And how will this "Republican for life" be any different from what you're doing now?

Hey, I'll get on Dean's case the moment I see any Dean Esmay devastation of the Coulter/Rush/Republican alignment.

Love that pork. . .

Howard Dean is not a hate filled demigog. Out of the frustration of the Washington DC Democrats working together with Bush the Americans for Dean are inspired with hope of a better country.

JC,

Does Dean Esmay's frequent complaints about the drug war and his calling it an immoral waste of money and lives count?

Pejudice: 1) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

2) A preconceived preference or idea.

3) The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

Bigotry: 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

2. The practice or tenets of a bigot.

JC:

You know if you just googled Dean's site a little you wouldn't sound like an ignorant boob. I know it's easier to toss out accusations - it's a bit lazy though.

You want to see Dean Esmay's opinion of Coulter/Rush? Look it up.

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/004409.html
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000936.html
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000293.html

If Dean welcomes Ted Rall to his camp in any way -- then you can kiss this one goodbye for the good doctor from Vermont. All the GOP needs to do is start reprinting Rall's many anti-US and anti-Bush rants, and this one's in the book. I can't believe Dean is so stupid to align himself with someone as vile and hate-filled as Rall. We'll see within the next 24-48 hours just how savvy the Deanies are...

Dean:

If the Dean people do not repudiate Ted Rall in fairly short order, I'll go beyond my earlier (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) claims that I'd never vote for Howard Dean, and go even further...

Whew. For a minute there I thought you were going to move to Turkey.

Chris:

If Dean welcomes Ted Rall to his camp in any way -- then you can kiss this one goodbye for the good doctor from Vermont.

Get a grip Chris -- we're talking about a cartoonist, not Heinrich Himmler.

Ara: since when was it OK to hold extremist, hate-filled views, as long as you draw cartoons about it?

Dean: Hope you don't take this the wrong way, but the more you dislike Howard Dean, the more you paint him as some sort of commie baby-eating America-hating whackjob, the more I like him. The more he frightens you, the more sure I am he's the perfect nominee. Because you should be frightened - your guy is extremely vulnerable. You favor a pseudo-Republican like Joe Lieberman because you know that given the choice between a real Republican and a fake one, people will choose the real one every time.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

And you helped...

Adam, Ara, and JC: I suddenly realize that I have nothing to say to you guys. There is no point in even trying. No one cares, no one listens, and the quest for truth and mutual understanding is a fool's errand.

Dean:

The fact is that I do care about this country, and I do listen. But I am getting tired of people on the right saying that if I don't support this war, if I don't support the President's policies, I'm less of an American than they are. I've tried for months to debate you and other people on the right. But I guess we've come to the same conclusion - there is no common ground left in this country. So we both just have to fight as hard as we can for the vision we have for this nation. I'm ready for that fight.

I am getting tired of people on the right saying that if I don't support this war, if I don't support the President's policies, I'm less of an American than they are.

Great. I've never once said or implied any such thing. And I don't know anyone else who has, either.

I've tried for months to debate you and other people on the right.

I don't know if I'm on "the right," but I don't recall you trying to debate me on a god damned thing, Adam.

Did you hear that Dean. I'm sure you won't miss it, but just in case...

Like you or other people on the right.

That's what happens. That is the left's mistake. You've written about it before, but I've not seen it so plainly stated (on your site) as just now.

You are now lumped in with "The Right." It doesn't matter what opinions you've expressed in the past, how you may disagree or agree on any issues, you're now a member.

Welcome.

You can continue to consider yourself a moderate (and we can whisper about it at the VRWC meetings, which you're now welcome to attend, and will be on the mailing list for the secret mailings, decoder ring to follow), and offer up how we all feel like we're moderates because we see a whole lotta folks a lot further right than us, but the left has called you out. There are no degrees of "right." There is left and there is right. No middle ground. When you wake up tomorrow, all your clothing in your closet will be either red-plaid flannel or camo.

