That clever blogger, Allah, might think he's God, but he's wrong. FRIEDMAN IS GOD! :)

He's a Democrat and he doesn't cut Bush any slack if he thinks Bush is wrong. Fine. His insights into the Middle East are the best I've ever read. And, as a final encomium, he has been royally dissed by BOTH the Arabs and Israelis.

Today's column was spot on.

The occupation forces seem to be under attack right now from, not Baathists or Saddam supporters although these might number among the attackers, but Iraqi Patriots. Citizens of Iraq who feel a 'love of country' and hate having it occupied by a foreign power (especially an arrogant power). They are reacting about as I would react in the same circumstances (or you)
The US could cut its losses by leaving now, its actions are not going to bring about long term change and they are only undermining its own credibility worldwide.
ttul
Bal

I thought it was a brilliant display of the Times' descent into schizophrenia the way they published this article simultaneously with Maureen Dowd's latest excretion.

Actually, Balzar, you're dead wrong. If, say, the Democrats managed to inflict totalitarian communism on the US and it required the intervention of a foreign power to defend the principals of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, I would be on the street handing their soldiers glasses of water as they rode past. And I'm a veteran of the US Navy.

And the only way we can restore the credibility we threw away through various yipping retreats during the past several decades is to stand and fight for the Iraqis' right to govern themselves in a democracy. And they know this, which is why they want us there.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist or individual terrorists."
President Bush, from a speech in Cincinnati, 10/7/02

"...the 'he said Iraq was an imminent threat' meme...needs to be obliterated for the lie that it is."
Dean Esmay, from Dean's World, 10/30/03

Stop it Dean. You sound ridiculous.

Ara, deciding to do something on any day does not require being ready to act. The interim report showed a readily startable program which would have meant danger some short time after such a decision.

Just curious Dean--what would your reaction be if in the next 6 months the Admin rotated troops home, sped up the handover to Iraqis, and focused mainly on counterinsurgency?

What would your reaction be if, after democracy comes to Iraq, a government that enshrines Islam as the state religion came to fruition?

Ara, it's useless. They're tripping.

Shep,

But Ara supports the President, right Ara?

Balzar,

If its Iraqi patriots then why aren't there sympathy strikes, demonstrations and a civilian political organization to front for the people attack the coalition? More importantly, why have the attacks lessened on coalition troops and intensified upon Iraqi's and charitible workers? Why is there graffiti threatening harm to children who accept school supplies from the coalition?

The answer is that the enemy isn't a patriotic or even Pan-Arabist organization but, instead, just a bunch of nutters who want some bizarre Islamo-fascist world and know that unless they can stop Iraq from being remade, they are sunk.

Mark, you're asking Balzar two questions:
One is why the bad guys are killing civilians and threatening kids.
The other is why Balzar doesn't seem to mind.

Eggs. Omelets.

We've seen it before.

SCIRI Representative Bayati claims that there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and that the Iraqi gov't 'played a part' in 9-11. Check it out here!

I disagree with Friedman quite often, but at least he has something to say. It's so tiresome listening to people scream Oil! and Halliburton! when the implications are demonstrably untrue.

There are people tripping on the board. These are those who hallucinate continually about how the French could have made this work better. When are you guys going to realize the fundamentalists don't give a shit who we are. Germans, French, Russians, Chinese, Americans - they don't care. These idiots are pissed off because the Caliph was kicked out of Cordoba 500 years ago. They don't see anything wrong with the goal of world domination. All that shit they spout is just PR to encourage you useful idiots. They're not pissed because we didn't build enough daycare centers: that's really not a problem since they don't want the women out of the house anyway. This isn't a crisis to use to support your agenda of government paid child care. You guys better wake up that this is a more important issue than something to criticize Bush over. We're all infidels, and that's what matters.

And by the way, if there's any "moderate" muslims reading this, you're next. It'll be just like the fucking communists. First they take those that oppose them, then they take those that disagree, lastly they take those that aren't vehement enough supporters. You'll have your head cut off because you didn't join the jihad until 2004, so you're considered untrustworthy. In the end the survivors won't be able to talk to their children because the clerics might find out.

Diana:
"What would your reaction be if, after democracy comes to Iraq, a government that enshrines Islam as the state religion came to fruition?"

