Arjun Bamzai

2003-05-19T00:19:00.000-04:00

I am not yet a member of the American Islamic Congress (www.aicongress.org) but I do support this excellent organization, which was founded after September 11, 2001 by Iraqi-American educator Zainab al-Suwaij to promote tolerance.

Zainab al-Suwaij participated in Iraq's 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein. She fled Iraq when that uprising fell victim to Saddam Hussein's brutal repression and the first Bush administration's indifference. Last month, thanks to the second Bush administration's resolve, and thanks to the bravery and strength and skill of the U.S., British, Australian, and Polish armed forces, the ancien regime in Iraq was removed. Iraqi freedom is now POSSIBLE, and Zainab al-Suwaij was able to return to Iraq as a participant in conferences discussing plans for a new, democratic form of government to replace the Saddam Hussein regime. But Iraqi freedom cannot be established without increased international effort. U.N. sanctions must be lifted immediately. Iraq also needs far more personnel (coalition troops and Iraqi police) to enhance security, far more money for emergency relief efforts to avert humanitarian catastrophe and save lives, and far more money for reconstruction efforts to establish the conditions needed for Iraqi prosperity.

I was happy to discover today that the American Islamic Congress may participate in efforts to rebuild Iraq. They are now looking for people with interest and expertise in rebuilding efforts, and they are accepting applications. If you would like to find out more about this, please visit the website for the American Islamic Congress.

2003-05-14T21:24:00.000-04:00

Until about a month ago, I had never heard of an aid organization known as Mercy Corps. Around that time I did some web searching, trying to see which aid organizations were doing the best work in Iraq. In my opinion, people who donate to aid organizations should scrutinize their operations. After all, some aid organizations are more effective than others, and when you're looking at emergency relief efforts aimed at SAVING LIVES, it's NOT the thought that counts -- it's the result.

I like the fact that Mercy Corps spends 91% of its revenues on operations. That is a greater percentage than any of the other aid organizations I briefly investigated.

I also like the fact that they document the total dollar amount of donations received, with daily updates.

I also like the fact that they won the Arab-American Institute Foundation's Khalil Gibran Award for humanitarian achievement last year.

II urge you to please visit the website for Mercy Corps (www.mercycorps.org), and to please consider making an online donation. You'll be surprised how easy it is to help save somebody's life.

2003-05-12T13:56:00.000-04:00

Sometimes events or reflection cause me to reconsider various aspects of what I have written in this weblog. I am then tempted to launch a verbal attack on my own arguments. This is pathetic, of course. I need your help. My e-mail address is arjunbamzai@yahoo.com. I would be very grateful if YOU could point out the flaws in my arguments, so that I can credit you by name for attacking me, instead of attacking myself. (If you can tell me how to add a comments section to this weblog, that would be even better!) Thanks!

2003-05-04T01:11:00.000-04:00

The humanitarian situation in Iraq is improving overall, but far too slowly, and the health care situation is extremely concerning.

It worries me greatly to see fewer and fewer reports about humanitarian emergency relief efforts in Iraq. I am worried that people will wrongly conclude from the paucity of such reports that such efforts have been completed, or that there is no longer any need for urgent assistance to the people of Iraq. The opposite is true. A massive and urgent augmentation of relief efforts is badly needed.

It is a matter of life and death. The speed and intensity and effectiveness of emergency relief efforts will determine whether thousands of Iraqi children live or die.

Once again, I will link to just a few of the many aid agencies participating in these emergency relief efforts.

If you are reading this weblog, you are probably unique. That is, you are very likely to be the ONLY person in the whole world who is reading this weblog. (I am assuming rather optimistically that "you" exist -- that is, that someone out there is actually reading this thing.) Therefore, you have the unique opportunity to be the ONLY person in the world making a contribution to any of the agencies listed below after being encouraged to do so by reading my weblog.

If you are so able, won't you please take advantage of this unique opportunity?

Medicins Sans Frontieres = Doctors Without Borders

Mercy Corps

UNICEF USA

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Thank you for your unique contribution!

2003-05-01T11:53:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay, the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the leader of the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, are effectively on the same side: they both oppose the U.S.-led effort to promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I hope that President Bush will succeed despite their opposition.

