Who is this depraved individual, pretending to be an "enlighteed" journalist? And the Guardian, allows this kind of drivel to be published? Well, sadly, I am not surprised.
BTW, shouldnt the Secret Service be paying this so-called journalist a visit?

This pretty much sums up why I'm so enthused to vote for Bush: just to piss these people off.

God, I love the smell of liberal meltdown in the morning.

That is really unbelieveable. I'm speechless. Advocating assination of a duly elected democratic leader? And we are supposed to take morality lessons from the likes of The Guardian?

Incredible. But not surprising. That is all the Left is about nowadays, nothing but pure madness and terror.

I for one am not surprised about such stupidity. Also, it should be noted that while a body of water may separate our shores, those sick ideas permeate the heads of the Left in this nation.

I do not exaggerate. These people are sick.

I just linked to the article from another website and am absolutely shocked and awed. (not in a good way) This is unbelievable.

YOU SHUOLD BE ARRESTED AND NEVER ALLOWED BACK IN THE USA FOR PUTTING THIS BS ON THE WEB I WILL REPORT U TO THE PD............ASSHOLE

It bemuses me, with as many time these folks have lately shot themselves bloody in the foot, how they can walk.
Maybe instead of aiming at their lower extremities they should change their aim and shoot themselves in the mouth.

Damn. What the hell is wrong with people like that? That's utterly deranged. That the Guardian is reduced to printing such rants is disgraceful.

I'm going to leave Hotrod's comment up, it's so funny.

Cool your engines there, "Hotrod."

Don't you just love how this deranged Guardian columnist talks about saving the "civilised world" and then, in the same breath, goes on to advocate cold blodded murder?

Hotrod must have low blood sugar.

..... Good....GOD!

I didn't think that kind of suggestion was LEGAL in the UK. Oh here, you might get away with it, but there?

To the person who said "didn't we fight a war to get rid of people like that?" I answer: "AMERICA! F___ YEAH!"

Oh, and click the link to check out some pictures I took at early voting today.

Wow. First of all what an a$$hole. Second of all, why does anyone care? I did a little looking, and this jerk is just some comedy writer who does a TV column for the Guardian. He is no journalist, just a jag-off who has a column in a leftie British paper. I do find it interesting that some people are responding with much the same vitriol that was in the column. This british jerk is not the American left, as some apparently assume. And I know I can't speak for the left or anything, but for me, seeing US security and the success of the WOT as part and parcel to our relationship with the rest of the world's nations does not mean I care one iota what foreigners think about our president or who we should vote for. Contrary to what some of you may think, most people on the left (regular people, not bloggers) don't know or care what the Brits think of Bush. They would tend to find it offensive to assume that would have any bearing upon their decisions on election day. That being said, anybody who would write something like that doesn't deserve a column, he should be writing the kid's menus at Denny's.

Mantis,

its important because its fun.

On that note, this a$$hole is, according ivenus.com, "the sole creator and proprietor of several of the most consistently hilarious sites on the internet"

These sites include:
http://www.superkaylo.com/

Unfortuantely for Mr. Brooker, this site is now registered to a firm in Hong Kong and it no longer seems to publish his "most consistently hilarious" humour.

Perhaps thats why he is so bitter these days.

Oh, I'm all for fun. Please, carry on.
That is a big reason I visit this site; Bill's consistently funny posts mixed with serious ones. Recent favorites, the "worst liar ever" and "cracktics".

Off topic, but you guys need to see this:

Hawaii is _deadlocked_ between Bush and Kerry, i.e., it's in play. I'm gobsmacked.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/23/ln/ln05p.html

Anyone with an urge to fire off an angry email should read this.

Oh wow... I just saw your update to Tim Blair's massive list!

What would be nice would be to send a printed version of the column to all the Voters in Clark County who also received a letter from a Brit.

To avoid any misunderstandings: What Mr. Brooker has written is neither funny nor defensible, indeed, I think its utterly reprehensible and I feel nothing but contempt for this abhorrent man.
But I do very much enjoy investigating his past (with the aid of this great tool that Al Gore has given to the world).

How much would a full page ad cost in the Clark County newspaper cost?