I wonder about this issue a lot, too. A lot of the world seems to have a different idea from most Americans about how much democracy or personal liberty is enough. Islam as state religion would obviously be thorny psychologically (for most of us Americans, I mean); there are other questions, too. The democracies that have majority (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia) or sizable minority (e.g., the Philippines, Thailand)--whoo! non-severe but long-lasting earthquake--Muslim populations still have definite police-state elements. Stability for multi-ethnic states comes at a price that I think a lot of us in America haven't really internalized.

Oh. I guess that didn't sound like a question. My point was, suppose that the leader who satisfies people is more like Mahathir than like Lee Kuan Yew. Mahathir can be a royal jerk, and on its face the way he talks about Jews and Islam is not comforting. But because he's been around for 20 years without going around and physically oppressing people for anything except littering when diplomats are in town, most of us figure that just disliking him is enough. If Iraqi voters or the party controlling its parliament (if it has one) wanted someone like Mahathir as a leader, and we didn't know what he was going to be like, how would we decide whether it was dangerous?

shep --

I feel like this is the Twilight Zone.

triticale --

What you said? I can't parse it. At all. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Check it out.

Mark --

I support the Bush Doctrine. Which (so often these days) makes me more Catholic than the Pope.

Try that razor yourself, Ara. It's your logic that needs shaving. If you're cooking things down to the kindergarten level, please produce the quote in which GWB states, verbatim, that he considers Iraq to be an "imminent threat." We need those two words right there together in the same sentence, Ara. Your rules, not ours.

What we do have--and have seen quoted ad nauseum--is the quote in which GWB states that we can't wait until Iraq becomes an imminent threat, which if we ratchet the cognition level up to first-grade allows us to extrapolate that he did not at that time consider Iraq to be an imminent threat but wanted us to attack anyway.

Triticale doesn't need to present any further proof or reasoning than has already been presented. The burden of proof has been, and remains, on you, to overcome or explain away GWB's on-the-record statements.

After all, I could take my hunting rifle and spray down the apartment complex. But instead, I think I'll pet a cat. Lots of people could do threatening things which they won't probably do. Which is why they are not an "imminent" threat so much as a "potential" one, if that.

Even though GWB felt and stated that Hussein was not an imminent threat, I share his belief that Hussein should not have been allowed to remain a potential threat.

[Yes, I have fallen into the blogging mosh pit again, as you can see. I can't explain it. A spell came over me.]

To amplify my point, it doesn't have to be an actual Islamic state. It could be an Islamic state the way Israel is a Jewish state; a functioning, relatively benign democracy. But Islamic. Sean is right; the American model of democracy is not the *only* way.

As they say: be careful what you wish for, you may get it. I had odd premonitions, before & during the war, that we would actually succeed in creating the first functioning democracy in the Arab Muslim world. And we just might, because I don't think this insurgency is up to the level of the Vietcong. And wouldn't it be just amazing, I mean, amazing, if this functioning Arab Muslim democracy puts Mahathir's words into practice and beats Israel at its own game? If they prove to be stable and responsible, who could deny them the right to self-defense, including the ultimate in self-defense--nukes?

[Yes, I have fallen into the blogging mosh pit again, as you can see. I can't explain it. A spell came over me.]

To amplify my point, it doesn't have to be an actual Islamic state. It could be an Islamic state the way Israel is a Jewish state; a functioning, relatively benign democracy. But Islamic. Sean is right; the American model of democracy is not the *only* way.

As they say: be careful what you wish for, you may get it. I had odd premonitions, before & during the war, that we would actually succeed in creating the first functioning democracy in the Arab Muslim world. And we just might, because I don't think this insurgency is up to the level of the Vietcong. And wouldn't it be just amazing, I mean, amazing, if this functioning Arab Muslim democracy puts Mahathir's words into practice and beats Israel at its own game? If they prove to be stable and responsible, who could deny them the right to self-defense, including the ultimate in self-defense--nukes?

Ara,

Yeah, thats what you say - plenty of people here have tried to nail you down on your support of the Bush Doctrine, but without success. I'll give it a stab:

Which part of the Bush Doctrine if Bush failing to do?

Diana,

I don't think I'm quite understanding your point about nukes. I think a stable, responsible Iraq would not want nukes, and Israel is sufficiently different in enough particulars that it is a poor parallel.

First, nukes in the hands of a state are pretty much the ultimate defense against state vs. state conflict. But there are various downsides to this defense, and I don't think a state will go looking for it unless they have determined that no lesser form of defense will be sufficient to meet their security needs.