Right-wing extremists in the United States continue to condemn Secretary Powell and the State Department for alleged "diplomatic failures" but American diplomacy is as strong as it has ever been. The Palestinian Authority's confirmation of Mahmoud Abbas as Prime Minister is in fact a victory for American diplomacy. So is the widespread agreement on a U.S.-authored "road map" for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Secretary Powell will soon travel to Syria, NOT to offer concessions (as some American right-wingers fear), but to try to persuade President Assad to end Syria's morally indefensible policy of lending support for anti-Israeli terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Saddam Hussein regime's support for Palestinian terrorism was an important obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Ending that regime ended that support and removed that obstacle. If Secretary Powell succeeds in persuading Syria to end its support for Palestinian terrorism, then another obstacle to Middle East peace will be removed, and American diplomacy will have achieved yet another victory.

2003-04-25T13:06:00.000-04:00

Kanan Makiya is a thoughtful analyst affiliated with the Iraqi National Congress. His assessment of post-war Iraq is well worth reading.

2003-04-24T20:17:00.000-04:00

When critics state that the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq will advance U.S. interests in the region, they are absolutely right. They are wrong about what those interests are.

Millions of people around the world think that the United States invaded Iraq in order to steal Iraq's oil. I admire the State Department because American diplomats have got to have a lot more patience than I do.

Others think that the United States invaded Iraq in order to encourage Israel to extend dominion over the region. Indeed, it is possible to imagine an Israeli empire, from Tehran to Tripoli. It is possible to imagine a lot of things.

The U.S. has 3 main objectives in Iraq: disarming the Saddam Hussein regime, ending the Saddam Hussein regime's support for terrorists, and liberating the Iraqi people.

All of these objectives are consistent with U.S. interests.

The first 2 objectives are essentially achieved with the demise of the Saddam Hussein regime, although important work in these areas remains to be done (tracking down ancien regime leaders, investigating the ancien regime's weapons development programs, and delineating links to terrorist syndicates). The third objective, as Peter Bienart astutely observes in the New Republic, is a long way off.

IF we succeed in liberating Iraq we will thereby encourage freedom and democracy throughout the region, and by extension, throughout the world. (This is allegedly a "neoconservative" sentiment, although I fail to see anything "conservative" about it.) Freedom and democracy might allow the peoples of the region to reclaim the richness of their cultures, and the appeal of extremism might be replaced by the appeal of excellence.

To modify something President Clinton once said, instead of telling the people of the world to "just say no" to anti-American extremism, we should give them something to say "yes" to.

2003-04-23T13:49:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Newt Gingrich criticized the State Department for failures in diplomacy. This is a case of the crackpot calling the kettle cracked.

2003-04-21T23:57:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure why the links in my previous posting don't work.

Shall I try again?

As I said before, if you can, please, please, please help emergency relief efforts in Iraq. There are many organizations participating in relief for Iraq, but I will try to provide links to 3 of them.

International Committee of the Red Cross:

UNICEF:

Mercy Corps International:

Thank you for your time and noble generosity.

2003-04-21T02:36:00.000-04:00

Is Iraq better off today than it was 5 weeks ago?

Commentators have pointed to bomb damage, civilian deaths, widespread looting, the theft of priceless antiquities, scattered mob violence, lack of water and electricity, public health crises, and surging radical fundamentalism. Many of these commentators have argued that the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq has harmed the Iraqi people.

These problems are real. However, to modify an anti-war slogan, "Tyranny is NOT the Answer". The Iraqi people suffered because of the war, and are suffering today in the aftermath of war, but they were suffering for years under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Dissent was punished with torture and "disappearance". Thousands of Iraqi children suffered and died from the effects of malnutrition while the ruling elite stole Iraq's oil revenue to build lavish palaces, to finance illicit weapons programs, and to send cash payments abroad in support of terrorism. War was regrettably the answer, the only possible means to end the brutalization of the Iraqi people.

Now, in the aftermath of war, Iraqi freedom is possible, but a huge effort must be made to help the Iraqi people quickly establish security, restore public services, restaff and resupply hospitals, and repair damaged facilities. The Iraqi people deserve better than chaos and disease, just as they deserved better than Saddam.

