U.S. Diplomat Resigns in Protest

[Chris Alger]

From yesterday's NY Times, John Brady Keisling's letter of resignation from the foreign service. The Times identifies him as a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

(The remark about Micronesia refers to one of the few countries that sides with the US in UN votes regarding the Middle East).

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

[Jimbo]

If the possibility of war with Iraq accomplishes nothing other than cause a large group of career diplomats to resign it will have been well worth the trouble and expense.

[B-Man]

He's a gifted writer, no question. His letter is very persuasive and definitely had made me think about my position on the pending war.

However, I am still extremely troubled about Saddam having/acquiring WMD, and I disagree with his assertion that Iraq and Al Queda are unrelated problems. Just because no definitive links between the two have been proven, that doesn't mean Saddam couldn't slip a nuke or a vial of smallpox to a group like Al Queda or another terrorist group that may have only one thing in common with Saddam--hatred for the U.S. and a desire to murder innocent Americans. This is a major concern; the only way to defend against WMD is to prevent them from being delivered, and the best way to do that is to prevent your enemies and lunatics from acquiring them. The scenario from the movie Sum of All Fears was not the least bit far-fetched in my mind (other than the fact that, in an effort to be politically correct, nazis were portrayed as the terrorists, rather than the Palestinian terrorists in Tom Clancy's book).

The bottom line is that I believe there are legitimate reasons to go to war. Unfortunately, Bush has not done a great job of convincing the rest of the world. It's a shame he doesn't have Slick Willy's charisma or communication skills, because his heart is in the right place, he just isn't a great salesman.

[hudini36]

If George w. Bush and Dick Cheney resign, then it will have been worth it.

[Baltimore Ron]

that the President is the Head of State, not the Secretary, not the Department and not any ambassador or diplomat. His job is to carry out the instructions of said President. If he feels (as he apparently does) that he can no longer fulfill that mission, then he is correct in resigning.

Mr. Kiesling, as a citizen of the United States, certainly has a right to hold and voice his own opinion - but in the role of a citizen, not as a representative of the government of the U.S. The proper response would have been to resign quietly and with some dignity and then, as a private citizen, voice whatever concerns he has about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. This letter reminds me too much of a four-year-old yelling and stamping his feet in the grocery aisle because mommy won't buy him the Fudge-Covered Oreos.

Of course, this is just one private citizen's opinion.

BR

[Chris Alger]

I can't tell why you detect any problem in his explaining his resignation publicly. Are you guilty of the totalitarian tendency of disgust toward any expression of dissent? One could say the same thing about Soviet or Iraqi defectors, or whistle-blowers anywhere. Few people accept the notion that one should conceal heart-felt beliefs about policy or morality so that those with power can maintain an illusion of consensus among the experts.

[Baltimore Ron]

"Are you guilty of the totalitarian tendency of disgust toward any expression of dissent?"

Please check all weapons and hyperbole at the door. If you read carefully what I said, I expressed no "disgust toward any expression of dissent." Just the opposite. Mr. Kiesling, or any former diplomat can express any opinion they wish. But when they represent the people of the United States, they must espouse the views of the elected representatives of the people of the United States. (And, no, I don't wish to turn this into a debate about Florida or the Electoral College.)

Secondly, freedom of expression is NOT freedom from criticism. If Mr. Kiesling is free to criticize President Bush over foreign policy differences, I am free to criticize Mr. Kiesling for boorish behavior. And, if he and I are free to do so, you are free to criticize my criticism. But, please use real arguments, not name calling. Because, after all, your right to speak does not create in me a corresponding obligation to listen.

BR

[Chris Alger]

"I expressed no 'disgust toward any expression of dissent.'"

You said his letter reminded you "too much" of a 4-year-old having a tantrum. I think that fairly qualifies as an expression of disgust.

"But when they represent the people of the United States, they must espouse the views of the elected representatives of the people of the United States."

Not quite, and never when they're in the process of resigning in protest.

[Chris Alger]

I think the link between Saddam and bin Laden can be dispensed with pretty easily: it defies what we know about these people and there isn't any evidence to support it. The NY Times and The Economist, among many others, have chastised the administration for risking its credibility by straining to make a connection.

