Thief's Den

Apology and Frivolity

Hello.

Yes, Thief has been a very bad boy. Thief has not been blogging. Thief is sorry.

But then again, Thief has had actual work at his workplace, as well as the make-or-break interview of his short life on Monday. Thief expects semi-normal blogging to resume Tuesday or thereabout.

And besides, Thief has been no slacker. Thief has been working on several massive, Den Beste-size posts. Problem is, none of them are done. But they will be soon. And there will be much rejoicing.

Finally, as a token of my apology, Thief offers up this...

In a rare moment of candor, Washington insiders discuss their penis sizes...

Do They Think We're Stupid?

Harold Meyerson does. Well...not all of us. Just the people who watch Fox News. Or Republicans. Or the people who believe the Iraq war was justified. Or anyone who doesn't think Saddam Hussein was the bad guy. Or to put it simply...anyone who doesn't think like a liberal.

"Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is?
Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong."

And what's the justificaton for these pontifications? Why, of course, the Ivory Tower, the same people who brought you "Conservatives are Nazis!"

"Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction."

"In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three."

"The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three."

Me Oog. Me Fox Viewer. Me stoopid. Me believe Saddam Hussein want to kill people, because me stoopid and me caveman.

OK, let's leave the pontifications aside for a moment. Why this massive excercise in hoodwinking and skullduggery? Of course! To re-elect George W. Bush!

"Take a wild flight of fancy with me and assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Bush's reelection."

Yes. And that there is absolutely no one at PBS, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, the BBC, the New York Times, or Al-Jazeera with the slightest hint of a political agenda or bias towards the Dems. No one at all.

"Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Bush is revered among the peoples of the world -- all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers -- is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard -- moving votes into Bush's column and keeping them there -- Fox has to be judged a stunning success. It's not so hot on conveying information as such, but mere empiricism must seem so terribly vulgar to such creatures of refinement as Murdoch and Ailes."

Oh, how quaint. The same people who believe that they are the smartest 20% of the population think that the people who run Fox News are elitists who wish to conceal the "vulgar" truth from the public.

Give me a friggin' break.

Yes, Mr. Meyerson. By all means, continue to tell half of the people of the United States that they are stupid and gullible twits being constantly manipulated by the vast right wing conspiracy. Continue to insult their intelligence and tell them that everything they know has been adjudged by our great and mighty media overlords at PBS and NPR to be lies and fiction. Continue to believe that if you insult the intelliegence of the electorate, that they will thank you for freeing them from the shackles of ignorance and sweep the Democrats into office. Continue to trust that your contempt of 50% of American voting population will not come with a cost. In short, continue to believe that we out in red-state land are sheep in need of a liberal shepherd to save us from ourselves, even if our bleatings sound mysteriously like Bronx cheers.

Trust me, this is a perfect strategy to win in 2004. (*snicker*) No, really. People love it when you call them stupid.

Now if you excuse me, I gotta go take a wicked laugh.

Biting The Hand That Feeds Them

From CNN: Three U.S. diplomatic security personnel were killed today by a remote-controlled bomb. In the Gaza Strip. They were escorting a group of U.S. State Department officers heading to Gaza to interview Palestinian applicants for Fulbright Scholarships. These scholarships allow Palestinian graduate students to come and study in the United States, basically for free.

Apparently these terrorists and their sponsors in Arafat's government believe that if they cannot wipe Israel off the map, that gives them the right to deny a future to Palestinians who are giving their all in order to escape the hell the terrorists created. (Yes, Mr. Arafat, we know that no terrorism happens in Israel/Palestine without your knowledge and/or consent.)

Line Of The Day

"...As I just learned from California Democratic Party members, we were too stupid to figure out who to be angry with. Yes, by all means – please continue to tell us how stupid we are. We’ll love you with all our hearts!"

--- Bill Whittle

Everything needed for Today's Tyrants

At the Home Despot.

You can kill and enslave millions. We can help.

Headlines

"Supreme Court to Revisit Online Porn" -- Fox News, October 14, 2003

Instant Messenger Reaction:
Friend: LOL!
Friend: Don't you love this country?
Me: *wants to be a lawyer
Friend: same here.
Friend: not for that reason though ;-)

May You Live In Interesting Times...

