Now Rosemary, that wont work, you're asking them to think logicaly, to look at the facts and draw honest conclusions. Do you really think they can do that? Or even want to do that? All they know is 'hate Bush', and they can't truthfuly tell you why they even do that.

Quantum,

I'm in a Pollyana mood today. I decided to raise the level of debate. No swears!

I grew up in Jersey City, in sight of the Towers.

The kind of people, not just the defendants, who fostered that horror need urgently to be exterminated. They are vermin.

I like the post Rosemary. Sounded perfect to me and articulated very well the hypocrisy in the memes.

Thanks Mrs!

Rosemary:

I've said here and elsewhere many times that I don't think Bush and Co. could have stopped 9/11. What I do think is that he's running for re-election based on being a "war president." So I think what they did and didn't do about terrorism before the attacks is a legitimate topic. And the American public deserves to know.

I've also said many times, here and elsewhere, that I don't consider 9/11 and Iraq linked in any way. I think any linkage is false and a way to justify the war in Iraq that just doesn't hold up. This is a point of contention, certainly. But the fact is that I don't consider them to be the same subject. So I don't consider criticizing them both as contradictory or irrational.

I think any linkage is false and a way to justify the war in Iraq that just doesn't hold up. This is a point of contention, certainly. But the fact is that I don't consider them to be the same subject. So I don't consider criticizing them both as contradictory or irrational.

They are only linked because if not for 9/11, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq. Wouldn't be seeing Libya voluntarily disarm, Syria looking panicked...

They are contradictory and I thought that I explained it really well. On one hand, we have "the left" complaining that Bush didn't prevent 9/11 and trying to cast blame, on the other hand we have "the left" saying that pre-emption is bad.

You must choose grasshopper. It cannot be both.

That's the interesting thing about people who behave irrationally. They don't always know they are doing so, or they'd stop doing it.

You don't see a link between terrorism in general (dictatorships like Saddam's who supported terrorists and gave aid and shelter to terrorists) and the events of 9/11. Other people do and find those incapable of seeing that connection as irrational (and hypocritical).

Even in the last several months, with Libya opening up for inspections, agreeing to disarm and come to the bargaining table, AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, you still refuse to see the connection with Iraq, and terrorism in general. That's mild boggling.

I agree, of course, that if not for 9/11, we wouldn't be in Iraq. That's because we were itching to kick some ass after 9/11, and as Donald Rumsfeld said, there are a lot of good targets in Iraq. And yes, we are going to intimidate some people with that strategy. But I believe it's the wrong strategy in the long term.

As for aid and shelter to terrorists, there's no credible link between Saddam and al Qaeda. I wonder why the right didn't howl for Saudi Arabia to be turned into a glass parking lot, considering that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But I guess that's a question for another time.

I'll say again, I'm not even criticizing the Bush administration that much for 9/11. I do think Iraq was the wrong war, and I think it behooves the right to admit that people can disagree on that point.

I also would call the Iraq war a "preventive" war, to prevent a possible future threat that may or may not exist. There was a lot of hue and cry that the administration never said the Iraq threat was "imminent." In all that sound and fury, my question was, if it wasn't imminent, what kind of threat was it? They said they "knew" where the weapons were, based on 5-10 year old evidence. Well, they didn't know.

Finally, I don't think it's fair to equate investigating threats pre-9/11, like sleeper cells in the U.S., with invading a country. That's what you do when you call them both "pre-emption." It's just not the same thing.

There's a lot of grey area here. And the only way to talk about these issues is to acknowledge that.

Adam,

Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there. We are going after them all.

As for aid and shelter to terrorists, there's no credible link between Saddam and al Qaeda. I wonder why the right didn't howl for Saudi Arabia to be turned into a glass parking lot, considering that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But I guess that's a question for another time.

There is plenty of proof that Saddam was aiding terrorists. Jesus he was paying 25K to any Palestinian suicide bomber's family.

Re: glass parking lot.Where have you been that you didn't hear us howling. Howling for it doesn't mean we'll get it. Iraq was strategic for the WOT. Get a map and look at it. We have troops in Afghanistan and bases in Iraq. Take a good look at those positions in respect to the ME.

My gosh Adam, have you never played Risk? Our Army is beautifully placed.

In all that sound and fury, my question was, if it wasn't imminent, what kind of threat was it? They said they "knew" where the weapons were, based on 5-10 year old evidence. Well, they didn't know.

In that year long march to War , anything could have happened to WMDs. I'll concede that our "intel" was wrong. It could have gone either way. The point is after 9/11 we can't afford to wait for some lunatic to decide to follow the rules.

As for aid and shelter to terrorists, there's no credible link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I didn't say there was, nor did the POTUS.

The point is that there is a link between Saddam and terrorism. The POTUS made very clear that this was a "War on Terrorism" not a war on "Al Qaeda." Never again will be allow ourselves to be caught by surprise, or ignore the threat to world peace by all terrorists and para-military groups.

We DO have credible links between Saddam and known terrorist groups. We know, for example, that Saddam gave money to suicide bombers in Palestine. We know that he met with other terrorist groups, including Mohammed Atta.

There doesn't have to be a link to Saddam an Al Qaeda's attack of 9/11 to support the opinion that it was reasonable to suspect that Saddam would give or sell WMDs, or the components thereof, to known terrorists. Would he have given them to Al Qaeda? Doesn't matter. We know that he had plans, we know that he used WMDs, and we know that he supported terrorists. We don't have to wait until it happens, or allow it to happen. All the components were there for reasonable suspicion that it COULD happen, which is what "imminent threat" means.