The only honest argument for war I've seen is M's: the possibility of liberating Iraq from a tyrant justifies all the destruction and risk that the war will bring. Obviously I don't buy it, but at least it's based on facts and logic.

[Baltimore Ron]

Chris,

Just so I'm clear: my "disgust" with Mr. Kiesling is not with his dissent, but with the timing of said dissent. After all, unless he is fired for insubordination in the meantime, he is planning to hold his current position until March 7th.

"I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7."

As to whether or not those in the State Department should be espousing personal views, I guess you and I will just have to disagree. But in my view, those persons who represent this country to the rest of the world (diplomats, soldiers, etc.) have a special obligation to keep personal views personal, lest others mistake the official positions of the U.S. government.

BR

[MMMMMM]

Thanks Chris.

In considering the other parts of the scenario such as Iraqi WMD getting into the hands of terrorists (there are many scenarios whereby this could possibly occur; it doesn't necessarily have to be directly from Saddam to al Qaeda for instance--just one alternate scenario might involve, say, Hizbollah acquiring them through Syria or Lebanon, if these countries are acting as custodians for Saddam), obviously you and I assess the chances differently. I don't think it's 100% that Saddam's WMD will reach terrorist hands (if they haven't already), and I doubt you think it's zero percent. I'm sure we both agree that if it does somehow occur the results could be catastrophic.

Regarding Iraqi casualties of war, we'll just have to wait and see whether it's a huge bloodbath or a relatively controlled defeat for Saddam, possibly supported by many military defectors. There are enough unpredictable factors that I don't think much can be completely ruled out. Specifically, if Iraq does not use WMD in defense, I think casualties will probably be relatively low, but if Iraq does use their WMD and the US retaliates the carnage could be immense. Hopefully, Saddam will retain some degree of rationality and dignity to the end.

[Chris Alger]

I don't think that the likelihood of Iraqi WMD ending up in terrorists hand is at all relevant to the issue of war. It seems obvious to me that the whole discussion of this issue is designed to connect Iraq's WMD to the mass fears created by 9/11 with as much logic as trying to connect Iraq's WMD to fears of witchcraft.

First of all, we're not talking about the chances of WMD "ending up in the hands of" terrorists. The only government I know whose WMD have been stolen and used by terrorists is the U.S. (Ames strain weaponized anthrax), and nobody thinks we should be invaded because of that. The US is happy to support governments with WMD that could do the same. The issue is deliberate support of terrorism.

The propaganda connecting Iraqi WMD to terrorism rests on an untenable assumption that WMD create either the inclination or the ability of a state to foment terror. It makes no sense because WMD create neither.

Consider the ability to cause terror. With simple weapons like conventional explosives or even matches and gasoline and box cutters Iraq could wreak havoc throughout the U.S. and kill tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people over a short period of time.

Since the ability to forment terror exists without regard to possession of WMD, the fundamental discussion, if this were indeed a serious issue, would be Iraq's propensity to support terror. If that propensity exits, then action should be taken regardless of inspections, the UN, whatever. Indeed, if that propensity existed, the message from Washington would emphasize the evidence of Saddam's willingness to support terror against the US, and that this issue must be resolved independently and without regard to anything the inspectors find. Anything less would make US officials grossly negligent in their duties to protect the public.

The reason you don't see the issue framed like this is that Washington's evidence that Saddam is inclined toward terrorism is neither unique to Iraq nor timely. In fact, it refers mostly to incidents more than 20 years old. Here's the list from White House website:

a. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

b. Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

c. Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

Note how the cite ignores that the PLF expressly renounced terorrism after Oslo (1994) and hasn't been invovled in terror since, or that Abu Abbas was allowed into Gaza by Israel itself. Both Abu Nidal and his organization are dead and have been inactive since the 1980's.

The other incidents cited consist of the purported attempt to kill Bush the elder, the evidence for which is absurdly dubious (although accepted at face value throughout the corporate press), a supposed "training facility" for terrorists to which no actual terrorist has been linked, and Saddam's promise to compensate families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Regarding this last the site (and other official statements) misleadingly gloss over the fact that Saddam has promised compensation to any Palestinian killed for any reason in that conflict.