It's an all or nothing club. You either agree with EVERY thing, or you agree with nothing.

Fun, isn't it?

Shall I loan you my Pat Robertson DVD collection now? Maybe you and Rosemary want to join Kim and I down at the next hoedown? Better get a cover for your neck, though, that sunburn is a killer. And scratch any mention of books or education, you're now uneducated, too.

And it doesn't matter how much you protest.

That's what happens. Moderates who can't get a grip around every issue get accused of being "the Right" and the next thing you know, you start reading some of the folks who you thought (because they told you so) were "The Right" too, and you find out you're more in agreement than you thought. Then you may start to wonder, "well, if I was so wrong about who 'The Right' is, maybe I've been wrong about who 'The Left' really is."

It's a dangerous road. If I were you, I'd take it all back. You'll know you're on the voyage of no return when you're called a Nazi.

I'd add more, but I have a few workers I need to oppress and children to beat.

Dean: Thanks for proving my point.
MDT: You, Kim, Andrea, Dean and others (including the "uniter not a divider" President) created this "All or Nothing Club," not the evil lefties.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go pee in the street before we fire up the Gay Recruitment van.

I think people like Adam just naturally assume that you believe them to be less American because they subconsciously believe it themselves, and are too embarrassed to admit it to themselves. Don't worry Adam, in America you're free to be close minded. It doesn't make you less American. You're free to defend hate-mongers like Rall. You can even join the KKK or the Communist party if you want and it won't make you less American, but I sure as hell won't like you when you do.

No one cares, no one listens, and the quest for truth and mutual understanding is a fool's errand.

"Oh the horror, the horror!"

Get over yourself man. If you can't relish the debate, if you can't enjoy the sparring, then find another line of work.

Me? If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins.

Xrlq:

Ara: since when was it OK to hold extremist, hate-filled views, as long as you draw cartoons about it?

Are you saying it's not OK to hold extremist, hate-filled views? Whether or not they are expressed in a cartoon?

Listen to yourself, my friend, and ponder what you're saying.

Next you're going to tell me what's hate-filled and what's not? And who can say it and who cannot?

Adam/Ara/JC,

I read Dean as saying, 'Ted Rall is the David Duke/Fred Phelps of the Democratic Party.' As such he is taking Howard Dean's acceptance of Ted Rall's endorsement the same way I would take Bush's acceptance of Fred Phelps's endorsement, i.e., very poorly. I don't think much of it myself.

Based on the little I know about Rall and Phelps, they do seem to share some very ugly traits, for example they keep wishing in public that whole groups of people they disagree with were dead. AFAIK Rall hasn't started picketing soldiers funerals yet.

I know some bloggers who do the same. It is often extremely difficult to distinguish hyperbole, sarcasm and ones true feelings. I made a conscious effort a while back to stop wishing people dead. Now I wish they would undergo a life-changing religious experience, give up their current position and take up missionary work. I hear Botswana is nice.

If you catch me wishing someone dead (with the exception of Hussein and Bin Laden), please call me on it.

Yours,
Wince

Ted Rall isn't the David Duke of the Democratic Party: David Duke was a big-time politico; Ted Rall is a medium-ranked cartoonist.

Rall may write hateful, hurtful, offensive cartoons... which run at the bottom of the page in the local free bi-weekly. It's not like he's got a TV show, or a radio show or a newspaper his own - he's a political cartoonist!

He may portray the President as a despot and CEOs as criminals. But that doesn't even get close to putting him on the same level as the Grand Wizard of the KKK. I figure you gotta be the leader of the ELF or ALF or the Communist Party to rank that high. "He's the Pat Buchannan of the Democratic Party!" No, Pat's got a TV show on FOX.

Dean's people like the endorsement, and that's fine. They probably get a giggle out of the occasional Rall comic, which they read after "Doonsbury" and "Blondie". But be honest: this is like getting an endorsement from Johnny Hart of "BC". Who gives a siht?