If you can, please visit one or more of the following websites and consider making a donation to help emergency relief efforts in Iraq.

UNICEF

Mercy Corps International

International Committee of the Red Cross

Thank you.

2003-04-21T01:30:00.000-04:00

Shame on me!

As you can tell, I gave up on this weblog long ago (in early February) when I got busy with some locum tenens work. I didn't feel that bad about stopping because I didn't think anyone was reading.

I still don't think anyone's reading, but I noticed today that I'm listed as one of Glenn Reynold's numerous blogchildren. In theory, someone might click on my name, so I really should get this weblog going again!

If anyone out there did click on my name, I am very sorry for the lack of recent posts.

I'll be joining a busy practice at the beginning of next month, so I won't be able to post every day, but I'll post as often as I can.

My prolonged hiatus has at least one advantage for me: I can look at my old posts and laugh at the inaccuracy of my predictions. For example, I predicted that Dennis Kucinich would be a strong candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. He is in fact a candidate, but I was wrong about "strong".

2003-02-08T02:27:00.000-05:00

My e-mail address is arjunbamzai@yahoo.com. Please write to me, especially if you want to point out the flaws in my arguments. I'll be happy to post your letter on the weblog, followed by either a rebuttal or a mea culpa from me.

On Thursday, when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the Senate's foreign relations committee, ranking Democratic committee member Joseph Biden accidently said something very important and very true. (I am not here disputing the importance, or the truth, of any of Senator Biden's other statements.)

Senator Biden stated that al Qaeda terrorists have taken refuge, and are able to operate freely, in "northeast Pakistan".

I think he probably meant northwest Pakistan -- the Northwest Frontier province, which borders Afghanistan. This area is rugged, Pashto, underdeveloped, and largely lawless. Many of the people living in the Northwest Frontier have strong Taliban / al Qaeda sympathies, as evidenced by last November's election results (an ultraconservative Islamist party with open sympathy for the Taliban won a majority of seats in the provincial assembly). Many of the al Qaeda terrorists who escaped from Tora Bora may now be hiding in this area of Pakistan.

As it happens, however, "northeast Pakistan" is also an extremely important stronghold for radical fundamentalist terrorists directly allied to al Qaeda. In specific, as this excellent Washington Post article reveals, the part of Kashmir on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control (a former ceasefire line which is now a de facto border) continues to serve as a safe haven for terrorist groups organizing attacks on innocent civilians in the part of Kashmir on the Indian side of the Line of Control.

Media reports in the United States frequently refer to these terrorists as "militants". For example, one may read that "militants" have attacked a particular Kashmiri village and killed X number of children. The term "militants" is employed to preserve the appearance of neutrality, but neutrality between murderers and the murdered is simply not warranted. This issue is not as complicated as it may seem. Attacks directed against civilians, with the aim of intimidating a civilian population, are terrorist acts, and are always wrong. The perpetrators of such attacks are properly known as "terrorists".

On December 13, 2001, a small band of terrorists armed with machine guns and grenades launched a deadly attack on India's Parliament. The terrorists killed some security guards but were taken down before they could kill any lawmakers. This story did not get much play in the United States, perhaps because it came on the same day that the videotape of Osama bin Laden bragging about the September 11 attacks was released to the public. However, the attack on Parliament was highly newsworthy, because the terrorists had the potential of decimating the legislative and executive branches of government in the world's largest democracy.

Suicide notes attached to the bodies of the thwarted terrorists confirmed that the terrorists were members of two groups based in Pakistan and operating in Kashmir, Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lakshar-e-Taiba. The Indian government accused the Pakistani government of complicity in the attack on Parliament and in an earlier terrorist attack on the Kashmir state assembly in Jammu. India sent troops to the border with Pakistan, and threatened war.

The Pakistani government condemned the attack, denied complicity, and sent troops to the border with India.

The U.S. Administration was rightly alarmed by these developments. The U.S. feared that a war between India and Pakistan might lead to a nuclear exchange with millions of deaths. (Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan has pointedly refused to join India's pledge of "no first use".) The U.S. government adopted a policy of firm opposition to cross-border terrorism, and pressured Pakistan's General Musharraf to defuse tensions with India.

