroyed before the inspectors were withdrawn in 1998, not afterwards as Boortz seems to say.
The three U.N. resolutions don't say what Boortz claims they do. 678 authorized the liberation of Kuwait, and doesn't even mention WMD. 1441 not only does not authorize action by "any member state", but specifically gives Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".
Texts of the resolutions
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/s-res-678.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/un-1441.htm
678 refers back to 660, the first resolution concerning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, which also doesn't mention WMD.
http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/un-660.htm
The "counterfeiter" analogy is flawed. Making chem and bio weapons doesn't require much equipment specialized for the purpose. Most of it is "dual use". So the War Party is just crowing that Iraq has the kind of chemical, biological, and medical facilities you would find in any halfway modern country.
On the last point, as well as the "inspectors kicked out" lie, Boortz is just repeating standard War Party memes. On the other points he seems to be going the extra mile and making up his own lies.
I admit I'm surprised. I knew Boortz was an asshole, but I had no idea he was such a bare-faced liar.
I didn't mean for the last post to be anonymous. I didn't notice my ID wasn't saved from the last time.
And I mispelled "circumlocution". I hate when that happens.
Posted by: David Tomlin at December 19, 2003 01:45 AMIn my first post I pointed out some inaccuracies in Boortz's comments. I didn't actually address his "reasoning". Here are a couple of observations.
In the earlier column, Boortz suggests that Bush's lying about WMD is of no importance unless it affects the "legitimacy" of the war under international law.
Suppose a president were to propose funding increases for school lunch programs, and support this by falsifying statistics about child malnutrition. Would anyone say that was OK, as long as no laws were broken? Would Boortz?
Boortz is correct to point out that Bush's claims about Iraqi WMD were irrelevant to the question of the legality of the war. If final authority lay with the Security Council rather than the US, then the war was illegal regardless of how certain US intelligence might be about WMD or anything else. Since Boortz doesn't quote anyone claiming the contrary, he seems to be attacking a strawman.
Power fills a vacuum. The question then is do we want totolitarians filling a power vacuum or republicans?
I quit the party over this issue. I came from the communists to the Libertarians.
I quit the Libs when their foreign policy became congruent with the Socialist Worker's Party (post 9/11).
I know Libs fear power. Personally I think you must weild it in a controlled way. That is we can burn oil on the ground or in an engine. The same is true of military power. It will rule the world.
So the question then becomes Islam Inc. or the USof A? Sour choices. Still I prefer the US of A.
To think that principles are any more than guidance is utopian. Goedel said no such system can answer all questions. Libertarians still side with Russel vs Goedel despite the fact that Goedel broke Russel.
To believe in principle is good. To make it a God is madness.
Posted by: M. Simon at December 19, 2003 06:31 PMFoolish consistiency is the hobgoblin of petty minds.
Under .25% in the next election.
Posted by: M. Simon at December 19, 2003 06:32 PMThe problem with tthe Libs is that they think their framework can answer all questions.
My wife who is quite astute about real politics was always supportive of my Libertarianism but sceptical of Libertarians. She said they did not live in the real world. I resisted her point of view for years. In fact 9/11 taught me she was right.
Posted by: M. Simon at December 19, 2003 07:24 PMInteresting thoughts, Mr. Simon.
Being somewhat philosophically-oriented myself, it's tempting to follow your departure from the theme of this thread. You prefer "the real world" over principle, but ironically choose in this instance to argue about philosophy instead of facts.
It isn't necessary to base rejection of the Bush Administration's Iraq war justifications on a system any more libertarian than the system we (supposedly) live under currently.
Instead of taking the bait and switching the focus away from the accuracy or innaccuracy of Boortz' claims about Iraq, I'll just point out that you seem to tacitly agree with Mr. Boortz, while offering no factual data to support your belief.
About the real world, though:
It seems we start from different basic assumptions. 9/11/01 didn’t prove to me that libertarianism doesn't work. If we're speaking about a non-interventionist foreign policy, it certainly can't be said that such a policy is responsible for 9/11/01, since US foreign policy is _anything_ but non-interventionist.
Thanks for your comments, and I'm sorry libertarianism (as you understand it) has lost its appeal for you.
I quit the Libs when their foreign policy became congruent with the Socialist Worker's Party (post 9/11).
That implies that LP foreign policy changed after 9/11, in direction you disliked. Isn't your real complaint that it didn't change, or (I would say) didn't change far enough in the direction you wanted?
Before 9/11, LP foreign policy was firmly non-interventionist. Since then it has gone soft and equivocal.
One more point.
Libertarian non-intervention has it's roots in the ideas of the American founders and the English Manchesterians, classical liberals all. The allusion to the Socialist Workers' Party (about which, btw, I know nothing and care less) is a lame attempt at guilt by association.
Posted by: David Tomlin at December 20, 2003 01:45 AMHere's a gem I overlooked.
. . . scientists who worked on the weapons are found . . .
So, to satisfy Boortz, Saddam would have to put his weapons scientists to death, or at least exile them?
Boortz is implying that the invasion uncovered weapons scientists whose existence was previously unknown to the West.
I doubt Boortz is really such a lamebrain, but he sure plays the part well.