You're going to decide who you vote for by which comics they read? Please! I'm sure you take yourself more seriously than that.

Actually, Johnny Hart is an interesting cartoonist to point out right now. Berke Brethed pointed to a recent B.C. comic (in an LA Times article about the retuen of Opus) which showed an outhouse with a crescent moon for three panels, and in the background was a sky holding a crescent moon for three panels. In the first panel a man approaches the outhouse, the word SLAM! Appears between the forst and second panel (Brethed thinks it is supposed to suggest ISLAM, like the six crescent moons) and the final panel has the voice from the outhouse saying, "Is it just me, or does something stink here?" I agree that I don't give a shit what Johnny Hart or Ted Rall think, but I do know that Rall is offensive, not thought provoking, blind with rage, not open minded, and should be relegated to the loony bin category of critics of U.S. policy because of that. He's welcome to continue spewing his bile, and I will continue to think his head will explode if he doesn't take a giant step back and shake it off. He is a whirling dervish of hate, and I don't like him either Dean.

Adam:

...the more you dislike Howard Dean, the more you paint him as some sort of commie baby-eating America-hating whackjob, the more I like him.

I can put you down as favoring Communism and the frequent consumption of babies, then?

Because you should be frightened - your guy is extremely vulnerable.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd find that Dean knows that "his" guy is vulnerable for some time now.

Ara:

Are you saying it's not OK to hold extremist, hate-filled views? Whether or not they are expressed in a cartoon?

Dunno about Xrlq, but I certainly don't think it's OK, cartoon or no.

Listen to yourself, my friend, and ponder what you're saying.

No, no; you first, since you seem to be more aware than we.

Next you're going to tell me what's hate-filled and what's not?

Well, if you need help in that department, we stand ready to assist.

And who can say it and who cannot?

Who is telling you what to say? Ted Rall? Dean? Me?

Be clear; we lesser wits are tired of climbing the mountain.

OpenDNA:

Rall may write hateful, hurtful, offensive cartoons... which run at the bottom of the page in the local free bi-weekly. It's not like he's got a TV show, or a radio show or a newspaper his own - he's a political cartoonist!

Or a nationally syndicated column that appears in places like Village Voice.

Or a war correspondent radio gig, which looks to repeat.

Try a little harder Jeff; I know you can do it.

Alex:

I am really skeptical that Johnny Hart produced the cartoon you describe. You sure you got that story right?

Ara:

Here's the cartoon

Ara: "Are you saying it's not OK to hold extremist, hate-filled views? Whether or not they are expressed in a cartoon?"

Damn right I'm saying that. Do you think it is OK? Not legal, mind you - that's a given - but OK?

I have no doubt that if Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps were to endorse Bush's re-election, and the Bush re-election proudly trumpeted that endorsement, everyone would howl. And they'd be right to do so. The difference between The Left and The Right, apparently, as that those of us on the right wouldn't be happy about it, either.

MDT: You, Kim, Andrea, Dean and others (including the "uniter not a divider" President) created this "All or Nothing Club," not the evil lefties.

Oh REEEEEEEEEALLY now? The only way I heard the president say it was in regard to terrorists. But if you want to go a little farther back than that, I can show you the results of what happens when you don't kowtow to liberal demands, no matter what your political leanings. I had personal experience with that up here in Seattle.

Bottom line: When people on the Right gather to protest and/or rally, the cops don't have to put on riot gear. You tell ME who's more open to debate.

And Dean's point still stands. If some asshat like Fred Phelps said "Yay, I love Bush, Bush for President in '04!", then I would expect Bush to drop Phelps like a bad habit. I don't want to see a politician embrace someone who's known to be just about as vile as a human can be. Howard Dean's acceptance of Rall's endorsment tells me all I need to know about him.