We also know that waiting until Saddam had nuclear capability, and there is no denial that he was pursuing that, would escalate the dangers in pursuing him later. He could essentially blackmail the U.S., either directly or by threatening our allies (Israel), with nuclear weapons.

It was, in every sense of the word, an imminent threat, and a responsible action.

The ties to 9/11 are only relevant in that 9/11 was a wake up call--that you do not wait until the bomb goes off, you do not wait until the capability exists, before you take preemptive action.

Iraq, in that sense, was not unique in the world. There exists many other rogue staes and Para-States that will have to be dealt with. Iraq, specifically Saddam, was simply low-hanging fruit.

But Iraq also serves our purposes for other important reasons:

I could go on with other examples of why Iraq was a good first choice, but if you do not want to research that, or are open to the possibilty, it won't matter how many references or examples I cite.

Too bad the President didn't go on TV and say, "Look everyone. Here's the 'Risk' board. And here's where we want to be. Any questions?" At least that would have been honest.

"It could have gone either way"? Wow. That's not enough for me, Rosemary. If that makes me irrational, or as Mrs. dT would say, traitorous, then so be it. (And imagine Colin Powell coming to the U.N. and saying "These are drawings of stuff we think he had five years ago. It could go either way, though.")

Bush and Co. wanted war with Iraq from Day 1, and 9/11 made it possible. Well, now they've got it. Reap the whirlwind, indeed.

Rosemary, we really need to stop meeting like this.

"It could have gone either way"? Wow. That's not enough for me, Rosemary.

I understand you demand perfection. I mean after the glorious "make no mistakes ever" leadership of Herr Clinton. I expect my leaders to do the best that they can with what they've got.

I meant that it could have been that they had WMDs and used them on us. I'm glad they didn't.

Bush and Co. wanted war with Iraq from Day 1, and 9/11 made it possible.

I didn't know that you had top secret info. Oh, that's right, you don't you are just spouting your leftist talking points.

Did you spend 1998 completely "high"? Did you miss all the posturing by your Democrat leaders and their demand for regime change in Iraq? They wanted it as bad as anyone, they just lacked the stones to see it through.

"Look everyone. Here's the 'Risk' board. And here's where we want to be. Any questions?"

He did say that, Adam. Well, he didn't say that directly because he did not have to. He actually speaks to the American people like educated grown ups, instead of children.

It is not the responsibility of the President to articulate every action in terms a child can understand. This is a very grown up conflict, with grown ups in charge. After Clinton, who treated the American people like children, who behaved like kids at a frat party, it must be jarring to once again have grown ups in charge.

"It could have gone either way" is exactly the truth. Are you suggesting that after 12 years of denials--after multiple interrations of violations of UN sanctions, after firing on British and American planes who had authority under UN sanctions to patrole the region, that it was NOT reasonable to suspect that Saddam STILL had WMDs?

Take a quick look here. There you can read the actual reports of what Saddam declared he had at one time. You can follow the trail of what he later declared he had, what he said he'd destroyed (with no evidence), and what he later said he never had.

If anyone is to blame for making the world believe that Iraq still had WMDs, and was pursuing greater capbilities, it was Saddam himself.

Connie,

I'll bet Adam is having a good time with us!

Adam,

2 questions.

1. Who made "Regime Change in Iraq" official U.S. policy?

2. How do you implement "Regime Change" without actually removing the regime?

Polite requests aren't really effective...

Adam,

For someone who says "that I don't consider 9/11 and Iraq linked in any way", the question is whether they advocate addressing terrorism "root causes".

Ultimately, terrorism is not caused not by poverty as anti-poverty advocates believe, nor by a lack of space exploration as interplanetary discovery enthusiasts hold. Terrorism is caused by a combination of factors which include totalitarian governments, corrupt economic policies, government propoganda which blames others for those conditions in order to maintain power, and a willingness to kill as a political tactic.

This is why we are in Iraq, along with other factors such as their violation of a cease fire agreement which give us the legal right to take such action. This is also why many lefties have started pushing the theme that terrorism is an overblown threat, like the Brit who famously published such a position the day of the Madrid bombings. The only way to successfully detract our Iraq action is to maintain that terrorism is not such a threat as to merit it. But if you advocate addressing the root causes, we are and the lack of a direct connection is moot.

Adam:
Bill Clinton saw a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, so did Dick Clarke. 'Member when they bombed the aspirin... excuse me, VX gas component plant? Preemptively? Unilaterally? Sans UN approval?

Just look a little harder. There are plenty of documented connections, I would hope you'd find at least one of them credible. The Dems have talked a lot about them when they were in charge.

The bottom line is that contrary to convenient popular noise, terrorist groups work together. There is a network. They need each other to share both tangible and intangible resources. Terrorist groups are not producers. They're societal parasites. Limited resources create many bedfellows. This is basic human nature and quite frankly common sense.

FYI, if you want to read one in myriad of "This is the Risk Game Strategy for Iraq" speeches the President gave, here's one.

I wish Bush had treated the public like little children; maybe then the leftists would actually understand this thing we call reality and the election in November would not be so much in doubt. If the lefties only realized how bad it'll be if Kerry gets in...

Rosemary:

I don't know who made "regime change in Iraq" official policy, but I'm assuming you mean "Herr Clinton." (And BTW, Rosemary, I think that reference is beneath you.) I suppose one way to try to get "regime change" is what Bush I did - encourage internal resistance that gets crushed.

