But Dean, don't you see the inherent conflict of interest? Once George W. Bush became president, George Herbert Walker Bush ceased to be a former chief executive of the United States and instead became "Bush's daddy." It's so obvious! There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to kill a former president if he happens to be the father of the sitting president!

It is incredible that so many people who claim to be "conservatives" are so willing to believe that which comes out of the government. In the case of this claim, however, it's even worse. The people who were responsible for creating and 'substantiating' this allegation that it was Saddam who ordered the assassination of former President Bush are Bill Clinton and Mad Madeline.

That administration would never use unproven allegations or questionable claims to justify a government action, now, would they? After all, that was the "most ethical adminstration in history," right?

Included in this 2001 article from the conservative site, LeftWatch.com, is the fact that many of those "smart" missiles used in that 1993 bombing campaign in Baghdad missed their mark and landed in residential areas, killing innocent civilians, including one of Iraq's most gifted artists.

Of course, it must have been Saddam who ordered that assassination attempt on former President Bush, while the elder Bush was vacationing in Kuwait in 1993. After all, the person who attempted the assassination, an Iraqi whiskey smuggler, claimed that he was sent by Saddam. We should of course believe that that whiskey smuggler was telling the truth, even though he later claimed that the Kuwaiti police tortured him into making that claim, a statement which he recanted before being executed for the crime. That whiskey smuggler would have no reason on his own to try to assassinate former President Bush, of course, even though he had lost 16 family members during Bush's bombing of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. After all, Iraqis love the United States and President Bush (both of them - senior and junior), and even though there may be a small amount of Iraqi casualties (or as we like to call it, "collateral damage") during a war, Iraqis are always happy when we bomb their country, because they love the smell of napalm and the destruction of their nation's infrastructure. We may find that odd, but from what our government leaders tell us, that must be part of their culture - for them, those are signs of liberty, freedom, and justice. But above all, it's clear that the Iraqis know that our intentions are always for the best, and that we have nothing but noble motives when we go to war against their country.

Never mind that Jude Wanniski, one of the leading conservative economists in our nation, and the supply-side guru who advised President Ronald Reagan, Republican leader Jack Kemp, and other conservative leaders, has written that it was not Saddam who ordered the assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush. (Former President Bush invited Mr. Wanniski to Camp David to advise him, but what does he know, right?)

Readings for today:

Bumping Off an Ex-President

A Case Not Closed

President Bush Does Not Tell Lies!!

Certainly true. Still, that was a decade ago. It's rather unusual to go to war in retalliation for something that old.

Heh, Wanniski stopped having credibility among mainstream conservatives when he started playing footsie with Farrakhan. Hmm, Farrakhan is buddies with Hussein, and Wanniski did his part to defend Saddam against genocide charges. You don't think?

Gee, I didn't know economists were experts in international covert operations, too! Wow, this guy is really smart...

Does he know where Elvis is?

Wanniski is not the only conservative commentator who has questioned the Clinton/Albright claim that Saddam was behind the assassination attempt on President Bush. And Wanniski's reasoning, with regards to the possible motives that the Kuwaiti authorities would have for conconcting such a claim - that reasoning does make sense. And it is silly to trust that the Kuwaiti government leaders, and the U.S. government leaders at the time (Clinton, Gore, Albright, etc...) are reliable with regards to making claims about who did what.

