The real war is for hearts and minds here at home,

Excuse me, that's bullshit.

The real war is against the terrorists and their supporters who want to kill us and our allies.

We still have freedom of speech here. Your attempt to stifle dissent at home makes us more like them than anything else.

... but I was onboard on a war for oil. what gives?

Ara,

Disproving the idiotic rantings of the liberals is not the same as stifling free speech.

You are completely missing the point. Much of the dissention at home is due to blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the anti-war camp. The funds, moral, and support needed to fight the "real war" is directly related to public opinion. Since so many people are practicing "free speech" but ignoring "accurate presentation" just to further a political agenda, we must first fight the war at home, to better fight the war on terror.

Geoffrey:

Sorry for spouting off. Sometimes I just get hot under the collar you know?

I just did a Lexis/Nexis search and I couldn't find a single instance of POTUS, VPOTUS, the AG, SecDef, NSA, or anyone actually using the phrase "stifling free speech."

So it must not have happened.

My apologies.

really, Ara? Your free speech is being stifled? but.. but... you have a web log? I have one, too (but mine is a certified crapblog) and, well, Dean here, he has one, too! And so does Charles Johnson! Even Dowingba has one! All those newspapers and TV news shows... protests! Letters to the editor!

That's a lot of stifling of free speech. I'm terrified.

You know, just the other day, i was walking down the main road here, and i saw a peace protester being crammed into a plywood press, just for speaking his mind. NOT. (our plywood plants are closed. So this would never happen here, but i'm sure if our mills were open, we'd be making protester pressboard and selling it as environmentally concious building material).

Get out, Ara.

Criticizing people is stifling free speech?

Give me a break. It's what free speech is all about!

Abandoning Iraq would not only be the worst thing we could do to them right now- it would also be the worst thing we could do to ourselves. What better way to confirm Bin Laden's thesis, that jihad is destined to triumph over America because Americans have no staying power and cannot tolerate adversity?

Our children and grandchildren will pay a horrible price for our fecklessness if we cut and run now.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Ara,

The only thing that has any chance of preventing us from winning the WOT is a lack of will to win. Similar with Iraq. Saddam didn't hang on because he thought he could win. He hung on because he thought the French could convince us not to invade.

Same with the terrorists. They cannot defeat us. Not on a battlefield or even in a laboratory. The outcome will be decided in America via elections and our political process.

Why am I being used as an example in this debate? I'm not even American, for crying out loud.

To say that anything we do in the Middle East is not about oil is a denial of reality.

If it were not for the fact that Iraq, Iran, UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where home to 75% of the worlds know oil reserves the Middle East would capture as much of our attention as Sub-Saharan Africa. The number of policy decisions that we have under took over the years including the support of Saddam Hussein and the support of Israel is directly due to oil. To deny this is a compleat abjection of the facts on the ground.

Oil made it possible for Saddam Hussein to become a bee in our collective bonnet, oil is why he wanted to invade Kuwait. Oil is what Iraq and Iran were fighting over. Oil is why the Saudi Royal family is in power. The price of oil is the single most important metric in our economy, bar none. More important then the trade balance, more important then tax cuts more important then the deficit. To not understand this basic fact is to be seriously mis informed about the peculiar properties of this energy source.

So in a very important sense there is nothing about Middle East politics that isn’t about the oil. To say utherwise is naive.

Yes, Rick, but the critics mean that phrase in the sense that Bush started a war to get cheap oil.

Not true.

The first consideration is that (last I heard) the US only gets about 15% of our oil from the Gulf. If we wanted to take over a country that feeds our oil needs, we would have invaded Venezuela.

The second consideration is that there was a simpler alternative: lift the sanctions, and let Hussein ship all the oil he wants. That's a lot cheaper than what we're doing now.

Hey, Dean:

Let's get one thing straight -- I expect this POTUS to win the war. Period.