In short, you find the same partisanship toward Palestinian terrorists that you can find in many Arab countries, but that has nothing to do with terror against the U.S. The undeniable reality is that since Saddam came to power in 1979 there has not emerged a shred of evidence suggesting that the government of Iraq is responsible for any act of terror or attempted terror against the US or any of its citizens or property abroad.

It seems clear that the US is fanning 9/11 hysteria in order to conquer Iraq for unrelated reasons that it believes the public will find less persuasive. As a result, the public not only considers Iraq a terrorist threat, more than 80% of the U.S. public believes that Saddam is linked to Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

I would never support a government that used such cheap propaganda to manufacture consent for war.

[MMMMMM]

Well if that's all there is to it, why do Australia and Great Britain also claim that Iraq has links to al Qaeda?

Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't. I think it's better that Iraq not have that option.

[IrishHand]

Far as I can tell, Great Britain was bright enough to give up that hollow angle a while ago.

"Claims that the Iraqi regime is linked with al-Qaida were dropped when ministers failed to provide the evidence."
Richard Norton-Taylor article, The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,901625,00.html)

Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't. I think it's better that Iraq not have that option.
What about basically every other country in the world? They all have "WMD". Maybe when we're finished with Iraq, we will purge the world of every country which might possibly, maybe, if they wanted give WMD to terrorists or use them themselves. Truly, we won't be safe until there isn't a single nation which might do so. (The fact that none have chosen to do so thus far doesn't matter, apparently.)

[MMMMMM]

All totalitarian governments should have to give up their WMD eventually--unless they reform and become elected governments. Totalitarianism/despotism are the scourges of humanity.

It really amazes me how you continually take positions seemingly supporting totalitarian, non-elected governments and leaders.

[IrishHand]

I don't support totalitarian governments - I just acknowledge their right to exist in the states in which they exist. I understand how many of them came into being, and I don't share your violent prejudice that any government not like ours is a "scourge" against humanity. Everything has it's time and place - and if democracy is destined to sweep the globe, I have great faith that it will do so in its own time. Going around forcing it on nations that either don't want it or don't have the infrastructure (economic, political, whatever) to support it is a waste of time and resources. (Nevermind the fact that no nation has demonstrated that it's actually intersted in or able to do so.)

And what on earth does a nation's government have with it's right to have WMD? One would think that every nation has a right to arm itself (or that none does). Whether my nations' ruler is Hussein, Bush, Chirac or Blair, as a citizen, I'd like to have a sense that I'm not going to be overrun by another nation and have my life upheaved. The reality that you choose to ignore is that no matter how the government is run, the choices to make and/or use WMD are made by a select few. You've noted that Bush should go to war regardless of what his people think - what makes a dictator any different? Because he's less accountable? Perhaps - but we've had Republicans make some of the most disgraceful decisions in this nation's history, and they still get elected (same for Democrats). Despite this, politicians don't get elected on personal virtue or merit - they're chosen generally by party affiliation with a touch of "personal platform" thrown in. Such are the joys of a two party system. We have two choices instead of the one that totalitarian states get. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Personally, I'd be happy if there were no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. As for governments...so long as the average citizen is able to live a happy, fulfilling life, I'm not too concerned. I have firsthand knowledge of countries governned by some of those dictators you hate (Cuba, Egypt), and the average citizens in each seemed to live positive lives. The information we get about Cuba in this country is particularly galling in light of what I learned about life there, but that's another matter. Certainly, there are advantages to living in the US, but there are also reasons that a reasonable person would prefer to live in those other countries (culture and community jump to mind, but there are others).

[MMMMMM]

"I don't support totalitarian governments - I just acknowledge their right to exist in the states in which they exist."

Existentially perhaps, but not morally.

" -and if democracy is destined to sweep the globe, I have great faith that it will do so in its own time. Going around forcing it on nations that either don't want it or don't have the infrastructure (economic, political, whatever) to support it is a waste of time and resources."

Let's not confuse the desires of the populace with the thugs in power: in Iran, most citizens want regime change but can't have it (yet). In China, look at Tiananmen Square. In Cuba, Castro imprisons dissidents who support democracy. I do agree that we can't force it on all nations, notr all nations ready for it--but morally speaking, Stalinists, Maoists, Castroites and Saddamites have no right to rule.