Israel has made that determination; Iraq shouldn't need to arrive at the same conclusion. Although we will be handing political control back to the Iraqis within the next couple/few years, and one of our projects is building up a moderately potent Iraqi conventional military, Iraq will remain under U.S. military protection (in the form of local bases) for the next several decades. Iraq's potential state enemies cannot challenge that protection, so more extensive defenses aren't necessary.

Israel has known since its founding that its survival would be determined by its own efforts. I think the political leadership of Israel knows that despite U.S. support, the U.S. could not ensure the protection of the state of Israel from all conceivable state-based military threats. Since Israel has been in danger of being overrun several times in its history, despite a competent conventional military, developing a nuclear capacity has been an essential ace up its sleeve.

Anyway, that's my analysis. Is there anything I've missed here?

Sam Barnes:
"Anyway, that's my analysis. Is there anything I've missed here?"

Well, Iraq has rather recently had the experience of being invaded and taken over. I'd imagine that that kind of throws into relief how vulnerable it could be in the future.

I know, I know: we liberated the place from an evil man. We did, indeed. But I can't imagine that a population that's spent the last few centuries being overrun by Ottomans and Persians and Brits is going to be, like, "What would we need with nukes? After all, we're not Israel." Maybe being friends with so many Jews has distorted my vision, but I have just the tiniest bit of difficulty imagining a bunch of Arab Muslims using that logic, even after the US liberated them real nice. And that doesn't even consider all that--what's it called? oh, yeah--petroleum that's tucked under them.

I'm not saying you're a moron, Sam. Nothing you said failed to make sense as far as it went, but we in America tend to forget that the past doesn't feel as remote to others as it tends to do to us. Even those of us who were brought up knowing relatives still in the old country tend to have a sense that our immigrant ancestors came over to get away from all the class striation and endless clan feuding. Given the humiliation in Iraq's recent past, I wouldn't count on its newly independent leaders' not wanting to be as up-to-date as the Jews on one side and the Hindus on the other.

Sean,

Well, thanks for not calling me a moron, but I think my analysis was a LITTLE better than that. Assuming that we are successful in Iraq, the American invasion won't be painted as a humiliation in the Iraqi collective psyche. I don't think the general German/Japanese reaction to WWII is "dammit, we lost, how humiliating." I know, Arab culture has a strong honor/shame component running through it, but so did/does Japanese culture.

Iraq will be in the position of a regional power within the Middle East. India is not in the Middle East, and I would not expect either country to feel particularly threatened by the other, since their respective spheres of influence probably won't overlap. Iraq won't be allowed to get into some sort of pan-Arabist or pan-Islamic imbroglio, and only the latter would concern India.

Also, I fully expect that a post-reconstruction Iraq will be on friendly, or at least polite, terms with Israel. This assumes that State doesn't thoroughly screw things up, which is sadly a large and tenuous assumption. Hopefully, they won't be given much of a chance.

Besides, you're assuming the Iraqis get a CHOICE in the matter within the next fifty years--and they won't. One of the reasons we'll have bases in Iraq is to make sure that Iraq does not get nukes until we say so, and that's final. Japan is not a nuclear power for two reasons, and one is that they know the nuclear club is closed, according to U.S. policy. (This may change, depending on how cooperative China is vis a vis North Korea, but that's another issue.)

Ara: Given that the President was completely correct about that, the only person being ridiculous is you. By the way, thanks for revealing that you were full of shit when you said "I supported this war from the beginning."

My position has never changed. Yours, apparently, is rooted in quicksand.

I eagerly await your answer to Mark's question, by the way: "Which part of the Bush doctrine is Bush failing to do?" My prediction: all you'll have to say in response is your typical weak-sister "win the war" bullshit, with nothing specific whatsoever. All you'll have are more snarky questions, rather than any specific responses. Because your issue isn't winning the war on terrorism, it's bashing the President. You're lying to yourself if you think it's otherwise.

Diana: If in the next six months, the Administration rotated troops home, sped up the handover to Iraqis, and focused mainly on counterinsurgency, I'd think they were going much too fast--and if "rotating the troops home" meant giving up our military presence there, I'd think it disastrous. However, I doubt very much that that's what will happen, because, having removed our troops from "Saudi" Arabia and gained a major military foothold in the Middle East, it's extremely unlikely that we'd pull out of the area now.