His forays into public relations and talk about going around "news filters" is a waste of time and is a pile of crap.

Anything that doesn't help our boys in the field win the war is crap.

Win. The. War.

Then we'll talk about hearts and minds back home.

Rick: The ultimate dishonesty is to suggest that we went to war with Saddam Hussein because we wanted his oil. Full stop, end of sentence.

If we wanted Saddam's oil, we could have it. We could have--and had the opportunity to--make the same deal with him that we made with the Saudis. We could have such a deal years ago. Clinton could have made it even if Bush didn't. Saddam offered that deal to us, repeatedly, if we'd only leave him the hell alone. We told him to go to hell--and were right to do so.

Oil only has anything to do with this conflict because it gave Saddam the money to stay in power. That's the only reason it matters. If we just wanted his oil, this conflict would never have happened.

Can you acknowledge that, please? And if you can't acknowledge it, will you please explain why?

Ara: You have yet, no matter how many times I've asked, explained what "win the war" means to you. What's your plan? What's your alternative? What should we be doing other than what we are doing?

Here's my prediction: you will be utterly incapable of telling me, in clear and unequivocal fashion, what we should be doing differently from what we are doing.

Which explains why your beloved Democaratic Party is heading into oblivion, by the way.

Dean:

Stop asking me what my plan is. My plan is to task the Commander-in-Chief to win the goddam war.

Jesus H. Christ man! This is NOT some stupid California recall/plebescite bullshit!

We, as Americans, voted this man into office. It's his job to do, not ours, not mine. I don't want to impeach him. I don't want to recall him. I don't want to do his fucking job for him.

It is his job to do. He needs to mind it and DO IT.

It is the height of fatuosness on your part to stand back, arms crossed, and ask ME to come up with another plan. As if!

Damn! You have some nerve!

• He has the tools, not me.
  
• He has the knowledge, not me.
  
• He has the intelligence resources, not me.
  
• He commands the generals, not me.

I. Want. Him. To. Win. The. War.

By any means necessary.

How many times do I have to say this? How much more obvious does it have to be before you fucking get it?

The ultimate dishonesty is to suggest that we went to war with Saddam Hussein because we wanted his oil.

Dean,

This is a rather simplistic and cartoonish characterization of the role of oil in this conflict. It plays great for the simpleminded and I don’t doubt there are actually people who believe it, but then again there are a lot of people who think Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11. It really isn't useful to discuss the issue until you understand why many people feel that this conflict is about the oil. And if all you are going to go is make simple minded straw men to knock down then there is really no point, your mind is made up, we have had this discussion before, but to sit there and say categorically that oil isn’t a player in this drama is, as I said naive.

Oil has a lot more to do with it. If you like I would be more then happy to send you a reading list.

Further more If there were a Democrat in the White House I dare say I would be giving that man more crap then I give Bush (but only because I would expect so much more, I cut Bush a lot of slack.)

the US only gets about 15% of our oil from the Gulf.

Casey,

With all due respect. If you really understood anything about how world oil markets work you would realize that the amount of oil we get from the Middle East is completely and totally irrelevant. To even make that argument betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of oil production. You talk as if Venezuela could just twirl open the tap and pump more to satisfy our needs, is that what you are saying? Because if it is, you're wrong. Even if we stepped in and took over the country tomorrow we could not get much more oil from their reserves then we do now. The problem is the nature of oil extraction and production bandwidth.

Even if we drill ANWR and raped the land to the horror of every environmentalist wacko on the planet it would not affect the one metric that is crucial for our economy, the price we pay per barrel of oil. (In fact the reason they want into ANWR is not for the oil, that is just a fringe benefit. At todays prices we would have to subsidize companies to drill for oil in ANWR. What they want right away is the Natural Gas because NG is going through what oil will be going through in about 10 years.

Now you are right that many of Bush's critics believe the same simplistic crap, but I can't speak for them I can only speak for myself and those who I am associated with on the energy issue.