On the 12th of January, 2002, General Musharraf apparently obliged. He gave a landmark speech in which he announced that Pakistan would take steps to eliminate infiltration of terrorists from Pakistani Kashmir into Indian Kashmir. The level of infiltration was observed to decline after this pronouncement.

As the Washington Post article makes clear, however, the level of infiltration is once again on the rise.

Here is the situation, then. The U.S. warns Pakistan against allowing terrorists to use Pakistani territory as a base for attacks on India. General Musharraf publicly agrees -- but the terrorist infiltration continues.

Pakistan has been an important U.S. ally in the global war on al Qaeda terrorism. But the U.S. should pressure Pakistan into taking strong action against Pakistan-based terrorists. Otherwise, American credibility will suffer.

2003-02-06T15:42:00.000-05:00

This posting owes its existence to Joshua Micah Marshall's admirable weblog Talking Points Memo.

Last week, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation about risks to homeland security, U.S. Representative Sue Myrick, a Republican from North Carolina, apparently said the following:

You know, and this can be misconstrued, but honest to goodness Ed and I for years, for 20 years, have been saying, "You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country. Every little town you go in, you know."

I tried to find the entire speech for proper "context", but I haven't found it yet. I will keep looking for it, since I may well have "misconstrued" Mrs. Myrick's remarks.

Mrs. Myrick makes repeated reference to knowledge she shares with her audience, if "you know" what I mean. Mrs. Myrick knows "who runs all the convenience stores across the country", in "every little town". (Her husband Ed knows it too. Honest to goodness.) Mrs. Myrick also knows why the ownership of convenience stores in little towns is a homeland security risk.

I wish that I, too, could know these things. But I don't know.

2003-02-06T09:21:00.000-05:00

I keep returning to today's New York Times editorial entitled "The Case Against Iraq", because it is incredible to me. I find it incredible that after acknowledging the strength of the evidence presented in Secretary Powell's stunning presentation to the U.N. Security Council yesterday, the editorial offers essentially NO OPINION on the proper course of action.

The editorial states that "[i]n response to Mr. Powell's presentation, the foreign ministers of France, China, and Russia called for extending and strengthening the inspection program in Iraq." That is true, except for the part about "strengthening". But was the recommendation for continued inspections appropriate? The New York Times editorial board has no opinion. The editorial asks the U.S. to consider "the views of other nations". But which other nations' views are right, and which are wrong, and why? The New York Times editorial board has no opinion. The editorial advises President Bush to "let the [United Nations Security Council] take the lead." But what should the Security Council do? The New York Times editorial board has no opinion. The editorial warns against going to war absent "broad international support". But under which circumstances and for which actions would the U.S. deserve such support? The New York Times editorial board has no opinion.

2003-02-05T01:15:00.000-05:00

Perhaps it is too early, but I have not yet seen any commentary on former British MP Tony Benn's recent interview of Saddam Hussein. (See here for a transcript.)

The New York Times reports that Mr. Benn was "deferential" to Saddam Hussein. That's an understatement. Surely Mr. Benn's childlike credulity and servile solicitude give his cause -- the cause of peace with Saddam Hussein at any cost -- a bad name.

I think Mr. Benn sincerely believes in peace. The trouble is, Saddam Hussein does not. Mr. Hussein's regime has initiated external wars, against Iran and against Kuwait, and internal wars, against the Kurds and against the Shia's. Given this record of waging war after war, Mr. Hussein's praise for the "peace movement" is hard to stomach.

