Brit Hume: Fox's fact-free journalist

In response to the Center for the Public Integrity's report on the false statements made by President Bush and other top officials regarding Iraq's WMD in the two years following 9/11, Brit Hume, a Fox News anchor, had this to say:

A study by two self-described non-profit journalism organizations accuses President Bush and his advisers of 935 false statements about the threat from Iraq in the two years following the 9-11 attacks. But a large number of those statements were drawn from repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- a concept nearly universally accepted by most of the world's intelligence services at the time.

Bush apologists always defend President Bush by claiming "everyone thought Iraq had those weapons of mass destruction." However, this isn't correct, and it's based upon a misunderstanding of two separate intelligence claims.

The United Nations did recognize that there were still outstanding issues regarding unaccounted for WMD in Iraq. Lt. Gen Hussein Kamel, who defected from Iraq in August of 1995, told the CIA that he personally oversaw the destruction of Iraq's stockpile of weapons in the summer of 1991. However, the United Nations did not witness this destruction, so they could not verify it. So this became a controversy throughout the intelligence world: did Iraq really destroy its weapons in the summer of 1991, or did it conceal them for later use? No one really knew. As Hans Blix defined the problem, "One must not jump to the conclusion that they [WMD] exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."

In 2002 was the Bush Administration claiming that Iraq did not destroy its weapons in the summer of 1991? No, they were making an entirely separate intelligence claim, namely, that in 2002 Iraq "renewed" production of biological and chemical weapons and began to actively seek a nuclear weapon. The subtitle of the October 2002 NIE was Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. In other words, it had nothing to do with whether or not Iraq did destroy weapons back in 1991, but instead claimed that Iraq had begun new weapon programs in order to wage war and threaten the United States.

The question "Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?" is imprecise. Does it mean: did Iraq not destroy its weapons back in 1991? Or does it mean: Did Iraq "renew" production of biological and chemical weapons in 2002?

The United Nations was trying to answer the first question, while the Bush Administration and the U.S. 2002 NIE were trying to answer the second. Hans Blix was agnostic on the first question, while the Bush Administration was certain on the second. So the specific intelligence claims made by the Bush Administration were not universally accepted.

For instance, on March 17th 2003 President Bush made the following claim:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

However, when the United Nations (UNMOVIC) left Iraq they reached a far different conclusion:

UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL

Says New Environment in Iraq, with Full Access and Cooperation,
Should Allow Establishment of Truth about ‘Unaccounted for’ Items

On March 18th UNMOVIC, the most sophisticated source of direct intelligence in Iraq, says there is no evidence of any WMD programs. While President Bush says there is "no doubt" Iraq continues to possess WMD.

Brit Hume is obviously not aware of the facts, is not interested in the facts, but only is interested in performing his duties as a shill for the Bush White House and the war in Iraq.

WMD: The Lie that Lingers

A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity has chronicled at least 935 "false statements" made by top Bush administration officials regarding Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and "connections" with al-Qaeda. While this report has gotten a good amount of buzz, and made a big splash in the blogosphere, it doesn't present any new information. We've known the intelligence on Iraq's weapons program has been wrong since 2004, if not earlier, and that Iraq had no operational connection with al-Qaeda.

Unfortunately, this report didn't do much to clear up some of the confusing and vexing issues surrounding the Bush Administration's use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Needless to say, this topic is politically explosive, so it's very difficult to make any kind of definitive statement that doesn't immediately provoke a torrent of partisan rancor. But we cannot understand the WMD controversy without first wading through the political muck, so that's where we must begin.

Politically, there are two very different versions of the WMD controversy. The first, which is the favorite of Democrats, is that President Bush and top administration officials deliberately made false statements about Iraq's WMD to frighten the American people to justify a war with Iraq. The second, which is popular among Republicans, is that Bush was simply repeating the conclusions of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, and that the decision to invade Iraq was based on a genuine concern to protect the United States from Iraq's dangerous arsenal of WMD. If the first is true, Bush is a rotten war criminal. And if the second is true, then Bush is courageous leader who simply was misled by U.S. intelligence.