I really do wonder, though, if Herr Clinton had launched an all-out invasion of Iraq, what you guys would think of it - considering the "Wag the Dog" hammering he took on every military action. Of course, you'd be justified in being against it, because "9/11 Changed Everything." It's a catchall phrase! It's a dessert topping! It's both!

There's a lot of ass-covering going on around here. "There were ties to al Qaeda, but even if there weren't, it didn't matter." "They did have weapons, but even if they didn't, it doesn't matter." "Bush didn't intend to invade Iraq from Day 1, but if he did, it was a good idea." Yikes. Hard to keep up.

Overall, I keep wondering why we're still talking about these issues here. There's just no middle ground to find. I do it because it's a fun rhetorical and writing exercise, but what's the point otherwise?

I wasn't making any hateful reference by calling Clinton "Herr". That is German for Mr. I'm fluent in 5 languages and sometimes I mix them up. I'm just as likely to call someone Monsieur, Señor or Pan. Especially, when I was using one a moment prior to typing a response. I just finished leaving a comment on a German language blog ... (Herr is also Norwegian for Mister)

Whatever.

Yes, Clinton made Regime Change official U.S. policy toward Iraq, in 1998. I was for it then and I'm for it now. I don't care about anyone else's position. Eliminating Hussein should have happened after he arranged for the attempted assassination former President Bush. Clinton should have handled Iraq long ago.

Overall, I keep wondering why we're still talking about these issues here. There's just no middle ground to find. I do it because it's a fun rhetorical and writing exercise, but what's the point otherwise?

I do it because I enjoy it and I'm right. I'm trying to brainwash you into voting for Bush. Is it working yet?

Nope. :-)

The war in Iraq is not a war of revenge for 9-11. It has exactly nothing to do with the past.

The war in Iraq is a war of prevention and preemption to make sure that we don't have continuous 9-11s. It's a war to define the future.

That's why it has to be a strategic war. Preventing, or avenging, any particular attack is ultimately ineffective, and hence is not the point. From that it follows that arguing about the linkage in any particular case, or about particular persons or groups, is also not he point.

I think this is part of the frustration the Left and Right have with each other right now. The Right is worried about the future, and wants help in both thought and action about what to do about the threats that lie before us. The Left, it seems to me, is unwilling to talk about or even think clearly about the future.

Indeed I think the prospect itself scares them, and that is part of why they are becoming obsessive about going over the pre-war arguments again and again (and again). It's becoming almost an obsessive-compulsive behavior. Is it so different from constant hand-washing (or is that wringing)? Anything but having to face the future, and perhaps having to reap what has been sown.

Finally, as an aside, the point about Saddam and his ilk is not that the threat was "imminent". It wasn't, and wasn't claimed to be. The threat from Saddam and other rogue states was and is inevitable, and hence war was going to come sooner or later. The only question was who would strike first. The right side did.

DSmith:

Sorry, but more ass-covering. "Connections to actual terrorism don't matter. We decide what the threat is." If that's the doctrine, then hey, I think we should go after France and Germany now. Bomb the hell out of their asses. Because they're not on board, so all they can do in the future is hurt us. It's inevitable. Kill them. Well, at least after we kill the Saudis, the Syrians, etc.

I think this administration has proven quite well that they don't know a threat from a hole in the ground. If you want to trust them with your security to "define the future," then best of luck to you.

Rosemary,

Yeah. I get it.

Be nice. If you know your power, you know when to use it.

Men are fragile.

Bill

Can I play too?

What is it with you conservatives and Risk? Nice map, but geeze, to trust the fate of your empire to a roll of the dice, no thanks. I much prefer Diplomacy by Avalon Hill. Takes a lot longer and involves much more skill, but the lesson is you can never win unless you refrain from pissing off your allies, until it's too late for them to do anything about it.

Oh, mj: Terrorism is caused by the willingness an inflamed enemy to use it as a tactic, you are partially correct. However, Timothy McVie used a terrorist tactic. But he was not the product of totalitarian governments, corrupt economic policies, government propoganda. Of course he was the product of Herr Clinton's regime....naw...couldn't be. Nevermind. :-)

And now, a Haiku:

Wonder what Bush knew?
Could he have stopped the airplanes?
Legacy secure.

Adam: You can't conclude anything about the GOP's hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical proposal from Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein from the "Wag the Dog" characterizations of Clinton's actual military actions. Clinton's actual military actions were all symbolism and no substance; the accusation that he ordered them for their effects on domestic politics was credible because that was all the effect they ever had.

Now, what would it have taken for Clinton to propose an invasion of Iraq as a response to Muslim terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda? Why, Clinton would have had to reason as Bush II has reasoned: that the Muslim terrorists exist because the Middle East is ruled by thieves and murderers, so the only way to get rid of them is to give the Middle East better governments. And how would the Republicans have acted if Clinton had given that argument to the public? The Buchananites would have opposed him, as they oppose Bush -- but most of the GOP, I believe, would have accepted the argument, and begun a debate over implementing the President's policy. (And, incidentally, the circus of the impeachment hearings would have been curtailed, or aborted, since more serious matters than Clinton's sex life would have the spotlight.)

But can you imagine Clinton making that argument? Clinton, the master of the superficial symbolic gesture, the weathervane turning to every breeze?

Mark,

First off, I like Risk. It's a classic.

Second, that's all you got? After my brilliant piece, all you can say is don't piss off our allies?

