The following article by Jeffrey Simpson is from Canada's national newspaper, The GLOBE AND MAIL.

In it he speculates about the U.S.'s long range intentions towards the middle east, and 'axis of evil' type regimes. It's written as a letter to Paul Cellucci, U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

Simpson usually makes a compelling argument. Though I agree with most of the reasons he lists in his argument against this war, he doesn't change my mind about the two overwhelmingly GREAT reasons the Americans had for waging it namely,

-getting rid of crackpot S.H.
-giving Iraqis another kick at the can of governing themselves

I also don't know if it's such a bad thing if the U.S. IS setting out to remake the world into a place that's safer for American businesses and tourists. I admit I'm uncomfortable with the idea, (as Americans should be), but if the alternative is bigger and more frequent 9-11 type events, then maybe America HAS to do something.

Opinions?

HERE'S MY TWO CENTS WORTH
War in Iraq is just a symptom of Washington's dangerous new world view

By JEFFREY SIMPSON
Saturday, April 5, 2003 - Page A23


Dear Ambassador Cellucci:

I'm sorry I missed your recent remarks -- the ones expressing your government's "disappointment" that Canada is not supporting it in the Iraq war. I gather they created quite a stir. Of course, they were entirely appropriate. Ambassadors, in this age of public diplomacy, are entitled -- indeed, should be encouraged -- to convey the real views of the government they represent. Those who believe your comments were uncalled for are as foolish as the Liberal MP who called Americans "bastards" or the one who traipsed around Baghdad before the war.

You spoke about Canada. We know that other U.S. ambassadors have delivered similar messages to Mexico, Germany, France, Turkey and other traditional friends of the United States, including almost every Arab country, unwilling to participate in this war. So Canada, we realize, was not singled out for special treatment.

It is easy to understand the U.S. government's disappointment that so many of your allies -- and the vast majority of people around the globe -- oppose not just the Iraq war, but the entire world conception of your President. Only time will tell whether his administration will reflect on the wellsprings of that opposition, or carry on business as usual.

This is a difficult time for those of us who are usually sympathetic to the United States. We are, as you suggested, a kind of "family" in North America -- cousins, I would say -- and family members tend to give each other the benefit of the doubt. But what does one cousin do if he thinks the other is making a serious error, with negative consequences for both?

You argue that the U.S. would always defend Canada against a "security threat," and that Canada should therefore do likewise against a threat to the United States. This is completely correct. Canada, as you have often noted, co-operated fully in the war against Islamic terrorists who struck such a ghastly blow against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. There can be no respite for either of our countries in that fight, and if more needs to be done to make borders and continental perimeters more secure, by all means let's talk.

But, with respect, Saddam Hussein, odious as he was, posed no direct threat to the United States. He had neither the weapons nor the delivery systems to attack you. That he might have had intentions was a reasonable concern, but a robust, intrusive system of inspections could have verified that he continued to lack the means.

Your government argued that if Mr. Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, he would give them to terrorists such as al-Qaeda. That assumes a degree of irrationality on Mr. Hussein's part that even the most demonic portraits of him never suggested. Such a move would have ended his regime by means more terrible than your country's "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

But the weight of evidence suggested that the religious fanatics in al-Qaeda despise his secular regime. Secretary of State Colin Powell's "evidence" before the Security Council was a long way from a solid case. If the U.S. had the evidence that Iraq possessed, or was making, weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't it have given that evidence to the inspectors who, at the time the war broke out, had found nothing?

I note that of the 10 suspected sites thus far inspected by U.S. teams in Iraq, nothing has been found. This could change, of course. Much will be made of whatever the U.S. might discover -- although it should be asked why these discoveries could not have been made in due course by inspectors.

But beyond this, those of us who oppose this war do so because it reflects a view of the Middle East, of foreign policy and of the world that is at variance with the best instincts of the United States. Your government, I regret to say Mr. Ambassador, is now largely run by individuals who can best be described as foreign-policy revolutionaries, determined to change the world and remake more of it in the U.S. image and to suit U.S. interests. They will find, in due course, that this approach will harden the determination of the country's enemies and weaken the support of its friends.

You might have seen James Woolsey's remarks this week in California. He's the former CIA director who is thick with the neoconservatives running U.S. foreign and defence policy. He has been tapped as one of the U.S. proconsuls in Iraq after the war. Mr. Woolsey stated that we are now in what he calls the "Fourth World War," a conflict that will last considerably longer than the first two, but perhaps be shorter than the third, or Cold War. Mr. Woolsey said he wants the rulers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to be "nervous." He talked about removing the rulers of Iran. He referred to a "new Middle East . . . [created] over the decades to come." This is the kind of "analysis" that had been considered marginal before the last election, but it has now become central to this administration's thinking.

No wonder so many pros from the previous Bush administration are nervous about this kind of foreign policy, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Your ally in the Iraq venture, Britain's Tony Blair, would not allow his country to be hitched to these sort of grand, revolutionary and deeply destabilizing designs now driving U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond. Mr. Blair has tried to moderate U.S. policy for many months, with only limited success, and has dried up much of his domestic political capital in the effort.

You will argue, with reason, that the world changed after 9/11, and that new approaches are required to combat new threats. Agreed. And every country in the world was willing to co-operate in the fight against terrorist threats. There had not been such consensus around an objective for a very long time.

But to friends of the United States, the "disappointment" comes from the shattering of that consensus by an ideologically driven foreign policy that insisted upon war in Iraq and has paid scant heed to institutions, arrangements, laws and assumptions that kept friends bound together in good times and in bad.

Yours respectfully,

Jeffrey Simpson

A link to a blast from the past from today's New York Times:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2367

From now on all press conferences will be held in bare feet.

The pitch is just a little high and outside. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/14/vo.bush.shoe.pool.cnn

RG.

He should've went with the screwball, I didn't look like the curve was biting today!

EA

Anyone care to bet that the shoe thrower spends 5000X more days in jail than the guy that STABBED Monica Seles?