As for what happens if the Iraqis enshrine Islam as their official state religion: I honestly don't give a shit, so long as freedom of religion is recognized. I don't have the issues with Islam that others do. The British, the Norwegians, and several other liberal states have Christianity as their official religion. Oh, and Israel has an official state religion too, although they pretend they don't. So freakin' what?

The reasons for the Iraq war have never changed. We had a belligerent power who refused to show that it wasn't developing biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons--which it was required to do by its surrender agreement. We had a power that was funding terrorism in Israel and possibly elsewhere, defying the Western powers, and horribly oppressing its people.

We also had a need, post-9/11, to establish a base of power in the Middle East from which to threaten the other powers in the region that fund terrorism. We have that now, and are very unlikely to give it up.

I expect the Iraq conflict to take years to settle down. I expect we'll be facing insurgents for quite some time to come. I always expected it, and I'm shocked that anyone ever thought it otherwise.

As you yourself once said, things in Iraq may go poorly. But we have an obligation to try our best. The alternative was to maintain the status quo, which was utterly unacceptable.

Dean,

I'll respond on my own blog. Famous last words, I know, since I often don't get to it, but I will.

Suffice it to say that, to misquote Mary McCarthy about Lillian Hellman, everything you said is wrong, except the words "if" "and" and "the."

Iraq was no threat to us. We don't go to war on humanitarian grounds. And you don't launch a war in the name of the UN while disregarding what the other members have to say. It's going to be ruinously expensive--and your own kid will have to pay for it. And please be honest. No one expected an insurgency of this level. There's no shame in admitting that. That's *the* clue that the pro-war side has terrible doubts about the whole enterprise: this high-dudgeon offense mode you go into anytime someone brings up reservations.

Diana:

1) You have no idea how much or how little of a threat Iraq was to us. Anyone who looks at a rogue state and declares it's "no threat to us" has not learned some of the more important lessons of 9/11.

2) We did go to war partially on humanitarian and partially on other grounds. You're correct if you say that we didn't base our legal justification for the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but your statement as it stands is factually incorrect.

3) Actually, you do launch wars in the name of the UN while disregarding what other members have to say. We did it in Korea in the face of Russia's walkout. If I were you, I'd focus a little less on what actions we could take to curry favor with the thoroughly corrupt regimes in the UN, and a little more on what's the morally right thing to do at a given point in time. We could have found ways to buy off France, Russia and China to get their enthusiastic support for the invasion. They are not a moral arbiter.

4) The war will only be ruinously expensive if it doesn't deliver its intended consequences of fostering in Islam the perception that we are concerned with the welfare of the people of Islam (and not with their 200 person/week murdering governments). People are almost always more intelligent than the Left is willing to give them individual credit for. If we are there to help (admittedly a big "if") then I believe that will be perceived. If this results in a global climate of increased global tolerance and reduced ambient terrorism, the war will have paid for itself with increased trade and decreased future military spending and domestic security expense.

5) It's fair to say that no one expected the resistence to take this form. Instead of a deadly seige of Baghdad followed by a polite occupation, we have a too-easy three-week war followed by protracted resistance. The net effect is still less overall effort than had been forecast, and certainly no more than had been warned by Bush.

Your opinion here is interesting to me in that it points up how immune we had become under Clinton to words and their meanings. I, for one, reflexively discounted nearly every oily thing Clinton said, while grudgingly admiring the deftness of his dodging. So now, when a plain-spoken, borderline-inarticulate president tells me that the road ahead will be difficult, I too share your reflexive instinct to discount what he says and stick with my preconceived notions.

But this is our hearing problem, not GWB's speaking problem.

Diana,

Your questions and comments seem to me to be honestly motivated by concern for America and humanity. This seem's true of shep as well, since he said in another thread that he wants to win, now that we're in. Ditto for Ara. There does seem to be some disconnect, though. For Ara in particular, I understand he wants to win, and I understand he doesn't think Bush is doing well, but I can't figure out either what he believes he knows how to do better, or what he believes can be done better even though he doesn't know how. It is either a flaw in my reading or a flaw in his writing. Dunno.

Most of my high-dudgeon is due to fear that we will lose the Iraqi campaign in the war against Islamo-fascism due to faltering resolve (not because we don't deserve to win or because we can't win).