"And what on earth does a nation's government have with it's right to have WMD? One would think that every nation has a right to arm itself (or that none does)."

Everything. If you think a band of totalitarian thugs have as much right to nuclear weapons as do responsible democracies, we're miles apart in perspective.

"Whether my nations' ruler is Hussein, Bush, Chirac or Blair, as a citizen, I'd like to have a sense that I'm not going to be overrun by another nation and have my life upheaved."

If you lived under Hussein you would most likely WANT your life upheaved temporarily so that you could later live without constant fear of arbirtary arrests and torture for yourself or your loved ones. I certainly would. I recently read a statement by an Iraqi exile in Europe who said that she believed there is probably not a single family in Iraq which has not had some member or close relative "disappear" never to be heard from again.

"The reality that you choose to ignore is that no matter how the government is run, the choices to make and/or use WMD are made by a select few. You've noted that Bush should go to war regardless of what his people think - what makes a dictator any different?"

You really can't figure this one out?

"We have two choices instead of the one that totalitarian states get."

That's incredibly significant--sorry if you can't see why.

"As for governments...so long as the average citizen is able to live a happy, fulfilling life, I'm not too concerned."

Freedom above comfort. Maybe you wouldn't mind being a slave or a prisoner in your own country if you could lead a "happy, fulfilling life"--but I and many others sure would. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, those who are unwilling to sacrifice or die for freedom are doomed to eventually be conquered or enslaved. That's the sad history of the world--and allowing the worst tyrants to flourish (assuming we have it in our power to prevent them), or according their governments "equal rights" is sheer nonsense unless you would happily submit to slavery and imprisonment yourself. To support the "moral right" totalitarian governments to exist is an affront to the human rights, liberties and human dignities of the entire human race. By so doing, you are ideologically supporting slavery and worse.

[IrishHand]

Do you realize that there isn't a single argument in your post? You use colorful words like "thugs" or "responsible", you label your position as "morally right", and you express deep sorrow that I don't share your perspective. Do you really think you're arguing something?

How about I make it easy for you - I know what you think, I have a vague idea of why you think it, and I have yet to see good reasons to agree with much of it. You really don't need to be stating your position over and over again. The moment you want to offer actual reasons why it's ok for democracies to have WMD and not non-democracies, let me know. Same goes for why you think it's consistent to preach that democracy is the only morally correct approach, while thinking it's ok for an elected administration to follow policies which are opposed both by it's constituency and the majority of the world (both democratic and otherwise).

[Chris Alger]

No, the only issue is why Australia and Great Britain also claim that Iraq has links to al Qaeda despite the absence of any additional evidence? There's an interesting question of dependency and "junior partner" relations, but it has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Otherwise, do you suppose the leaders of Australia and G. Britain have some special ability to discern facts that no one else can see, but cannot share them with a world, or even their constitutents, even as they are denounced as lapdogs and liars?

"Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't."

Since same applies to Syrian or Japan or the U.S., this is a meaningless statement. More importantly, the absence of hard evidence suggesting a propensity for Iraqi terrorism means the US leadership is lying about the justification for war. We either reject this perversion of leadership in a democracy, or are no better off than the subjects of a dictatorship.

"I think it's better that Iraq not have that option."

Iraqi refugees and dissidents to the war will both retain that option and have more reason to use it. A war based on lies is more likely to create terrorism than prevent it.

[MMMMMM]

If you want to support the "rights" of murderous tyrants, that's your (sorry) business. All the people living under their heels apparently don't matter to you anyway. The dictators have "rights" to execute or imprison all dissidents and yet still vote at the U.N.-----I'd LMAO if it weren't so sad, tragic and absurd. It's as absurd as Islamists refusing to allow women to vote, attend school or drive in their own countries, and making it a capital offense to proselytize other religions, yet in the U.S. these same Islamists cry out against the slightest whiff of discrimination--as if much worse discrimination doesn't exist in their home countries against Christians and Jews?It's illegal in these countries to preach another religion, but it's wrong for the FBI to count mosques here? Don't the words double-standard mean anything to you?

Elected officials don't always do what the majority wants on every single issue--that's why we elect them instead of holding national referendums on everything. It's an imperfect system, but it's less imperfect than anything else that's been tried so far. Also, if you cast out the votes of all totalitarian governments in the U.N. I bet the remaining vote would be in favor of war. Most of the European governments are, certainly.