Anytime there is a suggestion that Bush "lied" to the country about Iraq's WMD, then Republicans make the argument that Bush's statements are no different from the Democrat's. Bush and the Republicans are not the only ones who thought Iraq had WMD. Here are some quotes by Democrats:

"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"

"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 10, 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

"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

We can see that Bush's statements on Iraq's WMD program are really not so different from the Democrat's. So does this prove that there was no chicanery going on? Were we all wrong, as Bush supporters like to say? Or was there an effort to influence the intelligence to justify a war with Iraq? The intelligence world is full of secrecy, anonymous sources, and murky details, so a crystal clear picture of what went on is going to be difficult, but we have enough background information to make reasonable conclusions.

A fact often overlooked is that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)was a seismic shift in thinking about Iraq. The Robb-Silberman report, a task force commissioned by President Bush to look into the intelligence failure, states the following, “The October 2002 NIE reflected a shift, however, in the Community's judgments about the state of Iraq's BW program. Previous Community estimates had assessed that Iraq could have biological weapons; the October 2002 estimate, in contrast, assessed with ‘high confidence’ that Iraq ‘has’ biological weapons.”

“The Intelligence Community's assessment of Iraq's CW programs and capabilities remained relatively stable during the 1990s, judging that Iraq retained a modest capability to restart a chemical warfare program. The October 2002 NIE therefore marked a shift from previous assessments in that it concluded that Iraq had actually begun renewed production of chemical agents on a sizable scale.”

Is it not suspicious that the October 2002 NIE gave the Bush Administration the justification it needed to initiate a war with Iraq? Are we to believe that the intelligence agencies just so happened to produce so much bad intelligence right when the Bush Administration was trying to sell a war? More importantly, the October 2002 NIE seems to provide an ex post justification for Dick Cheney’s August 26, 2002 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars where he makes the following alarming statements,

“The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond.”

“Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon”

“Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

Of course, only the most Pollyannaish would object to war if this was all true. However, this wasn’t true, nor was it supported by U.S. intelligence at the time. George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, said in his book _At The Center of The Storm_ that Cheney’s speech “went well beyond what our analysis could support,” but he failed to say so at the time. The Vice President had just concocted his own intelligence report out of whole cloth that had no basis in fact. It’s also important to note that Cheney wasn’t just claiming that Iraq had renewed production of biological and chemical weapons, but that Saddam’s intent was to use these weapons to wage aggressive wars, to blackmail the world, and threaten the United States. Cheney’s speech inaugurated the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to our national security, and only a war -- regime change -- could guarantee our safety. In this light, was it really bad intelligence or political intelligence?

Another seldom mentioned fact about the October 2002 NIE was that it was a rushed job. Typically, it takes about ten months to produce a NIE, but the one on Iraq’s WMD was completed in about 19 days. This fact alone proves the NIE was a political document, because there wasn’t sufficient time for all the raw data to be properly digested and assimilated throughout the various organs of U.S. intelligence. Instead of the normal gestation period of ten months, it came into being after three weeks, useless and stillborn, with its conclusions barely surviving a few months of exposure. The Robb Silberman report states, “The time pressures of the October 2002 NIE also may have hampered the normal thorough review before dissemination.” Of course, this “time pressure” is really political pressure, because the Bush Administration needed the intelligence community to give them a document that could justify a war -- mission accomplished.

While the Robb Silberman report provides a painstaking and thorough analysis of how certain aspects of the intelligence community went awry, the main points can be summed up briefly. In short, the Bush Administration was alleging that in 2002 Iraq had “renewed” production of biological and chemical weapons and was actively seeking a nuclear weapon. Once we remove the layers and layers of intelligence “assumptions,” “best guesses,” and “interpretations,” we see only a paucity of evidence that could barely survive a moment’s scrutiny. The conclusion that Iraq was seeking a nuclear weapon mainly came down to two bits of information: aluminum tubes and a forged uranium document. The conclusion that Iraq had extensive mobile biological weapon labs came down to one source, an Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball, who was unreliable and a known fabricator. The conclusion that Iraq had renewed production of chemical weapons came down to satellite imagery that showed “suspicious” truck activity, and, again, Curveball. That was it. The entire case for war in Iraq was built upon a flimsy house of cards that could hardly stand on its own.