Rosemary - Thank you...I've been trying to find that cartoon because it's so weirdly political for someone like Hart (especially if the Islam bashing interpretation WAS his intent, which he denies...I mean I could see this as just boring, mildly unfunny potty humor as well, considering the source) but I think the point is that the Common Sense Left should be as embarassed by Rall as the Common Sense Right are embarrassed by Coulter, if not more so. She just calls the left traitors, he calls for the death of those on the right, and our troops in Iraq. Bleeaughh.

Or as Charlie Brown would say, "Auggghhh!"

Adam,

Why don't you take some of that willingness to fight and use it to fight the fucking enemy...not a center/right President who, no matter what, wont be around to bother your for more than 5 years at this point.

You've got people out there in the world who want to cut your throat, kill your entire family (raping the female members before killing them, of course) and destroy every last vestige of the liberal democracy which has permitted you to have everything you've got. They are the people to fight; not Republicans, not President Bush, not Haliburton....

My only reaction to the Ted Rall/Howard Dean love-in is "OK, so what'd you expect?"

These two clowns are nothing more than symptoms of the necrotising fasciitis that's been eating away at my former party for years. When a major chunk of its rotting flesh- the Naderites- sloughed off a few years back, some supposed the disease was cured; but it wasn't. The disease is systemic, and terminal.

And anymore, I couldn't care less.

Rosemary:

Thanks for the link. Dunno if the "Islam" connection is purposeful. But I've been reading Johnny Hart's BC for a LONG time and that particular cartoon is uncharacteristically flat and, well, not funny.

Xrlq:

Damn right I'm saying [that it's not "OK to hold extremist, hate-filled views"]. Do you think it is OK? Not legal, mind you - that's a given - but OK?[emphasis added.]

I think we probably agree on more things than you think and here's why:

First off, let me say that you made my point for me, i.e., we musn't conflate horrendously bad taste with actual "crime."

Paraphrasing Dean Esmay, "Thoughtless cartoonists do not kill soldiers."

Me? I've long since stopped reading Rall because he's so predictably vile, purposefully destructive, anti-American, and just plain depressing. Oh...and not funny. For a political cartoonist, that's as bad as it gets.

Life is too short to fill your head with trash like that.

But the sad truth is that Rall's career will gravitate to wherever his publisher and his audience are. And that's how it should be.

Unless he's brought up on charges of...treason? slander? then his self-evident bad taste isn't enough for me to get worked up about.

Politically, Howard Dean doesn't stand to gain much by having a public giggle at one of Rall's cartoons. Sadly enough, all the people who like Rall probably already like Dean.

And sooner or later he'll have to be prepped to disavow Rall emphatically if he wants to be elected to be the next POTUS.

So, Xrlq, maybe we agree after all.

Ara:

I don't know if the Islam reference was on purpose or if people are just reading way too much into the cartoon.

I agree the cartoon itself was unfunny. I find myself not reacting to it. Maybe I'm wrong to "not see it" but unless Hart comes out and say's that's what he meant - I'd rather give him the benefit of my doubt.

Mark:

In something as amorphous as the declared "War on Terror," it's pretty damn hard to figure out who the "fucking enemy" is, huh? Maybe that's why our fears (well illuminated in your description of shadowy figures slitting my throat before destroying my cherished liberal democracy) have been used to such great effect by this administration. Maybe that's why we're spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lives fighting a tinhorn dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe that's why criticism of the government is branded "un-American" and "traitorous." Maybe that's why we're so willing to hand over our freedoms without question. Because how else do you fight an endless, undefined, shifting "other"?

Yeah, I've got a problem with that. And forgive me if I don't exactly trust the President to tell me who the next "fucking enemy" is.

Ara:

You said to Dean, Get over yourself man. If you can't relish the debate, if you can't enjoy the sparring, then find another line of work.

I just want to let you and everyone else know - I LOVE the sparring!

To paraphrase you, my friend, If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins!

"In something as amorphous as the declared "War on Terror," it's pretty damn hard to figure out who the "fucking enemy" is"

No, it's not hard at all. Not if you aren't a pomo, that is.

