National Review Online contributing editor

National Review Online contributing editor Mark Levin analyzes the objections of Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton to using military force against Iraq. Deconstructing the pronouncements of Carter and Clinton is fun, but may not be worth the effort. Neither holds power and neither is likely to be taken seriously in this debate (unless Clinton supports military action). As for Sen. Daschle, Levin exposes the cynical shell game the Senate Majority Leader is playing. Initially, Daschle demanded “new information” about an Iraqi threat. When advised of that information — new evidence that Saddam is close to developing nuclear weapons, has developed new means of delivering chemical and biological weapons, and was in contact wtih Al Qaeda before and after the Sept. 11 attacks — Daschle raised the bar by suggesting that “international support” in the form of a new U.N. resolution should be a precondition for military action. It seems to me that the call for new information is specious to begin with. Why isn’t the Sept. 11 attack and our subsequent declaration of war against terrorism “new information” enough? If we really are conducting a war against terrorism, then “old” information that Saddam is making progress with weapons of mass destruction, coupled with his longstanding hatred for the U.S. and past “dabbling” in anti-U.S. terrorism, would seem reason enough to bring him down. The burden should then fall on Daschle and his like-minded colleagues to make the case for inaction.