Fuck our allies. When the chips are down, I won't be thanking goodness the French army came to save the day. Maybe 200 years ago, but not now. If the French and the Germans were our true allies, they'd back our play not Saddam Hussein's.

Michael:

If ever there was a witch hunt, it was Zippergate. The Republicans bought and paid for that "circus." Don't you think that there are always more important topics than the President's sex life? God I hope so, even without an Iraq invasion to worry about.

And as for hypotheticals, be sure to check out the "Preventing 9/11" thread just above. That one's a whopper.

Hey, I got it from The New Republic. Not exactly a right wing media source...

Rosemary, you rock. I thought I had something to add to this whole broo-ha ha until I read all your stuff.

Keep on, girl. Keep on.

Thank you kindly, sir.

Adam, Adam ...

It is part of the President's job to put a spotlight on topics more important than himself. That's what Teddy Roosevelt meant when he called the office a "bully pulpit". And Clinton refused to do it. He made a point, in his second term, of not taking up any important matters -- that's the only reason "Zippergate" was even possible.

Now. The Muslim terrorists exist because the Middle East is ruled by thieves and murderers. The attacks of 9/11 were not prevented because we didn't recognize this. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because Bush II did recognize this, after the attacks of 9/11. So, if you condemn Bush for not preventing the attacks of 9/11, and for invading Iraq, _you_ don't recognize this. In which case I can only ask why _you_ think Muslim terrorists exist.

The Left prefers to put the responsibility on the oppressive rule of international capitalism, but that's as rational as blaming the Tooth Fairy. Can you do any better?

I can't believe you are arguing with Adam when his long, in-depth replies all say the same thing. Face it. He doesn't want to believe the facts. He has his mind set and does not want to change it. Nothing will convince him. Move on to people who can see past their prejudices.

Urako,

Are you suggesting that the "liberal" Adam has a closed-mind? For shame? Liberals are open-minded, it's us conservatives that are closed-minded. [/sarcasm]

Why is "Marko & Adam, " so close to Mark Adams? I smell a rat trying to bait me. Her name is Rose. She thinks that's all I got when she knows better, and won't even tell me how simply awful Haiku's are (they do suck, but stupidly easy to compose.) Bah! I expect BOTH ideological and literary criticism around here.

And as for your brilliant piece, Rose....do you want ideological or literary criticism? OK, Both. Flowery prose! which has become the norm and sadly taken for granted by your critics. The substance however.....

I think Adam has accounted for himself admirably. The disagreement in the linkage of which you speak comes from differing time perspectives. Adam, I presume, and I, see no linkage between Iraq and 9/11 in the PRE-9/11 time-frame, thus naturally seeing the ensuing invasion of Iraq as a figment of other policy considerations which could not been persuasive without the (callous? specious? meretricious?) use of the tragedy. And besides, we're democrats/liberals/bush-haters/traitors etc., and really weren't comfortable riding on the right side of the road anyway.

You see 9/11 as the impetus (notice I didn't say excuse --oops there I did it again) for linking Saddam POST 9/11 as a "gathering danger." This was more than one additional reason to take him and his "kleptocracy" down, but the final straw. However, "Saddam was a gathering danger" is a statement that could have been made at any time prior to his capture. In the political climate prior to 9/11 it was unfeasible to engage in such an adventure as we are now so deeply occupied. "Imminent...Urgent...Grave," those words got my attention. They imply something has changed and we better do something with or without help, in self-defense, no matter the cost in cash or carnage.

Rose, your either/or choice creates the very box from which we must escape. Either we follow through with the "Bush Doctrine" and eliminate the remaining threats -- not only in the Sunni Triangle, but also in Teheran, Damascus, Rhyad, and Pyongyang. Politics of course being the art of the possible, precludes this direction, therefore we MUST find another way. The present policy has undoubtedly had some short term success, Libya being an exceptional example. However, I do not believe that the policy is sustainable in the long run.

If you can convince me that we have more than adequate capability for additional prolonged engagements like our current one, including occupational security, without negotiating greater assistance of the world community, and not turn the US economic machine to bankruptcy, then I might start to agree that the current POTUS is worthy of continued support. He has used up all his markers here and abroad, and few if any other meaningful partners will support any more adventures, no matter how necessary, urgent or imminent. And they will come. You agree that they are planning as we speak.

I do remember several moments of absolute clarity in the last few years, where I was, who was there, what was going through my head, and so on. This created a visceral emotional reaction in me and so many others on my side of the aisle. I will get over it only to the point of not sounding like a reactionary loon.

1. When FloriDUH turned from Blue to Red. I suspected we would somehow go to war in Iraq
2. When the second plane hit the tower. I knew why we would invade Iraq.
3. When Colin Powell rested his case. I was convinced that the cause was just.
4. When David Kay said "We were all wrong." I found out I had been duped.

I don't like being manipulated or emotionally maneuvered, any more than we deserved to have a finger pointed at us over the caption "I did not have sex with that woman" or even "I am not a crook." I am reformed you see, here and back again. I became a believer, against all my instincts. I went along for the ride and didn't object at all. Mrs. du Toit, I did "Shut up," and feel all the fool for my patriotism which was taken advantage of just at that time when my dissent would possibly have made more of an impact. But I probably would have been completely marginalized and made to mind my manners, never to have been taken seriously.

I've been swung around enough by events. I believe as (if) the Sadr insurgency becomes an actual uprising, and the horrible specter of our impotence against hostage takers begins to resemble 1980 Iran, events will again knock us all for a brand new loop.