Would it be legal to reprint the Guardian column?

"You have heard from the readers of The Guardian. Sadly for them their letter writing campaign backfired.

Now they have come up with a plan B"

A couple of weeks ago, a minor hoo-haw was brought up regarding a photo showing an object under W's suit during the debates. The lefties went off a cliff looking for all sorts of 'Karl-Rove-Secret-Message-Receivers' tinfoil hat theories.

The simple answer is that this object was part of some body armor.

With an article like this, is it any wonder Bush might be right to wear armor?

Suggested text for correspondence to the Guardian:

letters@guardian.co.uk
weekly@guardian.co.uk
reader@guardian.co.uk
simon.waldman@guardian.co.uk
anna.sinfield@guardian.co.uk
isabel.milner@guardian.co.uk
diane.heath@guardian.co.uk

Dear Madam/Sir,

I suppose I do not need to elaborate on what this is about.

It is a well known fact that the Guardian is of a leftist persuasion and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but to have allowed Mr. Brooker's piece to go to print is indefensible, it is beyond the pale and all those responsible for having allowed this piece to get published are not fit to be a part of any reputable or self-respecting media organisation.

Thank you for your attention, I look forward to seeing a full apology in Monday's edition of the Guardian.

Sincerely,

Bill,

Thank you for bringing this to my (OUR) attention...this is disgusting on its face -- evil if you look at all beneath the skin. And, special thanks to the link to the Watcher's site with the e-mail addresses of some of that rag's personnel and comment lines. I've already sent several complaints, and will try to forward this information to friends...it should be an ANTI-Kerry motivator!

Thanks again,

Steve C.
Cincinnati, OH

Steve C.

Any idea what the most read newspaper in Clark County is? I can't find one.

I can't access the Guardian website. Has it been assassinated?

I seem to recall reading that there are rather strict hate-speech laws in the UK. Do you think they'll have this idiot up on charges?

Actually profanity-laced tirades are what they seemed to publish as American responses to their letter writing campaign.

Reichsmarschall Goering and bomber pilots of the Luftwaffe, where are you now what we need you?

Looks like Drudge has linked to the story ... and the Guardian site is down!

Either "drudged" or the column is going to disappear down the rabbit hole.

Matt,

A horrible thing to say.

It is crap like this that makes me happy to thumb my nose at the rest of the world, and vote for Bush in about 10 days.

Right,

Yes, I know. I hesitated before clicking "Post." But the bastards deserve a taste of their own medicine.

Can you imagine the outrage they'd be claiming at the Guardian and the press coverage any other press outlet in the world would be getting if it ran an op-ed about Bruce Sprigsteen and asked where Mark David Chapman was when we needed him? The bias at the Guardian is sickening. So is the staff.

Regarding liberals and the discussion at hand: Most L's are not L's at all, but are simply ignorant;lacking well developed critical thinking skills, but generally of good intentions and easily duped. However, the likes of which we are learning about who hinder the election process, burglarize opposition campaign HQ's and advocate political assassination are indicative of the fact the genuine liberalism is not simply a 'different way of looking at things', but rather, it is a character flaw. Do not forget this in the desire to conduct a polite conversation with them. How do you have a civiliZed exchange anymore? I don't ever want to give up on anybody, but this latest brand of liberal violence and hatred has to be seen as the threat that it is. This is not just another blog thread anymore, but a grave moment.

Here's Charlie's e-mail charlie.brooker@zeppotron.com

and here's the polite e-mail I sent him:

Charlie,

Look here, you Goddamned wanker, you have every right to your opinion, but suggesting that a man be killed because you fail to understand his vision is contemptable.

As a Scots-Irish-American, I support President Bush and disdain the elitist, racist views of urban metrosexuals like yourself.

I would enjoy the opportunity to have a go with you...there's no point in refuting or debating people with your views. The only answer to stupidity as grave as yours is in the violence of a swift and just ass kicking.

Let me know if you're game and we'll settle this at your convenience.

William Earle
Decautr, GA

P.S. My roommate says he'll go half with me on a plane ticket. What say you?

My letter:

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie.