This is not simply an issue of economics it's geology and that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics. Kenneth Deffeyes puts it this way in his book about Hubbert's peak.

“Economists and geologists start from completely different viewpoints. Economists state that oil discoveries depend on the level of investment put into the search. Geologists claim that showing up at the cashier’s cage with dollar bills does not increase the amount of oil in the ground.”

There is more but it a complex subject and it's difficult to deal with the straw men and then try to have a reasonable discussion which doesn't fill a book.

oh PS to Dean

Here's my prediction: you will be utterly incapable of telling me, in clear and unequivocal fashion, what we should be doing differently from what we are doing.

Your absolutely right about this, I concede this point 100%, having made the mistake of going in, there is little to do but try our best to bring peace and democracy to the region by rebuilding the country and hoping like hell that the place doesn't decay into factional civil war the nano second we leave. In fact I can’t see us leaving the country in anything less then 5 years where our troop compliment never goes south of 75,000.

Ara,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is that you broadly agree with the foreign policy goals of the Bush Administration (win the War on Terror), but you think that Bush's methods suck and will fail. Is this an accurate and honest portrayal of your views?

Rick,

I, for one, am fully willing to concede that oil wealth used to be one of the top three fundamental reasons that the Middle East is an important focal point of international politics--possibly even the primary reason of those three, from our perspective. (The other two were the state of Israel and the religious implications of the three holy cities of Islam--Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medina.) Since 9/11, there is a new reason that trumps them all--the failed states of the Middle East are the essential source of international terrorism as practiced by the Islamofascists. Yes, oil wealth is one of the sources that feeds the cancer, and we are making significant strides towards choking off that support, but the oil itself is not the point.

I appreciate the fact that you have a more nuanced view of the importance of oil as a motivating factor. However, Dean is right--the claims of the vocal anti-war Left were that Bush was invading Iraq because he wanted to steal Iraqi oil. I am not tarring you with the same brush, but it is ridiculous to claim that the cries of "No Blood For Oil" meant anything other than Bush wanted to go to war for purely mercenary reasons.

Finally, let's say that the Bush plan is Option A. You said it was a mistake. Given the results of Option A, can you posit an Option B that plausibly results in a superior outcome? I'm looking for a significant difference in approach here, not nitpicking about details. Final thought here--if you can't come up with a plausible Option B, you don't have much of an intellectual basis for attacking Option A.

I think I have some good ideas on what to do about Iraq. Here they are:

1) Let's Demonstrate Respect for the Iraqi People:

As a nation and as individuals, Americans need to learn more about cultural sensitivity. The Iraqi people have easy access to our media. They hear countless stories from all ends of the western political spectrum about how sad and backward they are, how they're blinded by faith in a false god and mostly ignorant of the meaning of freedom. We're beaming this message to Iraq every day, and it's counterproductive to any good we might stand to do there. It has to stop.

What better way to ease every other aspect of our work in Iraq than to gain the respect of the Iraqis? Gifts and platitudes can win you short term cooperation. Showing interest in a people's music, beliefs, art, and culture -- that leads to real dialog, and eventually to lasting, mutual respect.

Our failure to protect Iraq's major museums and libraries after the fall of the old regime sent a clear message to the Iraqi people: "We value your oil, but we don't care about your knowledge or your cultural heritage.*" No matter if this is the truth or a lie, we will make no progress in Iraq so long as this is what the people think about us.

2) Let's Give the Iraqis a Voice:

Living in such a wired society, I'm amazed by how difficult it is to find good information on what the Iraqi people themselves think about the occupation. Some say they hate us, others say they don't. I don't know what to think. It seems like everything out of Iraq is chopped up and used in sound-byte fashion to support one view or another.

I think that we should invite a large, broad delegation of Iraqi scientists, artists, tradespeople, poets, labors, theologians, businessmen, and farmers to visit the United States and give interviews and lectures across the country. We'll be more apt to succeed in helping the Iraqi people build a strong democracy if we understand more about them and the kind of society they would like to live in.