Kick ass. Now more than ever. If you don't think things can go from bad to worse, think of the nightmare of not stomping out this latest form of terrorist extortion. Then think about the rock and hard place as our heavy handed treatment is used against us as a recruiting tool.

Just an aside. As for not knowing about 9/11 if they had been caught. We would have talked about it to the same extent that we refer to the millenium plot. It wouldn't have been such a life altering event, and wouldn't that have been nice.

I think Adam has accounted for himself amiacably. The linkage you speak of comes from differing time perspectives however. Adam, I presume, sees no linkage between Iraq and 9/11 pre-9/11, you see 9/11 as the impetus (notice I didn't say excuse --oops there I did it again) for linking Saddam in a political climate that was ill conducive for such an adventure prior to our wake-up call.

Now where did that last paragraph come from? Stupid laptop.

I almost hate to say this but I largely agree with Adam. What is a bit mystifying to me, however, is how the Democrats have managed to define Bush's forward strategy into a bad thing. That is, when Adam says "Bush and Co. wanted war with Iraq from Day 1, and 9/11 made it possible" all of you (including Adam) take this as an accusation of bad faith against Bush.

While I think it overwrought (Bush didn't want war per se, but he certainly wanted Saddam out), I think that Adam essentially has this right. He's also right that 9/11 offered the pretext for taking the action that the West had deferred for 12 years.

Of course Bush had plans for deposing Saddam. It would be irresponsible if he didn't have such plans (or, more to the point, if he hadn't kept Clinton's plans). Similarly, it is stupid to act so craven about the fact that this war is intimately bound up in Iraq's oil wealth. Is there really any doubt that Saddam, once freed of sanctions (they were already crumbling by mid-2002), would turn on the spigots again? Once the world began pouring $billions into one end of Saddam's pipeline, is there any doubt that nuclear weapons and well-funded terrorists would sooner or later start pouring out of the other? Which leads us to the final point:

It doesn't matter if Saddam was connected to Al Queda or if he possessed existing stockpiles of WMDs. The long term strategic threat of a brutal thug with billions of oil revenue, a willingness to use WMDs, and tens of thousands of fanatical followers dedicated to the destruction of the West is the same: a moral obligation to fight a small war now rather than a huge war later. This, by the way, is why we simply cannot afford to leave Iraq now: if you just substitute al-Sadr for Saddam then you have not actually removed the long-term strategic threat.

9/11 taught us that we simply cannot pretend any longer that massive terrorist attacks cannot actually happen. It did happen and it did indeed provide the "pretext" for finally forcing the issue of Iraqi regime change (among many other things). Anyone who pretends that this is a bad thing simply remains in the pre-9/11 fantasy world where paper agreements deter madmen and "give peace a chance" chants make for lasting friends.

Why is "Marko & Adam, " so close to Mark Adams? I smell a rat trying to bait me.

Ha! If I were trying to bait you, I would never be so subtle. I'd call you out with a bullhorn.

We have ideological differences and that colors our perspectives.

We shall be doing this dance for a long time. I don't mind, I love to dance.

I do think things can get worse. The thought scares the crap out of me. That is why I support Bush. This is no time to start looking weak.

I agree that Adam defended his position in a friendly manner. That's why I bothered at all. If he weren't nice, I would have just slammed him and moved on.

Mark Adams,

We are on the same page until you say:

"4. When David Kay said 'We were all wrong.' I found out I had been duped."

No, my friend, you weren't duped - at least not by Bush. First, this isn't quite what Kay said. He found definative evidence that Saddam had, at the very least, kept the ability to create WMDs intact. Second, everyone believed Saddam had these weapons. Indeed, Saddam himself might have been duped. More likely, he moved or very effectively hid them.

What I don't understand is the jump from a truly surprising turn of events in a closed society to the conclusion that "Bush Lied." In any event, as I argued above, the key thing is that Saddam's unyielding hatred of America, his designs upon WMDs, and his access to almost unlimited oil wealth made it much wiser to fight a smaller war now than a much larger war against a nuclear armed opponent (or two) later.

Even if Saddam himself would never have lived up to this horrific vision - even if you are totally correct - Bush's forward strategy of flushing the sewers in the Islamic world may have saved your life. How? We know for sure that, despite failing to find WMDs we thought were in Iraq, we unquestionably "found" them in Libya.

You are picking nits on the small stuff (and, yes, several hundred Islamic dead-enders dead in the streets of Fallujah and Najaf is small stuff). You are failing to see the big picture: how the almost insanely ambitious attempt to push freedom forward in the Islamic world is really, truly working out in our favor.

You knew there was no iddle groujnd when you posrted Rosemary.

>>>.Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there. We are going after them all.

And that's why we'll lose. Either that or we'll kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians in the attempt to "win."

Either way we lose. War on drugs? War on poverty? Two other "great winners."

I am woefully lacking a solution, however - at this time. But then I'm not getting paid to come up with one, nor do I have the full power of the American government apparatus behind me.

We could have done much better? JMHO. That would be "humble." h-u-m-b-l-e.

Good lord. Car wreck spelling errors at the beginning of last post. Look but drive by.

Andrew,

I agree with you on the Drug War and the Poverty War.

And that's why we'll lose. Either that or we'll kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians in the attempt to "win."

If we lose the WOT we will all be dead. Even if we kill thousands of civilians and I'm not saying we will; it will still not be close to the amount Saddam would have killed if we left him alone.