IMHO we lost Vietnam because our leaders and the media elite lost their nerve. Mistakes were made, but the biggest mistakes were perceptual. The Americans and South Vietnamese WON the Tet offensive tactically and strategically, EXCEPT on the evening news. The Vietnam war was both winnable and right to fight.

If we lose the Iraqi campaign the war against Islamo-fascism will be longer, costing more lives and more money. In addition, the longer it lasts the more likely it is that a big world-wide war breaks out. I think this was bin Laden's goal.
It also makes it more likely that the Islamo-fascist side gets nukes. This leads to many problems, not the least of which is the risk of nuclear holocaust in Isreal.

So I am very sensitive to actions which weaken our resolve. My high-dudgeon goes into high gear when faced with professional incompetence (the old media) and actions which strengthen a party or a politician, but weaken the country. This is why I wish Ted Kennedy would experience a miracle, give up politics, and take up missionary work in Iraq. And to think I voted for him against Carter in my youth.

Yours,
Wince

Hi Wince. Thanks for not assuming the worst. I can’t speak for Ara but this is what I think should (or should not) have happened so far:

1) No “mushroom cloud” or “terrorist” – type rhetoric in the run-up to the war.

2) No “yer either with us or agin us” type rhetoric in the run-up to the war.

3) No run-up to the war without the commitment of our NATO allies.

4) The State Department in absolute charge of pre-war diplomacy and post-war “winning the peace.”

5) No political opportunism in the run-up to the war or even after “mission accomplished”.

6) A fleet of humanitarian and infrastructure aid sailing the moment the first F117 flies.

7) As few administration-tied reconstruction contractors as sanely possible.

I’d also say history shows there was no need to go to war in Vietnam (winnable, maybe) and that’s probably the case with Iraq as well. For many in the anti-war camp, the need for war is a requirement.

Hey Shep:

Your list is usefully precise, and I thank you for grounding the discussion in tangible recommendations:

1) Am not certain, given Iraq's terrorist proclivities, and the strategic significance of Iraq's geographical position (though less so Saddam's government) to the war on terror, that this was actually inappropriate.

2) I think this was totally appropriate. If you are a friend of the United States, it needs to mean something tangible. If you aren't doing everything in your power to destroy Islamic terrorism, you are assisting Islamic terrorism.

3) How were we ever going to get France on board given their strong vested interest both in the existing oil-for-food program and in providing a colonialist counterweight to our influence in the world? They flatly stated they would not enforce the UN resolution by force regardless of the findings of the arms inspectors.

4) The State Department seems awfully cozy with the Saudis. You have noticed that yourself in the past, no? And the most successful reconstruction activities in Iraq have been administered by the military (101st) in the north, not the civilian administration. I think we may be witnessing the clarification of the reality that most aid organizations are too lightly-armed and/or combat-averse to function where they're most needed. The UN has observed the same phenomena in other countries.

5) This gets a little subjective. I'm not sure if either side has avoided opportunism where opportunity has presented itself.

6) Agreed, though I think the bottleneck was actually that mined deep-water port. The aid has come quickly enough to avert the humanitarian crises which were predicted.

7) Yes and no. I would argue instead for objective bidding criteria and a transparent bidding process. Let the best, fastest, cheapest company win.

Vietnam may or may not have been necessary--the 5M Cambodians who were murdered next door after and as a partial consequence of our withdrawal may differ with you on this issue, but I struggle to understand how we could use any approach other than direct and well-aimed blows to fight sponsors of terrorism, and to think of any better launching bad for this than Iraq.

There is a time for yammering, and a time for action. I think the time for action is upon us.

Jonathan, you're "not getting" my list, unless you think it really doesn't matter what people think. It should be clear, that is where the administration f*cked up. They seem to be good at practicing only hubris and war. If they were up to the rest of the game, I submit, we wouldn't be in quite the mess we're in now and could have a decent shot at changing Arab hearts and minds in spite of having conquered and occupied an Arab nation. Someone once called "yammering" "talk[ing] softly" which augments, not undermines, the big stick.

Hey Shep:

When you're listing your list, are you speaking on your own behalf as a rational debater, or on behalf of the masses, the fictitious "Conventional Wisdom" of which Ara is the fan? I was addressing it in the former case. I don't pretend to address every concern, real and imaginary, of the electorate at large.