3) Let's Do Smart Development Work:

30,000 GM pickup trucks will give Iraq some mobility, but leave them dependent on US auto companies for parts and service. On the other hand, money and effort spent helping Iraq set up and/or revive its own auto industry will create jobs, a sense of self-worth, economic growth, and pickup trucks. Furthermore, a fair, Iraq centered development plan would lay to rest the question of whether the US is acting in the interest of the Iraqi people, or practicing economic and military imperialism.

4) Let's Show A Clear Path to Self Rule:

It's absolutely inexcusable that the Bush administration hasn't outlined a clear plan for a return to Iraqi self rule. It's equally inexcusable that our legislators, and ultimately the American people, didn't demand it as a prerequisite to invasion. Exactly what we expect the Iraqis to do is order for us to get the hell out of their country should be household knowledge, both here and in Iraq.

My request here is simple. Bush and friends, you got us into this, you get us out. Show us a definitive plan with clear dates, goals, and guidelines. Both the American people and the Iraqi people deserve as much.

*Please spare me any "if the people in Iraq cared about their culture, they wouldn't have destroyed their own museums" bullshit. Priceless European collections have been lost during times of war, and no one claims it's because white folks are culturally degenerate.

M. Nye,

Wow...dear God...wow.... That list is just...special...that's the only word that fits.

Let's take those points one at a time.

1) "...Americans need to learn more about cultural sensitivity." Americans are the most culturally receptive people on Earth. Does the term "melting pot" mean anything to you? This criticism would be more appropriately directed at the "Convert or Die!" Islamofascist movement.

"The Iraqi people have easy access to our media." Satellite dishes were illegal under Saddam's totalitarian regime. Lots of Iraqi people are comparatively poor, and choose to spend their money on basic necessities--which does not include Western media. Your statement, and the conclusions that follow from it, are patently absurd.

Who exactly do you expect to show an interest in Iraqis' "music, beliefs, art, and culture"? Most of the Americans in Iraq right now are busy trying to provide basic services to the population, long denied under Saddam's regime. Our soldiers and other representatives do not have TIME to sit around developing a deep appreciation of, for instance, the long, rich history of Iraqi art. Maybe it's just me, but if I was an Iraqi, I'd rather have clean water, reliable electricity, competent local law enforcement, and open schools than meaningful conversations about art with a foreign soldier, even if he was a nice soldier.

Good God, not the old canard about the museums and libraries. That was a manufactured story with next to no basis in truth.

2) I'll be brief here. Gallup has done polling in Iraq--it's gotten a lot of coverage, so try Googling. There's a decent amount of information on this in the public domain.

Your visitation idea is a pipe dream. Most of the Iraqi people you describe are busy rebuilding their lives in the aftermath of Saddam's oppressive rule. They do not have the time to take an extended cultural tour of a foreign country. Besides, while it might be nice to get to know them better, ultimately the solution for Iraq is going to be found IN Iraq.

3) Iraqis are plenty capable of forming and running their own businesses. They may need starting capital, but last I heard, lots of countries are pouring lots of money into Iraq. Did you hear about the big donor's conference we put together? Sure, France and Germany have declared themselves tapped out (big surprise), but Japan is sending cash, and even the poorer countries of Eastern Europe are sending food and supplies in lieu of the cash they don't have. One of my hopes for Iraq is that they realize the generosity of Eastern Europe--those guys may not be able to afford what we can easily part with, but they've given all out of proportion to their wealth. Certain other countries could profit from their example.

4) This last point is just laughable. The real world does not work this way. There is a plan--no bureaucracy moves an inch without some sort of plan--but concrete dates, goals, and guidelines of the sort you describe are a recipe for disaster. Remember, plans can and will be targeted by those who wish them to fail, and there are many who wish for our failure. Success depends on flexibility, and SUCCESS is what the American and Iraqi people must have.

