The governments you mentioned and their supporters realize they are fighting for survival. Fortunately, most Americans understand that we are too. I'm not sure we can move against Iran or Syria as long as things are so volatile in Iraq. Once we get the place cleaned out, we've still got lots of work to do. As long as the nut cases that run Iran are still in power, the War on Terror is in its infancy.

I agree.

I'd like to see the successor to the United Nations be constituted as a club of democracies whose stated purpose is to foster world peace through the active support of democratic rule and free markets in all the world's nations.

"…most of these terrorist attacks are not being carried out by native Iraqis"

That's probably wrong (though possibly useful if you want to falsely conflate Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with the former Iraqi regime), depending on how you define "native". Published intel suggests Baathist supporters of Saddam, by and large, perpetrated most of the attacks that have happened so far. They, obviously, also care little about the Iraqi people, only their own return to power. Inasmuch as this war is now drawing Islamic fanatics to the war zone, that's probably a good outcome of this policy. As long as we kill them before they can kill many others.

Wow, that's new. I never thought I'd hear shep praising the Administration's "flypaper" strategy.

Unplanned bonus, I'd say, Sam. But, yes, much better than having to go looking for them.

I'm not entirely sure how the predicted results of declared strategies can be described as an "unplanned bonus." Seems to me that's the very definiton of a "planned bonus," or even a "planned outcome."

Jonathan, I hope to see your vision...for it is right. I also want you to know I pay attention to you, as well as others in Deans World. You are a veteran. Thank you.

That is a powerful drawing from Cox and Forkum!

I know I want to stay the course right now with the President we have, man Oh, man. I am going to keep saying it too! He looks into any camera and tells anyone, " We are coming after you ".

Hey Guys:

Janelle: thanks so much for your kind words! I certainly am only a "veteran" in the sense of having served. I never flew combat missions. But I'd like to believe that I would have if the timing made it necessary.

Shep: how very . . . moderate of you to offer grudging support for the flypaper strategy (or "flypaper phenomenon," as you would probably prefer to describe it). I give you huge credit for your willingness to concede that, given the balance of your views.

Appreciate it Jonathan, although I'm not sure why you're surprised. Like most people, I'm hoping for a positive outcome (which would include wiping out fanatical terrorists) even if I think the whole venture was put at risk by administration bungling and sold to the public by way of gross deception. I call it "pragmatic".

Hey Shep:

Perhaps I'm just not convinced that "most people" are as pragmatic as you are about the importance of wiping out fanatical terrorists. While I think most Americans share a vaguely-definable love of our country and understanding of the threat radical Islam poses to it, I'm not at all convinced that this overrides everyone's partisan political concerns.

I fear that those who seek to alter Bush's strategic course--vs. simply criticize his past actions--either take for granted our eventual victory or fail to grasp the gravity of our situation. When some on the Left talk about rapidly withdrawing our troops from Iraq, I get very alarmed.

Jonathan,

Don't worry about "cut-and-run' talk from the fringe. We aren't going anywhere unless something really bad happens and then it won't be the "left" that will be driving the bus out of Baghdad. I think practically every American (more than you could ever use that phrase) "gets-it" about the dangers of Islamic fanaticism (at least on a concern level) after watching those planes slam into the towers. Not many probably know much about what to do about it and I’m sure that their fear and confusion has been wildly furthered by administration rhetoric and policy. That is also why people want to pull out of Iraq.

While it's true that Richard Nixon was the one driving the bus retreating from Vietnam, I'd venture to say he was carrying more left- than right-wingers as paying passengers.

What is it that you think most Americans "get" about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism?

1) That we need to do something? Yes.
2) That we need to do something different than the failed policies which caused this to occur (bad intelligence gathering/processing and bad geopolitical strategy)? Maybe
3) That we need to aggressively but intelligently attack and destroy those sponsors of terrorism which we are able to attack with minimal fallout, both geopolitical and radioactive? Probably not
4) That we are in a quasi-wartime period during which civil liberties will be curtailed and our privacy will be invaded by law enforcement officials? Absolutely not.

It isn't enough for us all not to like the idea of planes smashing into buildings. We have to be able to unify around an effective set of steps to prevent them from doing so in the future.

I have gotten to the point where I believe unity is fruitless to seek. We didn't really even have unity in the day or two after 9/11, because even then some people were carping and saying it was all our fault. Now, as time has gone on, our politics have gone back to normal, and there will always be critics of our policies.

Hell, a lot of Republicans called World War II "Roosevelt's War" and said we needed to get out of it. Many were particularly critical of going after Germany. The "unity" we had back then seems to have mostly been a matter of how Hollywood movies portray it.

Those of us who believe in this war effort are going to have to keep making the case for it, and are going to have to continue to be part in the debate, if we want to make it move forward. Political partisanship and normal disagreement will always be with us in this way I'm afraid. It's probably for the best, and a sign that we're still healthy as a nation. Even though it can be frustrating.

Jonathan,
I think you've got it: 1, 2 3. And I think that's right about what most Americans think proper.

Dean,
Hellooooooo. You don't think the dissembling and outright lies by war promoters play a critical role in undermining “unity”? Choose your war.

shep: again, for the freaking millionth time, provide any sort of proof that anyone in the adminstration lied. Please.

ALL I've ever seen are links to editorials ("XXX says Bush lied" ergo he lied), links to quotes that the citer says proves the administration lied, when all they show is that the administration wasn't right about everything, and narrow, torturous, hair-splitting definitions intend to prove a specific point of view.

Show me something. The best I've seen (which is still freaking weak) is a unidentified source who told a reporter that Powell said the White House report on Iraq was "bullshit".

This is technically known as "hearsay."

You do not have any facts that can justify making the statement that Bush, or anyone in his administration lied. These facts have never come to light. If they had, 90% of the journalists in the country would have gone into a feeding frenzy to the tune of "See, we told you so!"

So I ask again: please provide proof of lying. Verifiable facts, por favor. No editorials, no quotes that turned out to be wrong, no intepretations of statements that fit your prejudice. Facts.

Show me something that could stand up in a court of law as evidence, that shows anyone in the adminstration knowingly and/or deliberately telling untruths about their Iraq policies.

That's what "lie" means. C'mon, show me.

BTW, this isn't the last time critics of "war promoters" have tried to make this claim. Back in the 1920s and 1930s there was a lot of publicity about the "merchants of death" who decieved the American public about the Great War. This left a bad taste in the mouth of many citizens, and helped contribute to an inclination to isolationism at the time.

This also reminds me of the Labor reps in Parliament who used "war mongers" in the same deragotory way you use "war promoters." They slapped Churchill with that one dozens of times, while all the time he was trying to warn Britain of the peril they faced from Germany.

I was speaking generally, Casey. I'm not interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or proving in a court of law what goes on in George Bush's mind (credit for restraining myself here). Frankly, considering what I'm sure he has done, whether he technically "lied" or not is irrelevant.

"considering what I'm sure he has done" (emphasis added)

It must be really irritating when you can't put any real evidence forward, eh? :)

"Dammit, I know the SOB is guilty of SOMETHING!!!"

Look at it this way: if he really is the slimeball you seem to think he is, he'll fuck up sooner or later, and get nailed. Look at Nixon...

And recall Lincoln: you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

Don't sweat it for a while; have a beer, go watch West Wing, play a Howard Dean speech; relax.

Ah, but clearly you can fool some of the people all of the time. Clear thinking on that beer thing, though.