It's the guys who blow up nightclubs and discos. The guys who shout "Death to America." The guys who call down death and destruction on us every Friday. The guys who tell Westerners "If you wish to stop being blown up, please convert to Islam immediately."

Rose:

Back at ya!

Adam, I'm not going to stand behind all of what Mark said, because I try not to persuade someone by insulting them, but is it that hard to find "the enemy?"

It's the people who flew two planes into two building, murdering 3,000 defenseless people. They have taken an ancient and noble religion and perverted it to their own twisted, vicious ends.

These people (not Muslims as a whole) are sick with a stomach-twisting rage of jealousy of the United States, because we are rich, powerful, and on top of the world; everything they think they out to be. They recall the past glories of Islam and blame the present on the West, ignoring their own cultural deficiencies the brought them to their current state.

If you think this is all a figment of the current administration, then you have a very peculiar view of the world.

Please note that I haven't made any remarks about "why aren't you fighting," or "wait until they blow up your kids," or other similarly pugnacious remarks. I'm just pointing out the verifiable external facts of the situation.

Now, there are arguments for not having invaded Iraq, but I've never heard liberals or peacenicks (that I'e heard, anyway) use them. All I've ever heard in the media and the blogs was "Bush=Hitler," "All about Oil," "Daddy's War," "Bloodbath in the Mid-East," ad nauseaum.

I have heard a few old-style conservatives make an intelligent case against the war, but they use different arguments, such as the fact that Republics don't invade other countries "just in case."

By the way, you are hurting your own case by dismissing Hussein as just a "tin horn." While he may not have been as dangerous as Bush (and Mr. Esmay, here) say, he had billions of dollars of money to hand, as well as a ruthless drive for power. You do recall why the sanctions were there in the first place, yes? Because Hussein did in fact have bio/chem weapons, and was hot on the trail of nukes. Oh, and he attacked his next door neighbor without provocation. And he regularly contributed to Hamas, and other Arab terrorist organizations, including resources and training in Iraq. Not to mention the bounties paid to Palistinean suicide bombers' families.

So, yes, Hussein was definitely more than Yet Another Dictator. Was he the threat that Bush claimed? Dunno. Some say he was already deterred by the '91 war and sanctions. But look at how he raised his sons; how far can you trust a man who raises his own flesh and blood to be (literally) sadistic murderers?

So. What do do about all this? I think it's obvious that the American people saw this as a threat. The only question, then, is how to react to that threat.

For all the liberal/Democratic side carrying on since this past spring, they don't seem to recall that they had plenty of time to counter Bush's agenda with a better idea of their own. Do you remember that we had most of the Army over there for 6 months before doing anything?* Not to mention how long it took to pass the resolution authorizing the President to use force.

All the people now criticizing Bush had more than enough time to present an alternative to the American people before that vote, but they didn't do so. All of them (save Dean) voted for the resolution to avoid political damage, while the best the anti-war crowd could do was equate Bush with Hitler (and other infantile insults), while predicting bloodbath and disaster.

So now we have the US Army building schools in Iraq, while Sunni citizens and foreigners are murdering their neighbors.

So who's the enemy? :)

*It's amazing what you can hide when you have six months to do it in. I'm just saying... :)

Fred: Yeah, that describes Saddam Hussein perfectly! You've got him like a fly in amber!

Sorry about sounding like a broken record around here, but thanks for proving my point.

Casey:

First, thanks for injecting some reasoned talk into this discussion. It's a relief.

If the "enemy" is Osama bin Laden and his associates, as I think you're defining it, I agree. But I think lumping Saddam and Iraq into that definition is stretching it, to say the least. I believe the Iraq war is a distraction, and in some ways a derailment, from fighting terror. And to say that the administration didn't try to connect Saddam and 9/11 in its run-up to war is either naivete or denial. The American people saw Saddam as a threat because the administration told them he was one, and huge chunks of that case have fallen away. The case for war in Iraq has been a changing kaleidoscope all along, yet Bush supporters would never, never admit anything bad about this conflict.