...or so that ancient Chinese curse goes.

Needless to say, I've been absent from blogging for far too long. Several interesting opportunities cropped up in the last few days, which basically threw me into scramble mode trying to update resumes, go to interviews, and drink a lot of beer. (Well, the last part was just me, but still)...

Anyway, blogging resumes today, lest I drop any further in the evolutionary rankings. Apologies for the absence.

Thief

What is good in life?

"To crush your enemies.

To see them driven before you.

To hear the lamentations of their women."

-- Conan The Barbarian

Thulsa Doom falls! All Hail, Governor Conan...er, Schwarzenegger!

Blogging, Phase 2:

Hello to my loyal readers:

As you can no doubt tell, blogging here has been somewhat slow lately. I've hit the second stage of blogging -- realizing that it is damn tought coming up with new topics to rant about, and time to rant about them. This is for a few reasons.

#1. I've been getting more and more actual work at my job lately, which means I have far less time for blogging.

#2. I haven't been getting much sleep either, which means I usually come home dog tired and fall asleep in front of the TV after a quick bite.

#3. I just bought a copy of Homeworld 2. (Hey, everyone is entitled to one vice in their life. Mine just happens to be videogames.)

#4. There is just so much sheer asininity in the world right now it's difficult to find a place to start. I will be reading the Washington Post ed pages, wherupon I will proceed to pull out my highliter and sticky-flag notes in preperation for a furious fisking. If my concentration breaks, however, and I read more of the post, chances are I will find something even more outrageous, and my work will be wasted.

Anyway, Thief will try to resume his normal blogging mode. Starting Now.

The dillemma of the evening:

Blog?

Or play Homeworld 2?

Survey says: Homeworld 2.

Hail To The Chief, he's the one to send the toys to!

OpinionJournal.com has picked up the Chief Wiggles Toy Drive:

HAIL TO THE CHIEF: Chief Wiggles is the nom de plume of a deployed Utah National Guardsman blogging from Iraq (http://chiefwiggles.blog-city.com/). In one of his recent dispatches, the chief described the joy of a seven-year-old Iraqi girl to whom he'd given a stuffed animal. Now he's asking for more toys for our troops to deploy to these Iraqi tots (send them to Chief Wiggles, c/o CPA Chaplain, CPA-C2, Debriefer, APO AE 09335). The only guidelines have to do with common sense ("no guns" or "violent toys") and a nod to religious sensitivities ("no Barbie dolls or dolls scantily dressed"). Iraqi children, says the chief, have nothing and are delighted with even the simplest gifts of stuffed animals and paper to color on.

For victory and peace... one heart at a time!

Oh, and Chief? Better clear the decks...

Moonlighting...

Sad to report, this is not a comedy.

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department is investigating whether FBI agents involved in espionage and terrorism cases may have moonlighted by forming private companies and using informants and subjects of inquiries to benefit their personal business.

The allegations, according to court documents, include charges that the private companies of agents and intelligence figures were involved in business deals in China and the Middle East about the same time the FBI was investigating Chinese efforts to acquire sensitive technology.

...FBI agents generally are prohibited from moonlighting in second jobs without special permission, and they are subjected to regular background checks for irregularities. One question the inspector general is examining is whether private companies originally were fronts used by the FBI in undercover investigations and then were taken over by agents as they neared retirement, officials said.

Via the blogfather.

And nobody at the bureau saw that this was a gaping counterintelligence vulnerability? That these "front" companies might be doing business with Chinese and Saudi "front" businesses? That information may be exchanged which should be secret? That personal relationships may form which create blind spots to potential threats?

I can see the value of having FBI agents "moonlighting" for private businesses while they can really be doing highly secret work. But this strategy is so risky that the Bureau would have to be very brave or downright stupid to try it. Given that this is the same agency that refused to believe it could have a mole in its ranks for 10 years, I'm prepared to chalk this up to stupidity.