I'm not going waste further time attempting to convince the unconvincable, and I'm becoming inclined to follow suit with Tom Haley.

[MMMMMM]

I think there probably are links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and to Hizbollah as well.

At any rate would you agree that you might be wrong if in the course of the war we capture a bunch of al Qaeda in Iraq, discover a training camp there for Iraqi and al Qadea in the use of biological/chemical weapons--especially if this is corroborated by Iraqi military and security sources?

What will be discovered and shown regarding Saddam's WMD during and after the war will probably be flabbegasting in scope...and I won't be surprised if the Iraq/terrorist connection is more brightly illuminated as well.

I don't think this war is being based on lies, but rather on a lot of classified information as well as on strategic goals in the larger war against terror.

Hopefully the new base in Iraq will enable us to preemptively eliminate Hizbollah before they attack us on our soil as they have promised to do. They should be eliminated anyway based on their past murderous attacks against us in other areas of the world, but their recent announcement adds a certain urgency. I look for a large S.W.A.T-style operation against them after the dust settles a bit in Iraq.

[Chris Alger]

" think there probably are links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and to Hizbollah as well."

The only reason you "think" this is that the government told you to. But the issue is what the evidence shows. Iraqi links to Hizbollah, and Iranian-funded Shi'ite group? News to me (I don't think even Bush has said this). But who cares? Hizbollah sprang up in reponse to Israel's aggression in southern Lebanon. Even the conservative Economist notes that it can claim to be a legitimate national resistance group, unlike Al Queda mass murderers. (In fact, there's a very interesting story about how Israel was able to curtail Hizbollah suicide bombings by agreeing to limit attacks on civilians, while refusing the same deal with Palestinian terrorists -- another case of Israel welcoming Palestinian terror to reap its political benefits).

"At any rate would you agree that you might be wrong if in the course of the war we capture a bunch of al Qaeda in Iraq, discover a training camp there for Iraqi and al Qadea in the use of biological/chemical weapons--especially if this is corroborated by Iraqi military and security sources?"

No, because you could say the same about going to war with any country. Say someone proposed carpet bombing Muslim-majority areas of some U.S. city. You oppose it, and they say: but would it be wrong if we discovered ....?

The whole idea is ridiculous because every inch of Iraq has been photographed and mapped down to the tiniest details and the U.S. has hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in cusotdy (and probably torturing them), and a world-wide network of intelligence. That none of this shows any link between Iraq and al Qaeda doesn't make it an open, unproven question, but proves beyond all reason that the widely-spread claim of a link between them is a bald-faced lie.

"I don't think this war is being based on lies, but rather on a lot of classified information as well as on strategic goals in the larger war against terror."

The "secret information" excuse is an old dodge, and less credible than usual here. Bush is scambling to convince people that there's a reason for his war, but can't quite do it. If there was any information at that would help him, he'd use it. Your argument is a variation on the theme of "I don't understand why my leaders act as they do, but I must assume they have their reasons."

Hizbollah has "threatened" the US. It threatened to fight back if attacked: "The American administration will bear responsibility for any aggressive act against Lebanon," a statement from the Shi'ite Muslim group said. "We are fully willing and ready to confront all possibilities to defend our people." What's wrong with that? What would you do in their situation?

[MMMMMM]

Since I think war with Iraq is justified on humanitarian grounds anyway, I don't need to be completely convinced that Iraq has terrorist ties. I also see how you can think it very unlikely, but I don't see how you can rationally rule out completely the possibility of such ties.

I was referring instead to a statement perhaps a month ago by Nasrallah in which he stated that Hizbollah would be expanding its armed struggle to include direct attacks against the USA. As far as I know, this was not a defensively oriented statement, but a description of a widening of Hezbollah aims and intentions.

[Chris Alger]

I can rule it out because the most powerful country in the world with the most powerful intelligence services at their beck and call can't provide the goods.

I couldn't find any record of a Nasrallah statement threatening to attack the U.S. I did, however, find a source for your claim that Iraq is supporting Hizbolalh: Ariel Sharon.

Wanna buy a bridge?