I would say to the President: If you want to get Saddam, then go get him. But don't try to use 9/11 as a cudgel to justify any and every action you take around the world. Iraq may be the epicenter of the War on Terror, but you made it that way, not Saddam Hussein.

As for the Dems who supported the conflict, I agree that they did it as an ass-covering political move, and I've criticized them many times on that. I would actually rather have a politician be solidly behind the war all along, than some of these presidential candidates who bowed to Bush when they thought they couldn't get out of it, but now want to attack him over a conflict they authorized.

Other misconceptions busted: I don't compare Bush to Hitler. "It's all about the oil!" (or as Dean would print it, "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL!") isn't one of my mantras either. But I do believe the administration was fundamentally dishonest about Iraq, and the country and the world are paying a price for that now. In the end, though, it's less Bush's fault and more our own. We get the government we deserve.

Adam,

A bit intemperate in my remarks, wasn't I? Sometimes, I get a bit upset.

Anyways - you know precisely who the enemy is, you just don't want us fighting him.

Answer us: why?

My comments were heated but they were an attempt to bring it home to you personally - because they really will kill you as soon as they get the chance; yes, you personally. Me, too. They really hate that ecumenically. They will kill you, unless we kill them first, no matter how nice you are to them, no matter how hard you try to understand the "root causes" of their rage, no matter how much you consult with the UN and France, no matter how much pressure you put on Isreal to concede to the Palestinian Authority.

Opposition to the war doesn't necessarily make one unpatriotic or unAmerican (though the bulk of the anti-war movement is precisely this) but it does, for sure, make one a purblind idiot...with the only possible exception to this being adherence to life-long pacificism.

Adam -
I am sure I'm not preaching to the anti-choir, but I have to say that anyone at this point who continues to run up the "Bush lied" canard will never be swayed to believe the truth. What "Bush" (and/or his administration) said was that there are many reasons to believe that Hussein was a threat in the post 9/11 world that existed pre 9/11, but were now actionable with the cold water of 9/11 thrown in our face. Those reasons are complex...they involve his designs on the entire Middle East, his aggression towards neighbors, his bio and chem weapons (which the whole WORLD agreed existed). The "Bush Lied" crowd wants to interpret those complex reasons as "WMD's!" No WMD's? LIAR! Who's naive? Who's in denial? Bush lied because you refuse to hear what the argument was. If Bush told you that the sun was going to rise tomorrow morning and set tommorrow night, you'd wake up, see the sun and yell, "It hasn't set. Bush Lied!" because you hate him. The only lies he told were the ones about promising small government, though I don't know that he actually promised that, I just assumed it when I voted Republican. Just like you assume the entire reason for going to war was WMD's. It wasn't.

Adam,

9/11 is not the only terrorist act in the world, nor was it the only terrorist act against America.

Do you play chess? The battle against Hussein is such a fabulous move in the war against Arab Fascism because it works on so many levels. It's like moving your knight into a position where it is triply protected and it attacks five enemy pieces including the King and the Queen.

The case for battle against Hussein is thus:

1. We were already at war against him.
2. The ongoing war against him was tying up American resources anyway.
3. Iraq was a problem that hadn't been solved.
4. The solutions we were trying were showing few signs of working and there was increasing pressure to abandon them.
5. Keeping a large number of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to keep pressure on Hussein was expensive, unlikely to correct his WMD problem, very unlikely to result in his overthrow and even more unlikely to result in his replacement with a significantly better government.
6. Many of our troops were based in Saudi Arabia. This both upset Muslims who didn't want kufr in the Holy Land and demoralized our troops since the Saudi's treat kufr like excrement.
7. Iraq had WMD's and had used them in the past. They may have destroyed them before the war, but nobody on the left or right, in Europe or America believed this at the time.
8. Iraq supported terrorists with logistics, training and cash, including Al Quaeda.
9. Saudi Arabia is the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism, especially ideologically.
10. Saudi Arabia had been our ally for many years and had fought alongside us in the first Gulf War.
11. As a democracy it is difficult and takes time to consider an ally to be an enemy.
12. Attacking Saudi Arabia could easily escalate in a major world-wide war with Islamic nations, and could go nuclear.
13. Saudi Arabia does have all that oil.
14. OTOH almost everyone hated Hussein.
15. Having all the Iraqi oil online will make the Saudi oil less crucial and it will lower oil prices which cuts their ability to fund terrorists and it will boost our economy which makes paying for the war easier.
16. It puts pressure on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt.
17. It pays off fabulously well in a humanitarian way.
18. It allows us to address a root cause of Islamic hatred by ceasing to support repressive dictators and bringing the very best thing we've got, democracy, to the Arab world. This is a worthy, positive goal to shedding our blood and spending our money. Not just fighting Communism or fighting Fascism, but promoting democracy.
19. I really hate 'He may be a dictator, but he's our dictator'. If you bring up Uzbekistan, please realize that I don't like their government and wish we could dump them but we can't do everything at once.
20. We've actually been pretty good at midwifing democracies when we stick with it. Sometimes it takes a long time. Here's a list: The Philippines, Western Europe (which was very iffy after WWII), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.
21. We're also very good at creating repressive dictatorships when we bug out before victory: North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, Angola, Somalia and Afghanistan.

The battle against Hussein has risks. The second biggest is that we bug out before mutual victory. The biggest is that when we bug out prematurely we end up with something much worse. Mutual victory is a good government in Iraq with a healthy relationship with the US.

The biggest problem with Iraq is that it is a war. To many this is like saying the biggest problem with my plan for personal wealth is that it involves a murder. They are completely repulsed by war. My reply is that we were already at war with Iraq. It was just a low level war with a large amount of red on red civilian casualties (Hussein's strategy seemed to be to kill more of his own people to claim we were creating a human right tragedy).

I had read about and considered all this before the war, which is why my opinion changed from unsure to blood-thirsty war-monger. I don't think Bush deceived us, because I don't feel deceived. To me it seems like a no-brainer, but then I'm not actually a very good chess player, nor do I seem to have written any respected military histories.

I've never had to promote or sell a war to a republic. In addition, Bush could not emphasize all these points because they could have driven other countries into the Iraqi camp. Perhaps his sales job could have been better. It seems to me that Tony Blair is good at that sort of thing, and look at what a hard time he is having.

Is your stand against the Iraqi campaign a no-brainer for you? Are you repulsed by war? Do you have trust issues with Bush? Do you dispute most of my claims? Since there are so many positives, I think you have to discredit a lot of them as well as come up with some big negatives to convince me the Iraqi campaign is a mistake.

Yours,
Wince

Mark: From one purblind idiot to another, you didn't really do much to counter your "intemperate" reputation with that last comment. I would just say, I do want the U.S. to fight people who attack us. I just want to be a little more clear who those people are.

Alex: I don't think we'll ever agree on which "truth" we should "believe." And endless ring-around-the-rosie about why we're at war has proven fruitless, both on the web and off. I would respect pro-war people a lot more if they would be willing to say something like, "Our estimation of Saddam's threat was pretty far from reality. Why and how did that happen? How can we improve the crucial task of gauging threats?" instead of, "Who's next?"

Wince: Too bad those complex ideas weren't part of the Bush Administration's case for war. Then maybe we could have had a reasoned debate about whether this war was really necessary. Sadly, that didn't happen. Many politicians voted for it for purely political reasons - because they didn't want to be seen as soft on terror. The fear of Saddam whipped up by the administration (Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" comment comes to mind) was used to push this through. Now Democrats are running away from it as they try to run against Bush.

Getting back at last to Howard Dean, one of the things I like most about him is his steadfast opposition to this war, something few of the other "serious" candidates can claim. About as far from a "shrieking, rage-filled opportunist" as you can get.

