Seventh Inning Stretch

I came across this Josh Marshall post and it reminded me a little bit of something I wrote a week ago. Marshall uses a baseball analogy to describe Bush's decision to go to war, namely, that he stepped up to the plate ready to swing regardless of what came down the pike.

Marshall's post, though, is actually about John Kerry's position on the war and his vote on the resolution which "granted" Bush the power to go to war. Far from being "nuanced," which seems to give Dubya a big-time case of the smirks, it's a pretty straightforward position (and one I disagree with).

In summary, Kerry voted for the war resolution, believing that in spite of being granted the authority to invade whenever he felt like it, Bush would show a degree of prudence. The idea, apparently, was that the pResident would work with the United Nations to establish a genuine inspectors presence in Iraq, and come up with a reasonable estimate of what, if anything, Hussein possessed by way of banned weapons. IF Iraq was intransigent, or belligerent, then Bush had the "authority" to call out the dogs.

As noted, I think this is an abrogation of the Constitution. Congress authorizes war, and no amount of weaseling around about "police actions" or any such tripe can convince me that an invasion of another country is anything BUT war. At the same time, I'm aware of the last fifty or so years of US "policy," the gist of which has put entire sections of the Constitution into the shredder. But I digress...

Inspections for the type of weapons Hussein, um, DIDN'T possess, aren't all that difficult. Chemical weapons come mostly in one flavor, chlorine. The manufacture of chlorine requires a lot by way of facilities. And, like any genuine resident of Louisiana knows, containment of this toxin isn't perfect. The same goes for nuclear material. Not only could on-site inspectors take measurements, but things like satellite-based monitors could likewise record instances of chemical or nuclear manufacture. It's only a sheeplike press, dutifully bleating the words of a politician, that suggest inspections for chemical and nuclear material could be inconclusive.

My own opinion as to Hussein, by the way, is far less "inside-the-beltway" than Marshall's. It seems as if the years following Gulf War I, there was a general consensus to treat Saddam Hussein as the most convenient "enemy of the people," to be trundled out whenever a diversion was needed. Little mention was ever made during the 90's as to the horrific sanctions, the no-fly zones, the de facto independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, etc. etc. Instead, it was "accepted" by the cognoscenti that Hussein was a dangerous meglomaniac, instead of a defanged despot desperately trying to hang on to what he had (perhaps in Hussein's dreams there was the fantasy of retaking the northern territories). Scott Ritter was a lone voice seeking to dispel the myth of Saddam's arsenal, and his opinions were dismissed.

Ritter was a lot closer to the truth, though, than all the pundits.

To add to Marshall's analogy, Bush was not only swinging on every pitch, he was also insisting that he'd see nothing but fastballs. Unfortunately he took a big whiff at a monster curve and missed completely. In my mind, that's at least strike six, and I'd like to see the rookie take his seat on the bench so Kerry can step to the plate.