2003-02-03T12:56:00.000-05:00

ABC News' The Note mentions that Congressman Dennis Kucinich plans a 5-day trip to Iowa beginning on the 15th of this month. I think this might be very interesting to watch because I believe Mr. Kucinich might run for president (which this website is urging him to do) and I think he would be a surprisingly strong candidate in the Iowa caucuses, although he probably couldn't go on to win the nomination. Howard Dean hopes to be the favorite candidate among the progressive, activist, peacenik wing of the Democratic Party, but Congressman Kucinich is far to Dr. Dean's left and has a much better natural ability to win support from left-wing Democratic Party activists. Mr. Kucinich's website actually brags about his belief in "the interconnectedness of all living things", his spiritually enlightened vegan diet, his tireless advocacy of the creation of a cabinet-level "Department of Peace", and his participation in the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle that gave way to anarchist rioting. Mr. Kucinich seems to me to be just a little to the left of of Ralph Nader, who publicly supports a run by Mr. Kucinich, and won over 29000 votes in Iowa as the Green Party candidate in the 2000 presidential election. Dr. Dean has been saying that among the declared candidates for the Democratic nomination, he is the only elected official who WOULD HAVE opposed last October's vote authorizing war to disarm Iraq. But Mr. Kucinich could say something far simpler (assuming Senator Bob Graham doesn't run): that he is the only candidate who actually DID vote against the war resolution. Dr. Dean has said that if it can be proven that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction" then he would support a deadline for disarmament and then maybe even an invasion. But Mr. Kucinich could say that he would not support an invasion of Iraq under ANY circumstances.

The vegan vote is up for grabs right now -- but if Mr. Kucinich runs, the vegan vote goes to him.

2003-02-02T02:46:00.000-05:00

The Times of India, which has the largest circulation of any English-language daily broadsheet newspaper in the world, has a photograph of Kalpana Chawla on its home page today.

Dr. Chawla and her 6 comrades on the space shuttle Columbia were pioneers, because they travelled into space in 2003 -- probably several decades before such travel will even begin to become routine. But Dr. Chawla was a pioneer for other reasons. She grew up in India with dreams of space flight, studied aerospace engineering in Punjab, and emigrated to the United States to continue her studies, ultimately obtaining a doctorate from the University of Colorado. In 1997, she became the first Indian-born astronaut to ride in a NASA Space Shuttle, and the first Indian woman in space. Like so many other immigrants from India, she ultimately achieved her goals, by working hard, embracing risks, and pursuing opportunities only available in the United States of America.

I am an American of Indian ethnicity. Seeing Dr. Chawla's photograph -- that of an Indian woman happy to wear an astronaut's uniform emblazoned with the American flag -- fills me with pride. Openness to the contributions of immigrants is an essential American tradition. Without immigrants like Dr. Chawla, America would not be America.

2003-02-01T01:51:00.000-05:00

This posting is inspired by a tough, accurate, and well-argued editorial in Friday's Washington Post.

American credibility is a necessary precondition for American security. The world must believe that President Bush means what we says, or else American influence, on which depends therefore America's ability to help make the world safer from al Qaeda and its affiliates, will diminish. Backing down now on the issue of disarmament of Iraq, after all that the Bush administration has said and done, would hurt American credibility -- but the U.S. is not going to back down on this issue. What worries me greatly, however, is that the Bush administration may hurt American credibility if it backs down on two other important issues. I will discuss the first of these issues today, and the second on a later date.

The first issue involves our ally Israel. Prime Minister Sharon's policy of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is immoral. (The expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories does not justify terrorism -- but terrorism does not justify expanding the settlements.) Mr. Sharon's settlement policy detracts from Israeli security (by tying down the Israeli Defense Forces and by preventing the formation of secure borders), adds to the suffering of the Palestinian people, reduces the prospects for a two-state solution, hinders America's progress in the war on al Qaeda by promoting hostility toward the United States among Arabs and Muslims, and (most importantly for this discussion) HAS CONTINUED DESPITE CLEAR U.S. OPPOSITION. The Bush administration has hurt American credibility by refusing to impose any penalty on Mr. Sharon for his relentless expansion of settlements in defiance of American demands. The aftermath of a unexpectedly successful U.S. campaign in Iraq may well provide the right conditions for American diplomacy on behalf of peace between "a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine" (to quote the President's State of the Union address). Progress towards such a peace will require reforms in the Palestinian Authority, but it will also require complete cessation of Israeli settlement activity, and the Bush administration ought to lean hard on Mr. Sharon until he gets that message.

2003-01-31T00:42:00.000-05:00

I was cheered by one particular pledge by President Bush in the State of the Union address on Tuesday. That was the proposal to provide 15 billion dollars over 5 years for AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa and in the Caribbean. The amount currently allotted is 5 billion dollars; therefore the proposal would TRIPLE U.S. funding for this noble purpose.

