Neo-Con shill of the day: Fred Barnes!!!!

I'm going to counter Barnes screed paragraph by paragraph. His remarks are indented.

Fascist Pigs!

Demonstrations over the weekend show the left's dedication to preserving murderous, dictatorial regimes--no matter what the cost.
by Fred Barnes
02/17/2003 12:00:00 AM

THERE WAS A TIME--the 1960s, 1970s--when the political left in America favored wars of national liberation in countries ruled by dictators, some of them fascist dictators. True, the left would have installed communist dictatorships in their place. But at least leftists targeted enemies who were corrupt, brutal abusers of human rights.

Umm, Fred. The left would have installed communist dictators in their place. You make no point, Fred. Furthermore, if you believe that the political left favored wars, you are either disingenuous, revising history or very sloppy with your pen.

Now the left has flipped. The effect of its crusade against war in Iraq would be the survival--indeed, the strengthening--of Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. The left has brushed aside the pleas of Iraqi exiles, Kurds, and Shiite Muslims who are seeking liberation from Saddam's cruelty. Instead, leftists have targeted those who would aid the Iraqi dissidents, particularly the Bush administration.

No one I know, which includes a large number of professors, and other assorted lefty intellectuals has floated the idea that Saddam should be left to his own accord. The problem here Fred, is that anyone can make baseless accusations. I see that the Bush administration is "targeted." You'd better round those lefties up before they do something bad. This is a product of an overactive and paranoid imagination. Iraq isn't going to attack anyone. Saddam is contained. We are patrolling the Kurdish and Shiite areas. Saddam is effectively contained. Get over it.

The corruption of the left has deepened in recent years. At no time was this more evident than last Saturday when large antiwar protests were staged in New York, San Francisco, and other cities in the United States and around the world, including London. Did the demonstrators march on the Iraqi consulate in New York to demand an end to Saddam's murderous practices? No. Did they spend time condemning him in their speeches and placards? Nope. Did they come to the defense of Saddam's victims? No. The left now gives fascist dictators a pass. Its enemy is the United States.

Corruption of the left. I see it now, disagreeing with your government is corruption. Who knew!! Dissent, which founded this country is so old fashioned. Boy, I'm sure all those CEO's and accounting firms will be glad to know that they are the good guys!!! Complicity in Washington, and you, the co-opted arm of the right. That's rich!!!! I know that you're aware as to who and why Saddam has WMD capabilities, Fred. It is because of the Reagan and Bush illegal covert machinations of the arms trade. We know what Saddam's WMD capacities are--the two aforementioned administrations sold them the stuff! You really shouldn't underestimate your readership. We remember. Do you conveniently forget? The enemy of the US are people like you that would sell our hardest fought liberties to the highest bidder. FYI, the right wing is the party of late that has turned a blind eye to the atrocities in the Middle East. Even arming both sides on occasion. This is simply "projection."

No one has explained this better than British prime minister Tony Blair in a speech Saturday. If he took the antiwar demonstrators advice, Blair said, "there would be no war, but there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people . . . There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chamber which, if he is left in power, will be left in being."

This is more unsubstantiated rubbish. Let me repeat, no one of note is saying that Saddam should stay in power. I'd play your game of promising a big revelation, and then not delivering but I've no need to sidestep the issue. More diplomacy is needed, not militarism at this juncture. If you could save lives by exhausting all diplomatic avenues would you not opt for this avenue? Be careful how you answer. FYI, Fred, this is middle America, middle Britain, middle the rest of the world demonstrating. You are a real kettle stirrer, Fred. Your right wing neo-conservative ideologues don't seem to care as much about human life if it is outside of our borders. I know what's going on, the fix is in.

In ignoring the 25 million Iraqis who suffer under Saddam's autocratic rule, the left has stripped any moral dimension from the antiwar cause. And its arguments for opposing a war of liberation in Iraq are either uninformed or merely stupid. Here are a few of those arguments:

Freddy!!! Reagan and Bush 1 with assistance from Donny Rumsfeld allowed Saddam to commit all manner of mayhem for a dozen years. Have you suddenly found religion? Now Saddam's a monster that must be taken out today? How shallow. Uninformed or stupid. I see you've been listening to Limbaugh again. Unless you have some compelling evidence to the contrary, I've been told that the presence of the inspectors has had a deterrent factor.

(1) War will mean thousands of civilian casualties. If there's anything Saddam has produced in his nearly 25 years of rule in Iraq, it's civilian casualties. He ordered the gassing of thousands of innocent Kurds. He had thousands of Shiites murdered. His war against Iran caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and his invasion of Kuwait was marked by the killing of thousands of Kuwaiti civilians. Saddam has personally ordered the execution of thousands of Iraqis. He has allowed thousands of Iraqi children to die from starvation or lack of medicine.

So, bombing baghdad, which is certain to kill tens of thousands form the immediate bombing, and tens of thousands more refugee deaths is a good idea. Got ya. I'll choose to allow diplomacy some more time. Honestly, I fail to see any point to the above.