However, what is even more troublesome is that after the publication of the October 2002 NIE, its conclusions came into immediate question. On March 7th, 2003 the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released its findings about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program. These findings eviscerated the claims made by Dick Cheney and the 2002 NIE. The IAEA exposed the uranium documents as crude forgeries and concluded that the aluminum tubes were not designed for enriching uranium.

“There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question.”

The 2002 NIE maintained that Iraq had renewed production of chemical weapons, but this also came into question after the United Nations team (UNMOVIC) spent months in Iraq acting on the best U.S. intelligence. Hans Blix states, “And among the 700 inspections that we performed, none brought us any evidence of weapons of mass destruction.” So the United States could not provide a single bit of intelligence to corroborate the conclusion that Iraq had facilities producing chemical weapons.

Finally, in regards to the conclusion that Iraq had extensive mobile biological weapon labs, this came from a single source, Curveball, who was known to be unreliable prior to October of 2002. The Robb Silberman report states, “Indications of possible problems with Curveball began to emerge well before the 2002 NIE...The analysts' resistance to any information that could undermine Curveball's reliability suggests that the analysts were unduly wedded to a source that supported their assumptions about Iraq's BW programs.”

What does all this mean? It demonstrates conclusively that every bit of raw data that went into the October 2002 NIE --the intelligence document that paved the way for the war in Iraq -- had either been debunked or called into question before President Bush initiated “hostilities” on March 19th 2003. Simply, Bush took the United States to war even though the entire case for war had gone up in plume of smoke.

So how do we assess culpability? On October 11th the Senate approved the resolution to grant President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq. So after this date, the decision to go to war is entirely invested in President Bush. It was after this date that the conclusions made in the 2002 NIE came into question. The uranium documents were exposed as forgeries. Hans Blix found no traces of chemical weapons, and Curveball was widely known as a fabricator. So the most relevant question is: was the belief that Iraq had WMD just as solid in March of 2003 as it was in October of 2002? The answer is obviously “no.” Intelligence is a dynamic process -- conclusions can and do change. There is no reason to stay wedded to assumptions if the evidence changes. If President Bush was truly concerned about the accuracy of the intelligence, he could’ve called for another NIE, or permitted Congress and the Senate to cast another vote in light of the latest intelligence. However, he used his “authority” to wage war and the rest is history.

Ultimately, the war in Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction, or protecting this country from a rogue regime. That was merely a convenient sales pitch for the war. The war in Iraq was about something else. But that's another story.

Is war with Iran on the horizon?

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, February 1, 2007

It seems as if the United States is always on the cusp of plunging into a full scale war with Iran. Last year, President Bush made the allegation that Iran was responsible for providing sophisticated "explosively formed projectiles" to the Iraqi insurgency. This year the State Department added the Al-Qods to the list of terrorist organizations. Finally, there has been much saber rattling over Iran's nuclear weapon program, and while the latest NIE on Iran defused much of the tension, the White House remains adamant that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Last weekend there was an "incident" in the the strait of Hormuz in which Iranian speedboats "swarmed" several Navy ships. During the communication there was a threat, "I am coming to you...you will explode in a few minutes." Originally, the Pentagon claimed that this threat came from one of the speedboats, but now things are not so clear. Supposedly, it may have came from shore, or from another merchant freighter in the strait. However, this doesn't stop President Bush from playing up this incident for all it's worth:

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, so the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late."

You're not imagining things if you think this rhetoric sounds awfully familiar.

We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

This was from a speech in Cincinnati made on October 9th, 2002 as part of the Administration's attempt to justify the use of force in Iraq.