Rosemary,

You're doing a great job of convincing me that Kerry would make for a better president. To me he seems more mature, more stable, and more inspiring.

Top experts in military matters, terrorism, and foreign affairs were not able to come to the same conclusion regarding invading Iraq. But we readers are supposed to believe that bloggers who aren't experts in any of those fields "know" they are right?

I grant that reasonable people could conclude that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But the number of experts who believed that invading was the wrong course is hardly insubstantial.

Rosemary and Mrs. du Toit, you have me nailed. The truth is, I love you both. I also dig your husbands, in a different way.

You rule, ladies.

Joel,

Kerry is inspiring? Is that a joke? Clinton was inspiring, Kerry is banal.

But we readers are supposed to believe that bloggers who aren't experts in any of those fields "know" they are right?

Yeah, that sounds right. :-)

I grant that reasonable people could conclude that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But the number of experts who believed that invading was the wrong course is hardly insubstantial.

I am a reasonable person (my conservatism notwithstanding). The problem I have with what you are saying is that,IMHO, I believe the people that think this was a wrong course of action, believe so because of partisanship and no other reason.

Thanks Bill!

:-)

Rosemary,

Many of the experts who didn't think it wise to invade are Republicans.

Kerry IS inspiring compared to Bush.

I can't control whether people think I'm partisan. I can only control my judgment, which tells me that Iraq was a costly and unneeded detour.

I generally support Bush's policies with respect to Israel. I thought Bush did a good job with Afghanistan. If I'm so partisan, why would I conclude that Bush has done well in those areas?

Long ago I got used to people calling me a Commie when I handed out McGovern literature. Being lumped in with "partisans" is rather mild, by comparison.

Joel,
I wasn't saying that you are a partisan. Not at all. I also don't think being partisan is a bad thing either, but that is a different discussion.

I haven't heard the Republicans you speak of but I am curious, did they think so up front or in hindsight?

Rosemary,

James Baker, Brent Scowcraft, and James Webb are just three prominent Republican experts who opposed, upfront, invading Iraq.

OK, I duped myself, or more accurately, I let myself be duped. Maybe I hoped too much. I had stars and spangles in my eyes.

WildMonk: Saddam had, at the very least, kept the ability to create WMDs intact. Whose being nuanced now. I guess that depends on the meaning of the word "ability."

The question remains, if the grand sceme of the Bush administration was so self-evidently necessary if not worthy of the blood and treasure, why the subterfuge?

Yes there were some important national security considerations, and not everything Bush said was a lie, nor was he completely incompetent, (I only say this so Dean doesn't blow an aneurism) but there were enough questionable calls and distractive misrepresentations by Bush Inc. to impune his veracity on the conduct of the war and the resulting economic dog and pony show.

I have come across two "classic" definitions of the word politics in my travels: A) The allocation of scarce resources -- Political Science 101 B) The Art of the Possible -- Juan Perone in "Evita" (originally R. A. Butler). It is a philosophical choice that I naturally differ with the way this conservative president allocates resources. What is possible is a more practical matter. What POTUS has left us with after our foreign adventures is closer to John Kenneth Galbraith's definition of politics: Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.

It no longer comes down to inate abilities which I have been accused of "misunderestimating" when it comes to POTUS. It has become personal, that is to say the personal political abilities of G.W. Bush. Not so much what he is capable of, but what others will sign off on. Law and policy making in this country require some modicum of consensus. International endeavors of the scale this administration desires require more than just US.

This administration, while in my opinion has behaved dismally, has hopefully had enough on the job training, at tremendous expense, that they might finally get some things done in a competent manner, IF they are given a chance. Unfortunately a lot of the international community is done with this president, and Dean will tell you that there are a considerable number of folks on my side of the chamber [not as open-minded or liberally tolerant as the undersigned ;-)] who will never give POTUS another break.

He has used up his political capital. For those of you who think he has mastered the vision thing, you should be pleased with his accomplishments to date and feel his credibility was well spent. I personally think he squandered it. Either way, he's used up, spent, thank you sir, you are relieved, we'll take it from here.

Joel,

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I believe I just heard that Bush the elder was against it as well.

I shall ponder that.

Mark,

Either way, he's used up, spent, thank you sir, you are relieved, we'll take it from here.

And do what with it? Sue the terrorists in the World Court?

Joel, Joel, Joel. McGovern? Never admit that, voting for him maybe. Passing out literature? They'll eat you alive man, run! That's like admitting you bloged a Pravda article this morning [what WAS I thinking?] ;-)

Besides, I'm a self-confessed partisan hack, and I had no problem with Afghanistan either. I would like to meet you behind the woodshed for a discussion about that Israel Road Map thingy, though. ::Thwack!::

Again, nice job hanging in there Adam, Marko, you're a whimp for not showing up.

No, not sue them, eliminate them with extreme prejudice of course. But with new blood in the White House there is a chance of getting more assisance from home and abroad.

When my wife and I were trying to have a baby, my dad said that if there's an important job to be done, you can't have too many men on the job. [OK, Dad was a true jerk]. It would be nice to be able to get a few more countries to help us fill up the holes we've dug. And some responsible budgeting at home so we can afford more shovels. Plus it would pay dividends if we could agree amongst ourselves which hole to fill first. That will not occur under the Bush regime.