Compare that with the few hundred civilians killed in Afghanistan by the U.S. military. In fact, the American intervention saved hundreds of thousands who would have starved to death otherwise. And in the 1991 Gulf War relatively few Iraqi civilians were killed. In truth, a war that deposes Saddam in Iraq will save civilian lives, thousands of them.

A few hundred? The most exhaustive study shows between 3,100 and 3.600 deaths by direct military action. Then there are refugees. Many of which are still displaced and dying. I recommend you get in touch with Pakistani reporter Ahmid Rashid and UNH professor Marc Herold. They have some real facts you can use in future articles. The Gulf War of 1991 killed "relatively few" civilians? Are you sure you want to stand by that statement. 118,000 civilian deaths by direct military action. Another 600,000 by disease due to sanctions. Oh, and by the way, Afghanistan is still a hellish, perilous place. You are really good at this game!!!!!

(2) It's a war for Iraqi oil. There's an easy way to get all the oil in Iraq that President Bush or anyone else might desire--and it's not war. No, the easy way is to lift sanctions on Iraq and make a deal with Saddam. He's eager to sell the oil and make money. And the United States doesn't need Iraqi oil anyway, what with Russian oil production coming on line. At the moment, America's problem is the cutoff of oil from Venezuela. A war for oil would oust President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Of course there is no such war planned, nor is there one to cut the price of oil. The price favored by Bush and the domestic oil industry--and producers like Saudi Arabia--will be restored when Venezuela is pumping fully again, probably soon.

I don't believe that it's all about oil. There are petroleum elements that will make select US corporations handsome profits, but it's a secondary issue at best. If you don't think the US could use Iraqi oil, and indeed will need to at some point in the future, that's a myopic position. I wished I shared your certainty about Russian and Venezuelan crude, but nothing is certain. At the moment America's oil problem is that we consume too much of it. If those nasty lefties had gotten their way back in the '70s, it is likely that we'd be oil independent now. The price favored..we shall see.

(3) War in Iraq will stir a new wave of terrorism. We've heard this one before. The Gulf War, it was warned, would arouse the Arab street and subject Americans to a wave of attacks. That didn't happen. When the United States went into Afghanistan and, worse, bombed during Ramadan, it was supposed to prompt a worldwide uprising of Muslims, and Muslim terrorists in particular, against America. Again, that didn't happen. So when the Arab leader most hated by other Arab leaders--a leader who's far more secular than Muslim, is removed, it's highly unlikely to cause more terrorism. Most likely, the result will be less.

This is an interesting spin. There has been a huge increase in international terrorism since we went to Afghanistan, but since it isn't in your backyard, it doesn't matter. I guess that you are more of an expert on such matters than George Tenet, Bob Mueller and their ilk. I'll bet there will be more terrorism internationally. Our chickens may not come home to roost, but on a global scale I think it likely that Americans will be targeted more frequently. I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion: "Most likely, the result will be less." Most likey? I'll tell ya, Fred, this one is an out and out guess. You just lobbed that one over the plate. That is an entirely baseless statement. You know it, and now you know, I know it.

(4) Give the inspectors more time. This was a common cry at Saturday's antiwar demonstrations. But of course those cries were entirely disingenuous. By definition, the "stop the war" protesters don't want war, no matter what the United Nations inspectors in Iraq happen upon. The demonstrators are playing Saddam's delaying game: Let the inspections continue until support in the United States for military action in Iraq dissolves and war is averted. Then Saddam survives. The inspections ploy is further proof the left has given up wars of national liberation against oppressive dictators and is now in the business of saving oppressive dictators from wars of national liberation.

Sigh. Old Europe showed the US a thing or two about diplomacy last week. More inspectors and areas blocked to areas in the process of being inspected, and then a small group left there whilst the inspectors continue is the best plan. This would work. It's not part of PNAC's plan, but it is a noble goal. Tell me Fred, have you ever served in the military? Ever had to to triage at a field hospital? I have. It's ugly. There are lots of alternatives to war. There always have been. It's just that small-minded aging men with 20th century thinking are in power now, and they know no better. War should only be used as a last resort. The inspections should be beefed way up, and a different style of inspection used. I'll bet you didn't know that that 90-95% of Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed, and that their remaining inventory may be impotent. We'll never, ever know if we've gotten all of their anthrax..ever. Never. Would a war be just at this juncture. The short answer is depends. Do you value the lives of Iraqis as much as your own? If you answer yes, then an exhaustion of all diplomatic means, and a new inspection regime should be given a chance.

As we enter the 21st century, we have a great resposibility. America at the turn of this century, and indeed millenium is equipped with the most powerful military force the world has ever assembled. Judicious use is required, because America will not be this position forever. There are cracks in the economic fabric appearing, and without the engine of the world's largest economy to drive it along, the military quickly becomes an albatross.

Peace.

***