Speaking softly as a method of geopolitical influence only works when the person spoken to:

1) is already generally aligned with you, or;
2) has a recent memory of the "big stick's" stinging impact on his own backside.

The Islamist memory of Clinton's stick is, to put it politely, not threatening. GWB has much re-education to perform before civil conversation alone will once more suffice to advance our goals.

I'm not neocon enough to try to speak, or think, or act for others, Jonathan. And I believe it was Reagan's non-existent stick, post Beruit, that was in Osama's playbook. No doubt, the balance is hard for mere mortals to do, Jonathan. That's why I tend to look for someone who's so much more than our current president, to do the job.

Y'know, shep, it's times like this that I find it really, really difficult to take people who argue the way you do seriously.

Take this for example:
"I'm not neocon enough to try to speak, or think, or act for others, Jonathan."

That is either truly ignorant on your part, or incredibly bigoted.

I've seen this attitude from you before, and it's fairly consistent. You think that "right-wingers" (variously: neocons, conservatives, right-wingers, and the entire Bush administration) are stupid, bigoted, insensitive, and (in the case of the administration) deceitful warmongers.

And that's what you like about them...

Except once, or twice -and that a bare hint- I don't think I've ever seen you even come within ballpark range of saying that sometimes, in some ways, conservative/Republican ideas have any validity.

If you want to claim that this isn't your position, I respectfully suggest that you think about how you present your ideas and arguments here.

Certainly you'll agree that the proponents of an idea don't necessarily define the quality of that idea, yes? I can think of at least one or two "pro-Bush" posters here who are, well, more enthusiastic and disputative than reasonable, if you catch my drift. You might even come up with the same names, too... :)

Frankly, 99% of what I've heard from you is "Democrats, goOOod; Republicans, baAAad!"

OK Casey, that was a bit bombastic. Let me be clear, there is not much that I like about Bush policies and their neocon pedigree. That is starkly different from how I feel about honest, respectable conservatives like John McCain and Colin Powell (I could list at least two dozen others). The reason is simple: the Neocon vision, as espoused by Irving, facilitated by William and practiced by Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Norquist, etc. is marked by extreme hubris and the scorched-earth politics and the cynical dishonesty required to make it policy. It is un-democratic and prabably quite dangerous. Most Americans are clueless as to its real origin (unlike honest, traditional conservatism) and intent.

So, it’s not a Republican vs. Democrat, thing. And, if I seem fervently biased in favor of Democratic policies against Republican, it is only because the neocons now dominate the party and the policy and there is a great deal at stake. And 1% positive is still allot more than I tend to see around here toward the Dems.

Ok. I think you overstate the case "scorched earth," etc. but at least it isn't as apparently dogmatic as the other post.

Note that there a fair number of things I have to criticize Bush about (but yes, I do like tax cuts! sue me. Heh), the Patriot Act being one of them. I'm not as sanguine about this as Dean is. I'm not happy with some of the pork he's signed into the budget, apparently to forestall Dem claims that he's an unfeeling neocon. I think he's done a poor job since the "carrier speech" euclidating his vision to the country.

I suspect that a lot of the comments are in reaction to liberal/Democratic comments made here, or (alternatively) what the reader percieved in the post. I know I get fired up with the "Bush lied" claim since (as I keep saying) there is no evidence that would stand up in a court of law that supports the claim. We do know:
-Bush thought (or said he thought) Hussein had WMDs.
-Hussein acted like he had them, else why resist inspections so much? He could have gotten rid of the sanctions a long time ago.
-We haven't found anything but hints.

That's what we know. Anything else is through process of inference. People claiming a an inference as truth really irritate me.

You could probably come up with mirror inferences, like (off the top of my head): Ann Coulter's claim that all liberals are traitors? No, that's just stupid. How about: All Democrats (or, anyone) who criticizes the Bush war effort is automatically for the terrorists and against rebuilding Iraq?

Ok, I can see some of the pro-war people looking at me funny already. :) From what I've seen, 90% of the anti-war talk has been "daddy's war," "blood for oil," "Bush == Hitler," 8%-9% has been "always criticize the administration no matter what," while 1%-2% has been intelligent discussion.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there are some rare instances of legitimate reasons why we should not have conducted this war. I've just never seen any liberal/Democratic party candiate make them. The media coverage of anti-war protests seem to show the above percentages.