Meanwhile, the people who are supposed to be providing adult supervision here are throwing tantrums about the "disclosure" of the name of a secret agent who was, in fact, neither secret nor an agent. Between ignoring real scandals and whining about made-up ones, I frankly do not know how we manage to keep terrorists at bay.

Meme Watch

We all know what memes are, right? Watch a meme in action.

Specifically, one involving cheerleaders. ;)

Cheerleader hazing accusations
October 2, 2003

AP -- THE University of Scranton in the US received an anonymous letter detailing hazing allegations involving its basketball cheerleading squad, a university spokesman said.

The unsigned letter purported to be written by the parent of a freshman cheerleader who had recently made the team. It was addressed to the university's president, the Rev. Scott R. Pilarz, S.J.

"We are, right now, vigorously investigating the situation," university spokesman Gerry Zaboski said. "We are having some conversations with students and coaches and are trying to get to the bottom of it."

The letter said the cheerleading squad was planning an October 3 initiation ritual that its new members would be forced to attend. The new cheerleaders were told they would have to consume alcohol until they became sick and would have to perform oral sex on a male athlete, according to the letter. If they refused, the letter said, their lives would be made difficult.

"While the coach was present, the captains sat everybody down ... and told them what they were going to do and that was the only way they could earn their respect," the letter stated.

The cheerleading coach, Danielle West, could not be reached for comment.

Three guesses as to what you will hereafter associate with cheerleaders.

Oh, the vagaries of the human mind...

Prison Rape: Cynicism, contempt, and scorn...

...for the people who are trying to stop prison rape?

Found in this Blogfather-collectedarticle about Prison Rape on Slate: (truly outrageous part in bold)

This past July Congress enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, providing $60 million for a two-year survey of state and federal prisons to determine the pervasiveness of prison rape and creating various panels to offer remedies. Congressional sponsors of the bill included the most improbable political allies, and support for the bill ranged from the ACLU and Human Rights Watch to conservative evangelical organizations. (The clear interest of the latter in promoting religion among inmates has helped create a strange-bedfellowship with leftist prisoners' rights groups.)

Yeah, right. It's all about expanding the flock and getting more believers to fill the collection plates. Never mind that these groups believe that no one, no matter what crimes they have committed, should be victimized in this way. Never mind that Christians are called not only to love their neighbors (and this includes the people that they hate). And never mind that, for some Christians, caring for the imprisoned is one of the greatest deeds one can perform. Because working to reduce prison rape is a worthy goal, but not if you do it for (*sniff*) religious reasons. Because we all know that religion is the opiate of the masses. Because showing any form of religiously-motivated compassion is clearly unconstitutional, right?

Of course, the authors of this article work are academics (Stanford Law Professors). To them, organized religion is just one big conspiracy. Sounds like someone needs to get his head out of his ivory tower.

The conclusion of this piece is even more thoughtless.

The truth is that the United States has essentially accepted violence—and particularly brutal sexual violence—as an inevitable consequence of incarcerating criminals...Perhaps every sentencing judge should require that a defendant headed for prison be given extensive "pre-rape counseling" in the hope that he or she can take some small personal steps to reduce the risk of attack. Or perhaps we could require judges to demand data about the differential risks of rape and assault for different types of prisoners in different prisons and begin to factor such data into any sentence. "You committed murder, so let's send you somewhere where you're really likely to be raped." In that way we will be at least as brutally honest with ourselves as we are literally brutal with our prisoners.

In other words, let's do nothing to solve the problem, and make the prison system so bad that no decent judge would dare send anyone to prison, ensuring that no "criminal" can ever be punished by The Man (TM) for his "crime."

Ah yes...a thin veneer of cynicism barely concealing bottomless contempt for America's "biased" and "barbaric" legal system, as well as outright scorn for those who actually get off their asses and try to fix things because they believe in (*sniff*) God, whatever that means. What else to expect from a modern liberal law professor?

The Toys Are Coming!

Chief Wiggles reports that the first toys of the toy drive have arrived in Iraq.

Plunge, the Chief's stateside assistant, reports:

Further update: The Chief mentions that he is working with a children's hospital, orphanages and schools to distribute the items. The Chief is only using people that he is personally familiar with so that all the toys and school supplies will go where they should and will not end up on the black market. He has also arranged for storage depending on how much arrives. I think it is finally starting to sink in just how much people care and the effort that is being put forth.