Bush has shoveled so much fecal material, and flung it with such reckless abandon, that nobody wants to go near his stinking hole. So, since he's too committed to climb back out, he'll just keep digging and digging, just like he did in Texas with Arbusto. Unfortunately, it's US taxpayers' money and US soldiers' lives, not the bin Laden family fortune, that he's squandering as capital. The voters are the only ones who can play the part of Harken Oil to bail him out of his dry well by taking back control and sending him on his way again with his golden parachute. That's not weakness, just good politics.

There isn't any meaningful assistance to be had from abroad, and I should think that would be obvious by now. To say nothing of the fact that any such "assistance" would come with so many strings that it would actually be a hindrance. No thanks.

It's quite apparent that at this time much of the West doesn't have the stomach to defend itself. I'm not willing to sign up for a suicide pact just because some other countries, or people, can't face the truth.

DSmith:
Then saddly the effort to transform the middle east is doomed to failure due to its own hubris. Bush's legacy is to bring shame and dishonor on his name through arrogance and incompetance. As much as I can't stand the guy, now that we've started this maddness, it is encumbant on us to complete the project, and we owe it to ourselvs and those we would liberate, and indeed the world, that as the leader of the increasingly free world (if we are to retain that station) to do it right.

What Kerry might be able accomplish if he peoceeds with care, that Bush is now precluded from doing, is to rejoin the community of nations with the respect we are due, and we could again enter the Israeli/Palesinian peace process as an honest broker; which is the heart of the solution to the end of the hate in the region which spawns the terrorism we are are fighting.

DSmith, your isolationist perspective is the very thing Bush Inc. points to as the Democrats' doomed policy. They are wrong and twisting reality as usual, but isolation is unacceptable.

Anyone who thinks we need to "rejoin" the "community of nations" when we never actually left it, or did anything more radical than any of the other great powers have to piss off the "community of nations" is far too much of a partisan hack to take seriously.

But then, does that even need saying? Why am I even bothering to take part in such a silly conversation with such a silly, silly person?

Let me see if I can summarize Mark Adams, Andrew, etc.:

The U.S. is too weak to beat the terrorists despite having the largest and most effective military force in the world.

Despite the deaths of nearly 3000 people on 9/11 we should be "humble." h-u-m-b-l-e.

We shouldn't even fight the WOT if it means that people in Iraq might die because then it will be a hollow victory. (Andrew's statement: 'And that's why we'll lose. Either that or we'll kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians in the attempt to "win."')

The WOT is just like the drug war and, anyway, we're going to lose.

After years of attacks by the "let's be humiliated" Democrats, Bush has no credibility and should be replaced by, you guessed it, a Democrat.

Excuse me while I go empty the contents of my stomach...

Ahh, name calling by our "tolerant" host. Bah! And WildMonk, you can speak for Andrew if you like, but not for me, cuz you got it wrong, Bub. Paraphrasing my arguments in a manner more suitable to your specious argument is a tired tactic.

Rosemary, you're evincing way too much moral clarity for the lefties here to comprehend. Intellectually and morally you are just too far above them. Fabulous post, though in the ensuing discussion it's just plain painful seeing you and Mrs. du Toit trying heroically to communicate sense to the cemented-shut minds of Adam and his ilk. Maybe you'll reach some who are still open to the truths of your arguments. I hope so.

You ladies are very valiant.

Thank you very much, Peg.

Every once in a while I toss one off that makes sense.

I'm glad you were able to see it. ;-)

I have an ilk? Sounds like I need to get that looked at. Maybe there's a cream or something for it. Not to mention my cement head, but one problem at a time.

Hi guys,

Sorry I'm late. Did I miss anything?

Mark Adams:

"Again, nice job hanging in there Adam, Marko, you're a whimp for not showing up."

You've become one of them name-calling potheads! ;-)

FYI...I would rather be called a wimp than get whipped by my girlfriend. The time I spend on the computer 5 times a week, it's only fair that I spend the weekends with her. I can see that my absence gave Rosemary time to make those cakes!

Adam did a remarkable job taking all the heat. He didn't need me at all.

Adam:

Great job, man! You're as cool as a cucumber. I share 99.99% of your views. Don't ask me about the 0.01%. ;-)

Marko,

It's all good! Adam did a great job defending "the leftist" position. He's still wrong but the effort was A+.

Just remember that I always keep my promises. ;-)

Don't you think I did a good job for "the righties"? All without calling anyone any names...

Rosemary:

As always, you did a good job defending "the righties"? That doesn't mean I agree with your arguments. :-) As for you keeping your promises, hah, I'll keep that in mind. Happy Easter!

Mark Adams,

You're really angry at the POTUS because you falsely believe he deceived you. That's blame the victim. The Iraqis deceived us. All of us. But not very much. Saddam was ready to rebuild his arsenal as soon as the heat was off.

Well, I'm really angry at Kerry and his attack dog Kennedy and you and Shep and Ara as well because of the cheap shots and the way you argue and speak in what appears to be bad faith. (But what is probably just bad habits and human nature. Law training, for example, absolutely does not teach one to argue fairly. In fact, it does the opposite.) You have not shown respect for people I admire, and it poisons the well. The ad hominem attacks and the false charges about vital matters are so polarizing that they've pushed me to the point that I fantasize that the Republicans in Congress sabotage Kerry's entire domestic policy if he's elected. But then I grumble and come back to reality. I do actually hope that the Republicans will filibuster EVERY judicial appointment Kerry attempts, unless he appoints only strict originalists.

Also, I loathe Ted Kennedy.

We have a war on, and you are playing politics, and you refuse to see that you are helping the enemy. It's disgusting.