Ara,

Ok, but part of the "any means necessary" is the liberation, reconstruction and democratization of Iraq....next year my bet is that the "any means necessary" will involve us doing ditto in Iran.

You on board for all this?

Ara: I get it. "The President's screwing up. I don't know what he could be doing better, or differently, but, he's still screwing up."

Lose public support for the war, and you lose the war. I get it just fine. I wish you did.

M.Nye: You are horribly mistaken on one of your key points. We did publish a plan for moving the Iraqi people to self-rule. It was put together with massive assistance from Iraqi dissidents. It discussed in the Congress, before the invasion. We've been following that plan ever since we got there.

There are goals and timelines. Absolute dates do not exist because we cannot foresee everything. But just last month, Colin Powell pushed the Iraqi council to get the new Constitution finished within six months.

We're fully on the path--the long-stated, long-planned path--to getting the Iraqis self-rule.

As for the rest: you know what pal? I never said anything about their culture being screwed up. In point of fact, I have contacts with Iraqis and democracy and human rights groups advocating for democracy there. I've always believed it can be done, and still do--and am incredibly happy that it's being done.

Your cultural exchange idea sounds nice.

Americans are the most culturally receptive people on Earth. Does the term "melting pot" mean anything to you? This criticism would be more appropriately directed at the "Convert or Die!" Islamofascist movement

if this doesn't help to clarify why my first point is worth thinking about, it's hard to say what would.

Who exactly do you expect to show an interest in Iraqis' "music, beliefs, art, and culture"?

All of us. Do you know how many different languages and dialects are used in Iraq. Can you name even a single Persian classical music form? Do you have any idea what differentiates the various sects of Islam practiced there? Do you know the name of even one Iraqi poet, artist or folk hero? Until you do, you can't possibly claim expertise on any plan for the future of Iraq.

I'll be brief here. Gallup has done polling in Iraq...

I'll be brief too. I don't give a fuck what Gallup says. I want to hear what Iraqis have to say.

Your visitation idea is a pipe dream. Most of the Iraqi people you describe are busy rebuilding their lives in the aftermath of Saddam's oppressive rule.

Many of the Iraqi people would be thrilled to visit the United States. You could find 40 or 50 of them to do it in day. A program like the one I'm suggesting would be nothing but positive.

...but concrete dates, goals, and guidelines of the sort you describe are a recipe for disaster.

I didn't discuss any particular sort, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

Dean,

Hey, your last post there sounds pretty reasonable!

You are horribly mistaken on one of your key points. We did publish a plan for moving the Iraqi people to self-rule. It was put together with massive assistance from Iraqi dissidents. It discussed in the Congress, before the invasion. We've been following that plan ever since we got there.

Okay, fair enough. I'll try to learn more about this before I post on this subject again.

I never said anything about their culture being screwed up.

Didn't mean for you to take it this way, and I didn't mean to suggest that you personally are negative about Iraqi culture. I only mean to say that I do think the folks in Iraq get this message from the US sometimes, and to the extent they do, I think it's bad for our people there.

Your cultural exchange idea sounds nice.

Hey, that's kind of you! Give me a chance, and you may yet see some reciprocation! ;-)

We do have to heal our hearts and minds here at home. Standing together as one nation. As one nation going together collectively we are stronger. This blame game is ridiculous.

We need for a good democrat to come forth with a plan, not just telling us what he Believes Bush is doing wrong. What does that accomplish? It doesn't show he can lead, only whine. Democrats, bring a plan. Then you and Bush can debate, a good ole American debte.

Dean, you are right, the country needs hearts and minds here at home to feel united, too feel secure, to feel better about America. Not all this tug of war in it's own nation.

Janelle

McCain said it, and I know that he has reason to hate Bush, but still I would have expected more from him.