A quote from his email to me, "I couldn't believe how much thought and effort has gone into the selection of items. I was totally blown away by the nature of the toys, even a large Tonka truck, small trucks, school supplies, stuffed animals, etc."

"Let everyone know how much I appreciate all they are doing."

Send your toys to:

Chief Wiggles
c/o CPA Chaplain
CPA-C2, Debriefer
APO AE 09335

Address for those mailing from Australia (I know you're out there...you were in my server logs!)

Chief Wiggles
CPA Chaplain
CPA C2
AFPO 20, CHTF-7 CPA
ADF NSW 2890

Official History and Officious Hypocrisy

Y'know that long list of quotes from prominent Democrats about how Saddam had WMD's floating around the net? Yeah, they're nice. But are they real?

They are. I Googled them all. All are real quotes, and all except one are attributed to the right people.

Words in bold are corrections made directly from the source texts.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Chris Dodd (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY, now retired), Bob Kerrey (D-NE, now retired), Pete V. Domenici (R-NM), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Thomas Daschle (D-SD), John Breaux (D-LA), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Arlen Specter (R-PA), James Inhofe (R-OK), Strom Thurmond (R-SC, now deceased), Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA), Wendell Ford (D-KY, now retired), John F. Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Jesse Helms (R-NC, now retired), and Rick Santorum (R-PA).
, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It is just that Saddam Hussein has not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
(Ed. Note: The actual text of the letter is here. I can find no record of Sen. Graham having signed this letter. However, another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), did, in addition to Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN). All the other signers of the letter were Republicans: five Senators (John McCain (R-AZ), Jesse Helms (R-NC, now retired), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Sam Brownback (R-KS), and two Congressmen (Henry Hyde (R-IL), and Benjamin Gilman (R-NY, now retired).

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."- Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."- Sen. John F. Kerry (D - MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D - WV), Oct 10, 2002 (Ed. Note: I found the link to Rockefeller's Senate Website, but the link to that specific speech was dead. However, I was able to get Sen. Rockefeller's Speech from the Congressional Record on Lexis-Nexis. I listed it at the bottom as an extended entry.)

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"- Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 1, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Original Comment: NOW, THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES.

My Comments: Three points.

1. I was dumbfounded by how many of the speeches these quotes were pulled from were made in opposition to the war in Iraq. "We know he's getting these weapons, and we believe that our intelligence is correct on Iraq, but what's our hurry?" And now they claim that Bush "lied" about Saddam's WMDs? If it was really a lie, at the very least, you people should have said something to that effect. If no weapons are ever found, this leads to one of two possible conclusions. First, Bush was lying and for whatever reason the Dems chose to keep mum (a point advanced by a lot of anti-war people.) This is 100% pure, mind-numbing horseshit. Do you really believe that if the Dems had conclusive proof that Bush was lying about Iraqi WMDs, that they would have kept it quiet RIGHT BEFORE THE F*CKING MIDTERM CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION??? It would have been a political A-bomb! They could have retaken control of both houses, easily! And rather than expose Bush, they'd sit on it? (And no, don't try to say Congress couldn't have known. The Congressional Intel committees have unconditional access to the same intelligence products the President does.) Anybody who parrots this tripe with a straight face has the political sense of a turnip. Which leaves the second conclusion: Bush made a reasonable decision based upon the best available information, and the Dems are 180-ing in an attempt to make political hay out of Iraq and hurt Bush. And remember, this is if no weapons are ever found.

2. Again... notice what I said President Bush got. Best Available Information. If the CIA were trying to forge proof of WMDs (are you listening, Al-Jazeera?), they did a very poor job of doing it. If this was a forgery, it would have been huge, seemingly airtight, and very compelling. I'm talking DNA analysis of anthrax samples, defector press conferences, Saddam's goons talking openly about VX and Sarin on the radio. Except that there was nothing so grand. Powell's UN speech had a lot of holes that had to be filled in with assumptions. A forgery would have looked a hell of a lot better. Apply Hanlon's Razor to this known fact, ("Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"), and you come to the conclusion that Saddam managed to snooker the CIA (not to mention the SVR, MI-6, the Mossad, and every other worldwide intelligence agency) into thinking he had WMDs. Which raises the larger question? Why would Saddam want us to think he had weapons he didn't have? Hmmm...