I am also angry at Bill Frist and Ann Coulter and Mrs. du Toit and the other right wing hotheads who are calling my anti-war parents and good friends liars and traitors. F--- that. You're also poisoning the well with your over the top rhetoric and your ridiculously false charges. Neither America nor the Republican party needs that kind of talk. Honor and reason are on our side. Just keep pointing out that the only way we will lose this war is if we walk away. The short-sighted faint-hearted anti-war rhetoric must be countered. But if you piss people off first they just stop listening. We need to be better than Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd. Let's not play down to their level.

We have a war on, and you are alienating the only allies we really need to win it. We don't have to have the French or the Germans or the Russians or the UN. But we must have the Americans, including the ones you slam with such lack of discipline. It's disgusting.

Although I loathe Ted Kennedy, he isn't a traitor. Just an undisciplined thinker who only knows how to argue to win, not to get the truth. And he's right about the bad Medicare estimates. That was despicable on the part of the Administration.

Go vent in your private journals. (Like maybe I should have.)

Snarlingly Yours,
Wince

Good thread, Rosemary. The points made by administration supporters are particularly enlightening:

“Iraq was strategic for the WOT. Get a map and look at it. We have troops in Afghanistan and bases in Iraq. Take a good look at those positions in respect to the ME”

So it was all about strategic military control of the Middle East. Of course, all you smart adults knew that’s what we were talking about when we said, “Saddam has got connections with Al Qaeda and warned you about the stray, “mushroom cloud”, didn’t you?

“…it is stupid to act so craven about the fact that this war is intimately bound up in Iraq's oil wealth.”

Blood for oil? I thought only traitorous lefties made such outrageous suggestions. I guess they're just the only ones who dare not suggest it.

“9/11 taught us that we simply cannot pretend any longer that massive terrorist attacks cannot actually happen. It did happen and it did indeed provide the "pretext" for finally forcing the issue of Iraqi regime change (among many other things).”

No comment necessary.

Mark Adams:
“The present policy has undoubtedly had some short term success, Libya being an exceptional example”

Not to undermine your otherwise cogent and complete refutation of Bush apologist arguments but, as it turns out, Quadafi had been trying to “disarm” to get Lockerbie sanctions eased since the early 90s. He just finally found a president desperate enough for a PR victory to say “yes”.

"Right wing hot head"? Interesting. There's a few "right wingers" that will be furious for your including me in their group, Wince.

But, if you'd like to see what I was specifically talking about, pop over to Rodger Schultze's website to see other examples of "dissenters"--the type of dissent I was describing.

But, that's OK, I don't mind being pigeon-holed as a stereotype, while you were defending the rights of other people to speak their mind. So peace supporters can speak and should not have their opinions challenged, but if someone like me "a right wing hothead" does it, it's wrong?

Kettle, pot. Pot, Kettle.

May I introduce you to the concept of consequences. I'm more than willing to take the flack and the heat--someone has to and I have nothing to lose, but if people ARE going to speak their minds, which they have every right to do, they should not forget that they've made THEMSELVES vulnerable for pushback--from folks who don't agree with them (or think their opinions dangerous or unpatriotic).

Mrs. du Toit,

Clearly I should have vented in my private journal. I apologize for losing my temper. But my point remains. We must have the Americans to win. Calling people you disagree with traitors won't change any minds, and thus won't help win the war at home. Mark Adams says he supported the war at first. How does calling him a traitor change his mind back?

Yours,
WInce

If it needs to be said - and I sincerely hope no one here is dumb enough to think otherwise, I DO NOT want America to lose, re my comments above and the reaction to them.

But there are moral reasons you do not go into a war - and we as a country have ignored most of them in regard to Iraq.

Terror is a concept. Like poverty it is a shape-shifter.

Yes, it is great (understatement) that Saddam will no longer kill his countrymen and women.

But it is not at all better - especially from the perspective of keeping America safer from terorism - to now have the American troops doing the killing.

There is some fine, fine soldiering going on - a lot of tough, painful, intense work. And there's a lot of good going on as well. But in the eyes of a bereived family, you have to do a mountain of good to overcome just one innocent Iraqi death.

These are all considerations. These are all reasons why, if you're going to invade a country, you do so with the blessing of the world - or at least those who will help you in the fight, with troops on the ground.

I don't wish America to lose, but if we stay the course as it is now, we will be killing thousands more Iraqis in order to win and claim victory.

And that will be a moral loss. Just like the Vietnam pullout was, eventually, a moral victory, albeit if it came with a bruised American "ego."

For America, that increased loss of safety (which did start before March 19, 2003) is a loss far greater than the loss that Saddam clubbed his own people with.

Again, just my perspective, my h-u-m-b-l-e perspective (which is all I was referring to up there oh person who sees shadows and called me on it. :) )

This has been a useful thread - and refreshingly almost free of brainless attacks.

Mrs. du Toit,

BTW, the people in those pictures ARE traitors.

Were my parents pictured there? Were my anti-war friends? Was Mark Adams in one of those shots? Was Ted Kennedy?

No. No. No. No.

People who advocate the wrong course of action aren't traitors. Yes, they help the enemy, but so do soldiers who accidentally kill their fellows in freindly fire incidents. Mark Adams and others are trying to improve our conduct in the current war. They believe Kerry will do better than Bush. Wrong, but not traitorous.

Yours,
Wince

Mrs. du Toit's definition of "traitor" is so damaged, no amount of common sense will repair it. Case closed.