Americans need to understand that those who formulate America's foreign policy, the Neocons, are adamant that the United States overthrow Iran's regime, and occupy the region. We must interpret all events in this light. It's very possible that there will be an attempt to provoke Iran or possibly stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to start a war with Iran. We should be skeptical of any report released by the Pentagon or the White House that alleges Iran is "threatening" the United States. America will not benefit from a war with Iran, but the Administration desperately wants one, and right now there is no telling how far they will go to get one.

Ron Paul: Political Dynamite

Preliminary reports suggest that Ron Paul has pulled in an incredible 6.4 million dollars, an achievement that not only shatters his previous record of $4.3 million but also surpasses John Kerry's one day total of $5.7 million. Congressman Paul is now set to break through the $20 million dollar mark for the 4th quarter, possibly enabling him to stay competitive throughout the primary season.

I wonder if what we are witnessing is an unprecedented political event? Has there ever been a candidate who was not polling in the top tier, but able to raise more money than the top tier candidates? While all this cash does give Mr. Paul an opportunity to get his message out and compete with the other candidates, he's still largely an unknown. He had virtually no name recognition before he announced his bid for the presidency. Also he has had no real institutional support in the Republican Party or even the larger conservative movement. The Paul phenomenon is entirely at the grassroots, and the so-called "leaders" of the Republican Party try to depict Mr. Paul as crank, a kook, or someone undeserving of any real consideration. This is troubling, because Mr. Paul has been a consistent defender of issues that are near and dear to conservatives: less government, the Constitution, and border security. By failing to support Ron Paul -- and often criticizing him -- the conservative movement has revealed itself to be just a monumental fraud.

"Yeah right. He is running the most illegal campaign in history dodging campaign laws at every bend."

This was a comment made by Lee Kington, the moderator of the Hannity forums, in response to Ron Paul's smashing fundraising success. Mr. Kington never elaborates on what laws Ron Paul has broken. He's just infuriated that Ron Paul is generating so much support and interest and wants to discredit his campaign. These comments, however, are typical of the stodgy and stilted Republican establishment who despise freedom as much as any autocrat.

Why is there a Ron Paul Revolution?

Ron Paul is a 72 year old Republican Congressman from Texas and his bid for the presidency has sparked a revolution. Outside of a few libertarian circles, the Congressman was relatively unknown, but now he's the trendiest and hippest thing to appear on the political scene in quite some time. He isn't a particularly able speaker, nor does he possess much charisma, but he always speaks from conviction and doesn't kowtow to establishment opinion.

He first broke into the national headlines in the first GOP debate when Rudy Giuliani assailed him for suggesting America's policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attack. "We've been bombing Iraq for ten years," exclaimed Congressman Paul and he went on to say that "they attacked us because we're over there." Needless to say this sent all of the hardcore Bush Republicans into orbit. Not even a Democrat had dare say anything so bold or confrontational, but here was a Republican saying it -- without apology.

Few people probably know, but Ron Paul did run for the presidency back in 1988, as a Libertarian, and didn't come close to generating the kind of support he's generating in this election cycle. But Ron Paul's message really hasn't changed. He's been a defender of limited government his entire public life, and besides Libertarians run candidates every election cycle, so why is the message just now catching fire?

Perhaps it's not the message so much as the times. American politics still lingers in the shadow of 9/11 -- its wars and security measures -- and many Americans have grown weary of the Bush Administration's bellicosity and over zealous use of executive privilege. In 2006 the Democrats regained control of Congress and the Senate but have been little more than rubber stamps for Bush's agenda. Democrats have shown no leadership in standing up to President Bush and are all too happy to make a big ruckus but eventually cave and give the president what he wants. The American people are disgusted with Democrats, and rightfully so.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't giving this Administration one inch of compromise. He wants to overturn all -- every last bit -- of the post 9/11 Bush agenda. He wants us to pull our troops out of Iraq, to repeal both Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act. He wants to end illegal wiretapping, torture, and all other "security" measures not allowed by the Constitution.