M. Nye,

1) Why is your "blame America first" attitude towards cultural sensitivity worth thinking about? This is simply not an accurate criticism, which I pointed out. Do you somehow not believe that an Islamofascist movement exists, or that it does not have "Convert or die!" as its motto?

Is there some emotional logic behind your insistence that Americans collectively embrace a course of study in the history and culture of Iraq? Lots of Americans barely have an understanding of our OWN history and culture with any depth to it. It's not our job to "fix" Iraq by building a perfect society for them. We have taken on the job of providing material support and some clear ideas of how to build a better society, but the work is theirs to accomplish.

2) Well, I don't give a fuck about what random Iraqis say. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates nothing conclusive about overall trends within a population. Gallup's a fairly decent polling organization, and who do you think they polled in Iraq? North Koreans? Interpretation is crucial in learning the right lessons from polls, but to flatly reject a reputable source of the information YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING FOR only demonstrates your unseriousness.

3) I'm perfectly sure you are right. Most Iraqis WOULD be thrilled to come to the United States. I think most of those people would be rather annoyed when we told them they had to go back to Iraq, though. Besides the obvious point of being a nice vacation for those lucky enough to come here, what exactly would this accomplish? And I'm talking justify-it-to-Congressional-Budget-committees, because nice ideas don't get tax dollars just because they are nice ideas. Vague hand-waving about the "benefits of cultural exchanges" won't cut it, either.

Now if you had suggested that we bring over the group of Iraqis that are supposed to draft the new Iraqi constitution (and this group hasn't been picked yet), that might have some merit. I'm not sure what they could learn by being physically here as opposed to there, but I think you could figure out a decent justification. But random Iraqis? Nice idea, but dumb idea.

4) Fine, concrete dates, etc. of ANY sort at this point would be a disaster. The whole political system could probably be turned over to the Iraqis in the next 2-5 years, barring extraordinary events that are not predictable. The exact date will be set and publicized when it is known that the date can be met. Setting a concrete date this far in advance is asking for failure, and an avoidable failure at that. For the sake of the Iraqi people, this is too important to screw up by looking for avoidable failures.

Sam

The problem with my option "B" is that I have a very different view of the problem of international terrorism. I could lay out what I think would have been the better option but most people who supported the war did so precisely because they disagree fundamentally with people like me on the problem of international terrorism itself. Thus if you don’t agree with my assessment of the impact of the problem of terrorism you will never in a bizillion years agree with my solution.

For many people 9/11 was a "Wake up call" and the terrorists became the new world boogie man and the war on terror the new cold war. I happen to believe that the threat of terrorism to the people of the United States is being overstated in general. I do not believe that groups like Al-Qaeda pose the kind of threat that can be defeated with the kind of military action that has been carried out so far.

I agree with the action in Afghanistan because the attack needed a response that demonstrated we were willing to respond decisively and with resolve. But that invasion had the benefit of enjoying broad multi-lateral support and all of the goals being floated out now like the flypaper theory and the idea that the US can make an example of an Arab democracy could have been done in Afghanistan without the downsides that the invasion of Iraq has inspired. Why is Afghanistan not the recipient of the 80 billion dollar aid package? Why can’t Afghanistan be the model of a democratic Arab state? The up side there is that hat Afghanistan had broad support among the Arab nations and there was very little in the way of protest of our going in there.

Not the specifics of the plan "B" don’t have the luxury of a one paragraph outline. Invade Iraq and turn them into a democracy has the advantage of being a bumper sticker sized plan that any dimwit can rally around. Plan "B" take three pages to get off the ground because its more nuanced and requires action on many different front diplomatic, economic, political and yes militarily. I have stated that my problem with the administrations approach in that the military is a hammer and every problem is seen as a nail. No I can give a simple description of plan "B" because plan "B" is not simple, which is my problem with the current course of action.
A few things that we could do now? Well Number one let's dispel the charges of cronyism. Let's cut the belligerents in for a piece of the pie. Take all current contracts off the table and open up the bidding process to all comers, even the French and Russians. We might even give them a few sweetheart deals. Don't bore me with a lot of chest banging on this, this is practical politics here and what matters is getting the situation under control in Iraq not punishing countries for their reticence.