Mike Allen and Paul Blustein have written a nice article about this in today's Washington Post ("Unlikely Allies Influenced Bush to Shift Course on AIDS Relief"). Given the magnitude of the international AIDS crisis, I disagree with Mr. Allen and Mr. Blustein when they state that the U.S. would "spend lavishly" on AIDS under the President's plan. 3 billion per year is very good, and I will be grateful if Congress appropriates this amount, but it is not a huge amount. It won't add much to the budget deficit, it won't detract much from taxpayers' pocketbooks, and it is not a waste of money because it will save millions of lives.

I expect that the initiative will include money to prevent perinatal transmission of HIV. With perinatal transmission of HIV, babies born to HIV-infected mothers become infected with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) shortly before or during birth. Thankfully, it is possible to substantially reduce the risk of perinatal transmission of HIV with antiretroviral drug treatment regimens for pregnant women. Because of this, most babies born to HIV-infected mothers in the United States never develop HIV infection. Since African babies deserve the same protection as American babies, reducing perinatal transmission of HIV in Africa is well worth the effort and the expenditure.

Here's an optimistic prediction. The President's AIDS relief proposal will pass easily (Dr. Frist, the Senate Majority Leader, has long been a strong supporter), and for the first time in history, an Irish rock singer will attend a White House signing ceremony. I refer, of course, to U2's Bono -- a great humanitarian, and a great musician.

2003-01-29T21:27:00.000-05:00

I realized today that the New York Times has a team of excellent journalists working in Iraq. I have read, and admired, many pieces by John F. Burns, who somehow manages to write about many of the Iraqi government's horrible abuses, and about growing dissent among the Iraqi people, from Baghdad. Today's New York Times contains very interesting articles from Iraq by two other journalists, C. J. Chivers and Ian Fisher.

C. J. Chivers' article, posted from Sulaimaniya in the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, is titled "Kurdish Demonstrators Back War Against Hussein but Want Gas Masks". Dr. Fayaq Muhammad Golpi, a physician who heads the Anti-Chemical Weapons Society of Kurdistan, voices support for the proposed U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, but he asks for help from the world to prevent deaths in case Saddam Hussein launches another chemical attack on the Kurds. The previous attack, on Halabja in 1988, led to 5000 civilian deaths. The Kurds in Sulaimaniya have no gas masks, no protective gear, and very little in the way of medical supplies; they hope the United States will provide them with this equipment, and soon. Chivers' article quotes "Abdul-Razzaq Mirza", "minister of relations and cooperation for the eastern Kurdistan zone", as follows: "They have not given it to us yet. But I am sure they are going to help us. They are not going to leave us to genocide again." (Incidentally, an opinion column in today's Washington Post by Mary Ann Smothers Bruni contains another quote by the same Kurdish official, but Ms. Bruni's column identifies him as "Abudel Razaq Faeli".) Let us hope Mr. Mirza is right. I believe he is. We are not going to abandon the Iraqi Kurds again. But why have we not yet given them what they may need to survive? It is a matter of great urgency because we should not wait until after the war begins.

Ian Fisher's article is titled "Iraqi Aide Pledges 'Extra Effort' to Cooperate with Inspectors". The gist of the article is that the Iraqi government says that it has been fully cooperating with the U.N. inspectors all along, but NOW it is ready to cooperate with them even MORE fully. I guess it's the difference between 100% and 110% cooperation. Anyway, the most interesting sentence in the article is as follows: "To Britain's Channel 4, [Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq] Aziz acknowledged that Iraq had distributed chemical weapons suits to some military units, but added however, that it would not be the first to use chemical weapons because he said it had none to use." I wish I could see the verbatim quote from Mr. Aziz, because I'm curious as to whether he actually used the word "first". (If Iraq truly has no chemical weapons, then it obviously can't use them first, second, or last.) The U.S. is not going to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi military, and the Iraqi military knows it. Therefore, the Iraqi regime's use of chemical weapons suits is ominous: it indicates that the Iraqi regime has chemical weapons, and may intend to use them in the coming war.

2003-01-29T00:30:00.000-05:00

Thank you for visiting my weblog, which will feature argument and analysis. I am a pediatrician but the subject of this weblog will be mainly politics (not pediatrics). This first post will now end; my second will follow this morning's papers.