Americans who oppose much, if not all, of the post 9/11 agenda have not had a voice in either party, and many feel that this Administration is not just abusive, but dangerous, and desires more "security" measures as well as an expanded war in the Middle East, including both Syria and Iran. But this agenda has faced few political obstacles. Ron Paul has become the iconic leader of the opposition, and his grassroots support is spreading like wildfire.

Today, Ron Paul's supporters hope to outdo their November cash bomb of 4.2 million, and surpass 6 million. It's a high hurdle, but it can be done. Despite Ron Paul's energized support he probably will not win the Republican nomination, but maybe the Ron Paul revolution will outlive Paul's candidacy and new leaders will emerge and the revolution will transform into an unstoppable juggernaut that will halt and reverse the disastrous effects of the Bush presidency.

The Neocon: not just a river in D.C.

The presidency of George Bush has brought the term Neocon into prominence. Ever since 2002 when the Bush Administration began banging the war drums against Iraq critics of the presidency have been talking about the "Neocons." While the term isn't new, it had never been given such emphasis, nor had it ever been a central feature of a political debate. To the supporters of the president Neocon is an opprobrium, a term of abuse, meant to criticize the president's foreign policy. They'll often demand that you define "Neocon," or repay you with an insult.

To the Bush Cultists there is just conservative and liberal, or good and bad, respectively. If someone isn't a conservative then they're liberal. It's a very black and white view of politics that doesn't allow for shades of gray or nuance. However, for now I just wish to show that the term "Neocon" isn't an invention of the Left nor is it a term concocted to lampoon Bush's foreign policy.

"I'm getting a little tired of these media people speaking in their own code language. A case in point is their use of the term 'neo-conservative.' Whether they choose to hyphenate the label or not, it's a pejorative code word for 'Jews. That's right. They use it as a way to say guys like Bill Kristol, Irving Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz and others are just trying to support Israel at the USA's expense."

Rush Limbaugh.

This belief was common among the Republican redstate shock troopers in 2003. However, Rush Limbaugh's attempt to characterize "Neocon" as just an epithet or a term with no meaning is going to be problematic.

"We can't begin to sell ourselves to the public until we sell ourselves to one another. We need to bring together the neo-cons, the paleo-cons, the religious right, the plain conservatives, and even moderate Republicans. We must recognize that we need one another if we are to survive as a political force."

Rush Limbaugh See, I Told You So pp 348-349 (1993)

Rush Limbaugh refers to the "neo-cons" long before the election of George Bush and the war in Iraq. He had no compunction about using the term because anyone familiar with the Right would know that the Neocons have been a strong political force and have viewpoints that are often at odds with traditional conservatism. But Mr. Limbaugh isn't the only one who knows that Neocons are real, and not just a phantom monster fabricated the Left. I quoted Thomas Sowell in one of my previous entries, but I'll do so again to underscore the point:

Those neoconservatives, especially, who were pushing an activist "national greatness" foreign policy, even before September 11th, have siezed upon that event as a reason for the United States to "use American might to promote American ideals" around the world.

That phrase, by Max Boot of the Counsel [sic] on Foreign Relations and the Weekly Standard, is breathtaking in its implications. When he places himself and fellow neoconservatives in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, it is truly chilling.

The track record of nation-building and Wilsonian grandiosity ought to give any pause. The very idea that young Americans are once again to be sent out to be shot at and killed, in order to carry about the bright ideas of editorial office heroes, is sickening.

"Wilsonian grandiosity" and nation-building are some of the elements that define Neoconservatism, so it's more than just an epithet. But there is more.