I still think that you should admit that several of your positions are less self-evident than you believe. For example: of course tax cuts are always good! Ok, sorry, just yanking your chain. :) Do you want to know what serious Libertarians and radical conservatives want? They want to eliminate the income tax completely! There goes 90% of Federal funding right there. That's radical. Me, I just want the Feds to keep their damn hands to themselves, and I've never made more than $40k/year. :)

But then, I'm generally suspicious of nearly all government power: handled by a Democrat or a Republican makes no matter to me. One of my gripes with the Democratic Party the last 40 years is their enthusiasm for Big Government Programs. Hell, the Feds can't even send mail in an efficient, cost-effective manner. If the U.S. Postal Service or Amtrak were private companies, they would have gone bankrupt decades ago.

Ok, enough venting for now. :)

To segue back to Dean's original thread: there are valid criticisms to make of what the Bush administration has done in Iraq, but I rarely see those in the major media. It's usually "BushLied, BushLied," or "quagmire, quagmire."

And, as several observers have already pointed out, as more and more troops are rotated out of Iraq and back home, they're going to talk to their families, friends, neighbors, and the local paper. And those folks are going to start wondering just how the major media got to overall story line so wrong.

This is a bad thing. If citizens start viewing the major media as just another special interest, it will really hurt public discourse about the war.

You want some specific criticisms? Not enough being done to limit outside "resistance" from filtering into Iraq (e.g. from Syria and/or Iran). There's a fair amount of Shia vs. Sunni infighting going on in the southern half of Iraq. The Iraquis want dead criminals; this is no time for the gentle sensibilities of San Francisco crowd. Or, alternatively, even the pro-US Iraqis want more, more effective police on duty. (yes, we're up to 50,000+ the locals don't care about statistics, they care about not getting shot at walking down the street) The administration has done a poor job of communicating its work to both US and Iraqi citizens. We need more, and better news from the administration about accomplishments, especially in Iraq.

How's that?

“I think you overstate the case "scorched earth,"

Perhaps, but if the Democrats had handled Florida in 2000, Georgia in 2002 and Texas and California this year, the way the Republicans have, I would call it the same.

“Do you want to know what serious Libertarians and radical conservatives want? They want to eliminate the income tax completely! There goes 90% of Federal funding right there. That's radical. Me, I just want the Feds to keep their damn hands to themselves, and I've never made more than $40k/year. :)”

I think they like the concept, I doubt they’d like the effect. As for you my friend, if you’ve got a decent tax guy and a mortgage, the feds shouldn’t be touching much of anything but what we’re spending to retire our parents - FICA.

“One of my gripes with the Democratic Party the last 40 years is their enthusiasm for Big Government Programs.”

Perhaps because many of these programs have done so much good and they’re playing defense.

“Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there are some rare instances of legitimate reasons why we should not have conducted this war. I've just never seen any liberal/Democratic party candiate make them”

Actually, most of the candidates don’t say we shouldn’t have conducted the war, only that Bush has done a shitty job of it. Something about deceiving the public and pissing off the world – those goofy Dems.

“We do know:
-Bush thought (or said he thought) Hussein had WMDs.
-Hussein acted like he had them, else why resist inspections so much? He could have gotten rid of the sanctions a long time ago.
-We haven't found anything but hints.
That's what we know”

We know one more very important thing:
The very same people who are working the invasion of Iraq from inside the administration have been peddling the VERY SAME PLAN (for different reasons) from outside the administration for a very long time.

Casey, IMHO, you are neither a partisan or an idealogue.

I can say one thing: we'll never agree about big government! Heh.

Look at the Department of Education: the more we spend (Federally) the worse things get. Yoicks.

My peeve is: even if a program starts out doing good, it gets turned into a political football, and yet another pork barrel/vote getter.

And 20 years later, SOMEONE is going to scream bloody murder if that now-sacred program is considered for cuts.

Lord forbid we consider funding on the merits of a program... Feh. :)

I disagree about Florida/2000, I'm not sure your reference to California (I think it was bloody obvious that the majority wanted Davis OUT), and what about Texas? The redistricting thing?

I doubt we will change the other's mind there.

I have to say, there's a difference between doing a "shitty job running the war" and "decieving the public." The only regular deception I've seen comes from places like the BBC and the New York Times.

"Casey, IMHO, you are neither a partisan or an idealogue."

Thanks, I think... :)

It was a compliment, trust me ;-)