Also I want to know more about the current process of forming a new government, we have heard precious little about who is involved in that process, let's make it more transparent. Who is being given a seat at the table? What factions ar being represented. What grievances are being addressed. And most importantly we need a clear outline of what is and what is not acceptable to determine if our requirements for the new government are not overly burdened by what is best for the US.

Finally we need to be focused a lot less on what is being filtered in the media, building hospitals and schools doesn't mean anything as long as attacks are taking place. If the problem is really under control that we will know in a month our two because they should be reduced to a trickle by then. If the current level is sustained until the first of the year then that means that things are not getting better and we will have to face the facts that what we are doing isn't working , but if things are not working we have to admit it and not try and put a happy face on it so it plays politically at home.

Sam, Mark, Dean, et. al:

I'll be mercifully brief.

I support the war on terror.

You support President Bush.

I want the US to win that war.

You want Bush to win re-election.

Ara, please point to the alternative candidate (Democrat or otherwise)who has ANY credibility whatsoever in winning the War on Terror, especially as compared to George W. Bush. The prepare for a lot of laughter.
I strongly disagree with President Bush, and Republicans in general, on a lot of social issues, particularly where religion is involved. BUT, the fact that the Democrats lean roughly the way I do on these issues is worthless next to the fact that every single candidate is desperate to have the US commit suicide by either capitulation to outside aggressors or sheer economic failure. Social changes and improvemnts come slowly, and work from the people up. The Democratic party seems to feel it is their end-all and be-all to impose these from the top down, while ignoring the very real, non-warm and fuzzy world.

Rick,

Have you ever written out your plan? If so, I would be very interested in reading it. I don't know that posting in these comments is the best place, perhaps you could give me a link or an email? Thanks.

Sam,

Why is your "blame America first" attitude towards cultural sensitivity worth thinking about? This is simply not an accurate criticism, which I pointed out. Do you somehow not believe that an Islamofascist movement exists, or that it does not have "Convert or die!" as its motto?

It's worth thinking about because I believe that if we put a guy like you in an empty room, alone with a piece of a paper, you couldn't write the names of three (maybe not even one) positive, non-violent Islamic movement. I think that kind of willful ignorance -- displayed by too many of our politicians in both major parties -- contributes directly to much short-sighted, bad policy making.

...to flatly reject a reputable source of the information YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING FOR only demonstrates your unseriousness.

What I'm looking for is a wide range of commentary directly from the real Iraqi people that I can use to make my own interpretations. I'm sorry, but I don't think that it makes sense for me to form viewpoints based on your interpretation of Gallup's interpretation of questions the Iraq people answered by didn't write. Especially not when it's technically possible to get the real deal.

I'm talking justify-it-to-Congressional-Budget-committees, because nice ideas don't get tax dollars just because they are nice ideas. Vague hand-waving about the "benefits of cultural exchanges" won't cut it, either.

The Congress spends tons of money every year on cultural exchange, didn't you know that? Even some ultra-conservatives were saying after 9-11 that we should spend more money on programs to engender a deeper understanding of what's going on in the various world cultures. Do you think that operatives and analysts can learn everything they need to know by watching Bill O'Reilly?

John Irving:

...please point to the alternative candidate (Democrat or otherwise)who has ANY credibility whatsoever in winning the War on Terror...

Find your own candidate -- I ain't helpin you. That's your job.

As for me finding MY own candidate, there is plenty of time for that my friend, plenty of time. The election isn't until Nov. 2004.

Until then President Bush is in charge. He's the one who is responsible and authorized to win the War on Terror. And we, the people, should and must judge his performance accordingly.

