Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Daily Dispatch for September 29, 2003

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

House Committee Questions Iraq WMD Claim
Patriot Act Use Expanded to Non-terror Investigations
Steel Tariffs Bring Unexpected Backlash at Home

House Committee Questions Iraq WMD Claim

"The Bush administration scrambled yesterday to answer fresh attacks on the credibility of its case for toppling Saddam Hussein after House Intelligence Committee leaders called prewar information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 'outdated and circumstantial,' and the Justice Department opened a probe into CIA allegations that the White House illegally leaked the name of one of its agents," The Boston Globe reports.

"The administration's assertions were made just days before the US-led team searching for weapons of mass destruction is expected to report to Congress that after five months, no weapons have been found and no definitive conclusions can yet be made about Hussein's activities. White House officials have tried to downplay expectations about the report from David Kay, the top investigator, who as recently as July predicted that his team would uncover a few 'surprises.'"

In "Why Didn't Iraq Use Chemical and Biological Weapons Against U.S. Troops?", Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies Ted Galen Carpenter writes: "If Iraq no longer had chemical and biological weapons, the primary justification for the war was erroneous, thousands of people died needlessly, and America's reputation will suffer a severe blow throughout the world. Conversely, if Baghdad did have such weapons and passed them along to extremist organizations, the blowback from the military victory in Iraq could be more terrible than we wish to contemplate."

Patriot Act Use Expanded to Non-terror Investigations

"The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism," The New York Times reports.

"The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.

In "The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better," Senior Fellow Robert A. Levy explains why "you should be deeply troubled by the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security.

"Any attempt by government to chip away at constitutionally guaranteed rights must be subjected to the most painstaking scrutiny to determine whether less invasive means could accomplish the same ends," he adds. "The USA Patriot anti-terrorism bill does not survive that demanding test. In a free society, we deserve better."

Steel Tariffs Bring Unexpected Backlash at Home

Steel tariffs "put in place to protect companies and workers in steel-producing states such as Pennsylvania, have cost jobs in steel-consuming states such as Michigan. While the administration expected that the tariffs would not be well-received in international markets, it did not fully anticipate the backlash at home," according to the Los Angeles Times.

"On one side are steel-producing states where Bush scored points by shoring up prices so that the ailing industry could attempt to get its affairs in order. Steelworkers want Bush to stick to his plan and keep tariffs in place until 2005, warning of industry turmoil and voter retribution if he changes course."

In "Honorable End to Steel Protectionism," Trade Policy Analyst Dan Ikenson argues: "The conventional wisdom that protecting steel is a relatively painless prerequisite for advancing an agenda of broader trade liberalization is no longer conventional or wise."

Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org