3. A special "screw you" must be extended to Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who apparently thinks that if he takes down his speech from his website, his words somehow vanish and can never be used against him. Guess again, sucker. It's called the Congressional Record. Nothing you say ever goes away. Ever. And now, your words are here for all to see. Sucks, don't it?

Extended Entry: Rockefeller's Speech on Iraq (Offensive only to him, I guess...)

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

Thursday, October 10, 2002

107th Congress, 2nd Session

148 Cong Rec S 10233

REFERENCE: Vol. 148, No. 133

SECTION: Senate

TITLE: AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Nevada very much.

Madam President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions that I, at least, have ever had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States. The difficulty of this decision is that while Saddam Hussein represents a threat, each of the options for dealing with him poses a threat_to America's service members, to our citizens, and to our role in the world at large.

It is clear none of the options that confront us are easy or risk free. For all of us, the upcoming vote on this critical issue will reflect our best judgment on which path will minimize the risk to our fellow Americans because we all know the risk cannot be eliminated. And that judgment will, in turn, depend on a complex interaction of many factors, some of which we do not know and perhaps cannot know.

It is clear military operations against Saddam Hussein, of the sort that are being discussed, pose serious risks, and we should all admit to that. Any military campaign runs very serious risks to our service members. On paper, we surely have an overwhelming advantage against Saddam Hussein_in the skill, the technology, and, of course, dedication of our Armed Forces.

We defeated Saddam quickly and conclusively in 1991. In the decade since, our force effectiveness has improved dramatically, while many of Saddam's capabilities have deteriorated. But a new battle against Saddam Hussein, if it comes to that, will be very different and much more difficult.

A U.S. victory might be quick, and it might be painless. One hopes that will be the case, but it may not be so. The American people need to know a war against Saddam will have high costs, including loss of American lives. Our confident assertions that Saddam Hussein will quickly be deposed by his own people have in the past been too optimistic.

Presumably, Saddam Hussein will be more determined to use all the weapons and tactics in his arsenal, if he believes that our ultimate goal is to remove him from power. The administration assures us our troops have equipment and uniforms that will protect them from that risk, should that risk arise. We can only hope to God they are right.

We also acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland. Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.

Finally, we also need to recognize that should we go to war with Iraq, it could have a serious impact on America's role in the world and the way the rest of the world responds, therefore, to America's leadership.

We are told that if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, American soldiers would be welcomed into Baghdad with liberation parades. That may be true. But it is true the people who have suffered most at Saddam's hands are, of course, his own citizens.

For many people around the world, an American-led victory over Saddam Hussein would not be cause for celebration. No matter how strong our case, there will inevitably be some who will see a U.S.-led action against Iraq as a cause for concern. At its most extreme, that concern feeds the terrorist paranoia that drives their mission to hurt America. We can affect how deep that sentiment runs by how we conduct ourselves_whether we work with allies, whether we show ourselves to be committed to the reconstruction of Iraq and to the reconciliation with the Arab world. But we ignore all of that at our peril.

Clearly, there are many risks associated with the resolution we are considering today, but it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also poses serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their frame of time is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks to our citizens and to our Nation of doing nothing are too great to bear.

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible_difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints that he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America's homeland, as well as to America's allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become, therefore, irrelevant.

Americans will return to a situation like we faced in the cold war, waking each morning knowing that we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy, only back then our Communist foes_in those so-called good old days, which, of course, they were not, butin making the comparison between now and then, our Communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy. This time our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he believes it serves any of his whims or purposes to so do.

The global community in the form of the United Nations has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass, but the U.N. has been unable to enforce these resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow.

Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction that he currently possesses or that he will use them against us. But as we do know, Saddam has the capability to do that. We know that very [*S10307]
well. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people, and he has ill will toward Americans.