Adam,

Maybe the Administartion did take these complex ideas to Congress. Maybe that is why COngress geave the green light. I'm certain they were discussed by the national security team. We do live in a representative democracy, though, so the citizens don't have to know everything, nor should we.

Our citizens are hampered by 'sound bite' media whenever we wish to have a complex debate. But wonderfully concise media is very good when we are suffering from information overload (i.e. we don't wish to have a complex debate). Based on what media is selling us, I'd say more people are suffering from information overload.

I am an information junkie. I am suffering from information overload, but I like it.

Yours,
Wince

Adam, Your are being willfully ignorant if you do not recognize that 1-8, 16-18, 21 and 22 of Wince's points above are expressly addressed in the Joint Resolution that authorized force in Iraq. It was not just about WMD or OIL.

I'm not suffering from proofreading overload, though. Sorry.

Steve,

Cool. I didn't know that. Gotta read more source documents.

Yours,
Wince

Adam-
You're right, we won't ever agree on the truth. I can't explain how it is that I figured out all of the points in Wince's nice display of the nuanced argument for finishing off Hussein and you did not. You don't seem to be thick headed, so I can only assume it's based on plain Bush hatred.
"Our estimation of Saddam's threat was pretty far from reality."
How do you know? Now that he's gone, we'll never know what he would've done with his power, wealth, and anti-west, anti-semitic tendencies, nor with his Elite Republican guard, nor his maniacal sons. I do wish we had better intelligence from CIA, NSA, and etc., but considering the whole world agreed that he and his weapons were a threat, it's hard to understand how Bush "misled" the American public. Bush didn't mislead us, the whole world did.
Plus, I still don't hear you disputing Wince's claims.

Adam,

As you contemplate your feeling of being misled I suggest that you try and dig up some information on FDR's speeches and his administrations actions from '38 through '41. Preparing the American public for a long war is very serious business. The tactics used to move the public to a position of support can always be criticized. One can make a small case that terrorism could be dealt with in a different manner. If you feel that way, run for Congress.

If you want a look at a historical parallel to the Democrat behaviour today, thake a look at this. That is how a party is remembered when political aims trump security aims.

I don't like Copperhead either.

How long is "in fairly short order" for Howard Dean to officially distance himself from Rall?

Deanwatch... the clock is ticking.

Adam,

'Course not; I'm still cheesed off.

Be that as it may, you know who the enemy are and you are abundantly clear on whom we need to fight - you just don't want us fighting them. You've essentially said, "Ok, we'll fight the Gestapo, but not the Waffen SS", because I'm unsure that they want to kill me today."

"Get a grip Chris -- we're talking about a cartoonist, not Heinrich Himmler."

I'm tempted to reply that Julius Streicher was also a cartoonist. But Ted Rall is no Julius Streicher. If he was, he'd have the brains to direct his hatred against a tiny, unpopular minority within the nation, not make himself unpopular by attacking the nation itself. That's why I don't think "the Left" is ever going to take over this country. "The Left" (by which I mean that cluster of secularist, egalitarian and progressivist tendencies since the French Revolution) is inherently too weak. But "it" does tend to weaken whatever it gloms on to. Which is why the sooner Howard Dean throws off that albatross (Rall) the better.

"You are now lumped in with "The Right." It doesn't matter what opinions you've expressed in the past, how you may disagree or agree on any issues, you're now a member."

That's true. I've been lumped in with "The Right" many times because I'm pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-West, and a number of other things. I've also been lumped in with "The Left" because I support homosexual rights. And I'm not middle of the road either!

How long is "in fairly short order" for Howard Dean to officially distance himself from Rall?

Deanwatch... the clock is ticking.

One week and still no word from Howard Dean repudiating Rall.

What says Esmay?

Well, if he hasn't repudiated Rall yet, my guess is he and his people figure that by editing their message and closing off comments and making no further statement, the issue will simply go away.

Which only confirms for me everything bad I've thought about Howard Dean.

I'll bet you a blogroll link it doesn't happen this year.

Bet?