For now, I'm content to take my time deciding who I'm going to vote for.

It might be the Democrat; it might not be. It might even be the Republican, but I really doubt it. It might be someone from an alternate party. Who knows? There's no hurry.

A lot can happen in 13 months. I'm keeping an open mind.

"Much of the dissention at home is due to blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the anti-war camp. The funds, moral, and support needed to fight the "real war" is directly related to public opinion. Since so many people are practicing "free speech" but ignoring "accurate presentation" just to further a political agenda, we must first fight the war at home, to better fight the war on terror."

And to think, I didn't believe there were any good parrallels to Vietnam. Oh yeah, there was that Tonkin Resolution, thing.

good catch, shep.

Rick,

Well, you're right, I don't agree with your assessment of 9/11--but I'm sure you guessed that already. My assessment hinges on this: al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and intended to hit the Capitol, evidently) with airliners, because that was the most effective weapon they could get at the time. If al Quaeda had a suitcase nuke, or access to smallpox, they would have used that instead, and the death toll would have been unimaginably higher. Do you think this analysis is wrong? If so, why?

Regarding Afghanistan...you've misstated a couple of key details. First, the $87 billion reconstruction package that Bush requested from Congress included money for BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if a larger percentage of the money went to Iraq (although only about $20 billion was direct aid to Iraq), but this is reasonable, given that Iraq has a much larger population, etc.

Also, Afghanistan could not be a model Arab democracy because Afghanistan is NOT ARAB. It IS a predominantly Islamic country, like Iran or Indonesia, neither of which is Arab. This is a really important point, because while there is some natural common ground between states that are predominantly Islamic, it is not the same as a common Arab identity.

I think your Option B in general terms could be described as stopping with Afghanistan, and using it as a base for operations against al Qaeda. Unfortunately, this does not address the WMD issue, or the longstanding justification for removing Saddam Hussein.

As I understand it, the identities of the members of the Iraqi Governing Council are public knowledge. I would expect that at least some amount of biographical information could be found rather easily through Google. I also think that the limits of acceptable behavior is pretty well understood--lots and lots of free speech, but physical violence against troops is absolutely off limits.

Sorry, but building hospitals and schools actually matters very much, whether attacks are still happening or not. The attacks, while bad, only harm a tiny fraction of the people that the schools and hospitals help, and will continue to help for the forseeable future.

Ara,

Your phrasing either indicates that you think those goals are not compatible, or that we and you rank those goals in a different order. The first interpretation indicates a debate that you have not been willing to engage honestly, and the second is absolutely not true.

I personally like Bush a lot, and I think he's a great President--in large part because I think that his strategies involving the WoT are sound and will succeed. However, if I thought that his strategies were unsound, and there was another candidate with better ideas, I'd drop my support of Bush in favor of the hypothetical second candidate, of either party.

M. Nye,

I'm much less concerned about non-violent Islamic movements, because they don't represent a threat to my life, and the lives of my family and friends. I'd be perfectly happy engaging non-violent Islamic people in a mutually respectful debate, to the benefit of us both. Oh, and to disprove your tangential point, ever heard of the Sufis? I have, and Islamofascism represents a danger to them as much as it is a danger to me.

I didn't present an interpretation of the Gallup polling data. I merely said that it was available, indicated that Gallup is generally considered to be reputable, and left you to draw your own conclusions. From what I remember, a lot of the polling was conducted interview-style, and some amount of the raw data may be available if you bother to look. Are you actually claiming that the information you want is not possible to collect? That position is logically unanswerable because its premise is not logically based.

So now you are saying that the CIA's "operatives and analysts" could benefit from your cultural exchange programs? When your idea was to bring random Iraqis over here? I wouldn't oppose recruiting thoroughly-checked Iraqis as intelligence assets, for cultural information or otherwise, but somehow I feel that cannot be your intended suggestion.