I am forced to conclude on all the evidence that Saddam poses a significant risk. Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States and believe he would not do so. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, his principal legacy to the Arab world to be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it was too irrational.

Saddam has misjudged what he can get away with and how the United States and the world will respond many times before. At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of the American citizens rest in the hands of somebody whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has used against his enemies before.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. The fact that an attack on our homeland has not occurred since September 11 cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future or on any day. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat, the overwhelming threat and reality of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world or in our own country.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but has failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks_and we should not minimize the risks_we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution.

This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that, faced with this grave danger to the people of my State and to all Americans, I have voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem over the years.

Two months ago, or even a month ago, I would have been reluctant to support this resolution. At the time, it appeared that the administration's principal goal was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, clear and simple, without fully exploring every option to resolve this peacefully, without trying to enlist the support of other countries, without any limitation on the use of United States force in the Middle East region.

The original use of force resolution that the White House sent to the Congress was far too broad in its scope and ignored the possibility that diplomatic efforts might just be able to resolve this crisis without bloodshed. Moreover, it appeared that the administration planned to cut back its efforts in the war on terrorism and shift all of its attention and resources to Iraq, and that would have been a tragic mistake.

I believe the war against global terrorist networks remains the greatest current threat to the security of America over the long term and to our forces overseas. We have seen that in Kuwait in just the last week. America cannot be diverted or distracted from our war on terrorism. In the past month or so, in my judgment, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the administration's approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism internationally.

Secretary Powell has been working with the U.N. Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm, or face the consequences. We have already begun to see some encouraging movement on the issue of Iraqi disarmament. Other Security Council members_I mentioned France and Russia, as well as other Arab States in the Middle East_have begun to talk seriously about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein has begun to make offers on inspections and disarmament, offers that, while inadequate so far, indicate that he has at least begun to move off his hardline position against inspections.

Obviously, much important and very hard work remains to be done. That will take tough negotiating with the other members of the U.N. and a firm line with Iraq. We need to be realistic about how best to move forward.

Any headway we are making toward getting Saddam to disarmhas not occurred in a vacuum. U.N. members did not just suddenly decide to debate a new resolution forcing Iraq to disarm. Saddam Hussein did not just suddenly decide to reinvite U.N. inspectors and to remove the roadblocks that had hindered their efforts in the past. Progress is occurring because the President told the United Nations General Assembly that if the U.N. is not prepared to enforce its resolution on Iraqi disarmament, the United States will be forced to act.

At this point, America's best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear that the United States is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes, the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world's leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved_and dangerous ones at that. So that is the context in which I am approaching this vote.

This resolution does authorize the use of force, if necessary. Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is just the core issue. It is the only core issue. And whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in 6 months, or in 1 year, that is the issue we will all have to confront.

War_if it comes to that_will cost money. I and the Presiding Officer dearly wish we could use that money for other domestic purposes_to address the very real needs that West Virginia, Michigan, and other States face in this tough economy. But, ultimately, defending America's citizens from danger, their safety, and their security is a responsibility whose costs we must bear because this is not just a resolution authorizing war; in my judgment, it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace. I hope that by voting on this resolution now, while the negotiations at the U.N. are continuing, this resolution will show to the world that the American people are united in our resolve to deal with the Iraqi threat, and it will strengthen the hand of the administration in making a final effort to try to get the U.N. to deal with the issue. Given the difficulty of trying to build a coalition in the United Nations, I could not, in good conscience, tie the President's hands.

The administration is in negotiations on which the safety and security of all Americans depend. I believe we must give the President the authority he will need, if there is any hope to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution. Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein_whether now or later_must be a top priority. I believe this resolution will strengthen the President's hand to resolve that crisis. [*S10308]

By my vote, I say to the U.N. and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein and that the U.N. must act to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction.

By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein: Disarm or the United States will be forced to act. We have that resolve.

September 11 changed our world forever. We may not like it, but it is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans' lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink, Say no more, Say no more...

Thief's Office Banter of the Day:

"That's the three primary male urges. Go fast, blow stuff up, and...y'know..."