NeoConservatism: Why We Need It by Douglas Murray (Hardcover - Jul 25, 2006)

Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol (Paperback - Mar 25, 1999)

The Neocon Reader by Irwin Stelzer (Paperback - Nov 19, 2004)

Neoconservatism by Irwin Stelzer (Paperback - Jul 15, 2005)

The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994 by John Ehrman (Paperback - Aug 28, 1996

Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana by Gary Dorrien (Hardcover - Aug 31, 2004)


Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol (Hardcover - Sep 20, 1995)

The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy by Murray Friedman (Paperback - Oct 9, 2006)

These are all books that one can find by searching under the term "Neocon" or "Neoconservatism" on Amazon. As you can see, some of these books were published before the Iraq war and some after. Some support the Neocon position and others oppose it. However, the notion that Neocon is just a term of abuse -- a term meant to denigrate and insult -- is untenable.

A Neocon is a real political animal.

Ron Paul: scourge of the establishment

In celebration of Guy Fawkes Day, Ron Paul's supporters donated 4.2 million dollars to his campaign, a one day record that outperforms all the other Republican candidates. This shows that while Ron Paul may not be polling very high among Republican primary voters, his supporters are the most energized and enthusiastic in this election cycle.

Of course many people do not understand Ron Paul, seeing his candidacy and his positions as some kind of anomaly. How do you explain an anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-life Republican? But Ron Paul has hit a powerful chord in the American electorate challenging the simplistic notion that Republicans and conservatives support the war in Iraq and Democrats and liberals oppose it. This is the way the issue is always framed in debate shows, magazines, and other popular venues of opinion, but things are not really so simple.

The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of this election cycle, and wars are never gray. Supporters of the war believe that we are in a struggle against evil, that the war is good and just, and that we must not leave Iraq until we can safely declare we've defeated the enemy. Opponents of the war vary in their opposition, but largely they don't see it as a fight against evil, or as a response to 911, or as an attempt to keep Americans secure. A "war for oil," or the "military industrial complex," is how some opponents characterize the war; while others just see it as unnecessary quagmire that was conducted poorly and is largely irrelevant to our national security or the fight against terrorism. Regardless, in between these positions there can be little common ground. This is why Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air to some and a scourge to others.

Here we have a Republican with a solid conservative voting record speaking out against the war. In fact, Ron Paul is only one of a handful of Republicans to vote against the resolution to grant President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq. Even though Ron Paul is a Republican with unimpeachable conservative credentials, he is seen as a threat to the Republican establishment. Why?

Ron Paul shatters the illusion that opposition to the war in Iraq is just a Leftist or liberal position. His candidacy shows that Republicans can also be against the war and that the anti-war position isn't a monopoly of the Democrats. This is a frontal challenge to the Republican leadership because they've banked their superiority and strength on the war, on their greater ability to protect this country from the "enemy." The one and almost universal defense of George Bush is that he has shown tremendous leadership in the War on Terror, and while it might be legitimate to question his handling of other issues, his conduct in this war is above reproach.

Ron Paul's straightforward message is a dagger aimed right at the heart of Bush's supposed mantle of invincibility. The war in Iraq was not in our national interest, not a proper response to 911 or terrorism, and besides the United States military has no role in nation building, declares Ron Paul. He has unnerved the Republican establishment -- and good for him.

Within the last few weeks a popular blog for Republicans, Redstate, has banned any new posts that "pimp" for Ron Paul, and just last night Hannity's forums also banned any new threads regarding Ron Paul. Ironically, while Ron Paul does fare well in on-line polls and even Fox News polls -- much to Sean Hannity's chagrin -- he is still polling at only about 2% nationally. His inability to rank with the top tier is both mysterious and troubling.

I do not expect Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination, but for his candidacy to be a success he doesn't need to. Perhaps it would be enough if his candidacy were to shatter the simplistic partisan equation that associates criticism of the war with liberalism and support for the war with conservatism. Many conservatives are against the war, but their voices are too often ignored by the Republican establishment, which has no time for dissent.

Ron Paul is a scourge because he reminds the Republicans that opposition to the war is the true conservative position, that Bush's leadership is wholly superficial and phony, and that critics of the war are no less patriotic than those who support the war and wrap themselves in the flag.

I hope Ron Paul's scourge will last a long time.