You write that "Wanniski stopped having credibility among mainstream conservatives" when he started a relationship with Farrakhan. But this actually corresponded with a minority outreach effort by the Republican Party. Jack Kemp, who was Bob Dole's running mate in 1996 (the GOP nominee for Vice-President), also developed a relationship with Farrakhan, and I think that Mr. Kemp even went as far as to say that he regretted not having been a speaker at the "Million Man March." This may have been part of the Republican Party's effort to reach out to the African-American community, among which Farrakhan has a large following. On the issues, Farrakhan is quite conservative, both socially and fiscally. When Wanniski arranged a meeting with Farrakan in 1997 in Boca Raton, those who showed up included Mr. Kemp, Evans and Novak, U.S. Congressman John Kasich, and U.S. Senator John Ashcroft. (Kasich was Chairman of the House Budget Committee at the time, and was later an initial GOP Presidential hopeful. Ashcroft was later chosen by President George W. Bush to be Attorney General of the United States.) Conservative columnists Bob Novak and Armstrong Williams (Williams is one of the nation's leading African-American conservative commentators and radio hosts) were very impressed by the meeting, and seemed receptive to the idea of using him for conservative/Republican outreach efforts. Liberals must not have liked the fact that conservatives and Republicans were talking to Farrakhan (perhaps they were upset that that might help the GOP in its quest to break the Democrats' dominance of the black vote). To be fair, however, Wanniski's relationship with Farrakhan was much closer than that of the other conservative leaders. Though I may not agree with him on this, this shouldn't marginalize Mr. Wanniski as a conservative leader and political commentator.

National Review magazine included The Way the World Works, Jude's famous economics classic, as one of the most influential 100 books (I think of the century). That work is a premier economics text which popularized the supply-side theories that were espoused by President Ronald Reagan. See this May 1, 2000 article by Jack Kemp which praises Wanniski's work on this. And just last year, Wanniski was added to the list of TownHall.com's conservative columnists. And Polyconomics has also been a TownHall.com Member Organization for some time. (Townhall.com is the well-known conservative web portal started by the Heritage Foundation.

Polyconomics is also currently listed on the sidebar of the main page of the popular Free Republic. And World Net Daily, one of the world's most popular sites, and another leading source for news and views from a conservative perspective, has Mr. Wanniski listed as one the members of their "Speaker's and Talk Show Guests" Bureau.

This demonstrates that Mr. Wanniski is still respected by "mainstream" conservatives - including some of the most popular conservative web publications in the country.

And even if he has "lost credibility" -
Which is better: To trust a claim from Mr. Wanniski, who advised Reagan, Bush, Kemp, and others, or to trust a claim from Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky" - perjurer/pervert/predator-in-chief, and his administration? (Then again, it must have been "the most ethical adminstration in history," since he also made that claim, right?)

When was Wanniski ever found in contempt of court, and fined over $90,000 for committing perjury and obstruction of justice? When did Wanniski's closest friends and business partners get convicted of serious fraud and conspiracy charges, and then get sent to prison? When was Wanniski accused of committing acts of treason by selling out our nation's vital secrets to Communist governments, and accepting millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions (bribes) for favors?

As for Mr. Wanniski's "genocide denial," as that Slate piece calls it (Slate is a left-wing publication), what Mr. Wanniski has been saying is that it is more likely that it was Iran, not Iraq, which committed the Halabja Massacre, and that Saddam did not "gas his own people" in 1988. It's funny, because a Pentagon report written by professors at the U.S. Army War College says the same thing. (In fact, that is where Wanniski got his information on this topic from.)

That Pentagon report was from 1990. And guess what? That was the Bush administration.

In other words, those who are criticizng Mr. Wanniski's views with regards to the Halabja Massacre of 1988 and the assassination attempt in 1993 - they are trusting the intelligence information from the Clinton adminstration, while ridiculing the intelligence from the Bush administration.

Perhaps today's "conservatives" have their minds in 'Bizarro World'? That would seem to explain a lot...

And those who accuse Mr. Wanniski, and others who claim that Saddam did not "gas his own people" in 1988 (such as Dr. Stephen C. Pelletiere, the distinguished professor and top CIA analyst during the Iran-Iraq war), of "genocide denial" should be very careful - that accusation can cut both ways. They are claiming that it could have been Iran, not Iraq, that committed the massacre of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. It could just as well be argued that those who claim that Saddam "gassed his own people" are guilty of "genocide denial," because they deny that the massacre was committed by Ayatollah Khomeini. (Remember him?)

Dear Conservative Student:

re: Jude Wanniski --

I have to take your contentions at face value, not being a part of the mainstream conservative movement and all. I've heard of JW and always assumed that he had genuine street cred with you guys, but now this...?

Go figure.

What does JW say about the hunt for WMD? Or the doctrine of pre-emptive war?

signed,
Just Curious