I know reactionary leftists are fond of conspiracy theories, but I really, rally think that you just made the US Secret Service list.

And they have long memories.

Oh, btw, fuck you, your horse and all the Hussars following you.

N. O'Brain (is that a typo? I would have expected O'Brian) -

Exactly. If I were a Secret Service agent, I'd be taking a good look at the sheer hatred for Bush that's out there among the radical fringe, and I'd be planning his every public appearance in great detail. And I'd make d*mn sure he was wearing body armor at all times -- the good stuff, too.

What is it about presidents elected in years divisible by 20?

1840 - Harrison. Died in office.
1860 - Lincoln. Assassinated.
1880 - Garfield. Assassinated.
1900 - McKinley. Assassinated.
1920 - Harding. Died in office.
1940 - Roosevelt. Died in office.
1960 - Kennedy. Assissinated.
1980 - Reagan. Survived assassination attempt.
2000 - Bush. Nobody's made an assassination attempt yet (at least, not one that ever became public knowledge). But given the sheer amount of Bush hatred that's out there, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened.

The Secret Service agents have their work cut out for them in the next fours years if Bush is re-elected, I'm afraid. And it's all too likely that some of them are going to get hurt or killed in the process of stopping any assassination attempt. Keep them in your thoughts and prayers, folks.

Here's my response to Simon Waldman:

Mr. Waldman;

I want to thank you, your writers and the Guardian for helping me make up my mind on who to vote for on November 2. I will be voting a straight Republican ticket since I have yet to see any Republicans or anyone who supports President Bush advocate the assassination of the duly elected leader of any sovereign country as a legitimate method of influencing an election.

One must ask - will the Guardian call for the assassination of Prime Ministers Blair or Howard the next time elections are called in England or Australia?

The Guardian is a trust funderd NGO, immune to subscriber pressure and outside of the reach of US law. What this column advocate has not happend an my never so our anger is subdued. But in the near future they may advocate something that happens, say a beheading of contractors that they and Kos hate.
What tools does the US have to respond with? Can we declare war on an NGO, even one that uses newsprint to order our deaths?

To RightOfCenter...

The local Springfield paper is the Springfield News-Sun at http::/www.springfieldnewssun.com/

The most read paper, however, may be the Columbus Dispatch at http://www.dispatch.com/

Good hunting,

Steve C.

Here's a copy of what I just sent to Guide@guardian.co.uk:

To the editor of The Guide:

Today's column by Charlie Brooker, entitled "Dumb Show", went far beyond the bounds of good taste when he said, "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?" Shame on him for writing such a thing, and shame on you for allowing it to be printed. It's one thing to dislike the president of the U.S., even to insult his intelligence -- but quite another thing to be publically wishing for his assassination. That is beyond the pale, sir, and you failed in your responsibilities as an editor by allowing that column to go to press.

I'm sure Mr. Brooker will claim that he was only joking. But any rational adult ought to know that there are some subjects that one simply does not joke about. Mr. Brooker ought, in fact, to have learned from history that it is not wise to exclaim, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?", unless one is prepared to have one's words taken seriously.

It is a shame that Mr. Brooker has chosen to sully your paper with this childish tantrum. And it is a further shame that you have not exercised your editorial judgment to prevent him from doing so. Ultimately, the final say in whether this column appeared in print was yours; and you did not prevent it from doing so.

For shame, sir.

Sincerely,

Robin Munn

As an occasional lurker to this site, and a Dem who pledges to be civil here, I have a statement and a question.

First, the declarative: I strenuously disagree with the view of whoever that British hack comic is. Apparently he thought an "assassination" joke would be funny. It's not.

The question: would all of you have been similarly outraged if suggestions to this effect had been made against Bill Clinton when he was president? I doubt you've forgotten about the seething and visceral hatred for Clinton that came from (and to some extent still comes) from certain communities.

-Fe Wm.

would all of you have been similarly outraged if suggestions to this effect had been made against Bill Clinton when he was president?

Yes. 100%.

No one talks about killing my President. And I think you give the columnist undue credit with your "joking" assessment. His bit may be hyperbolic, but he's not "joking."

The question: would all of you have been similarly outraged if suggestions to this effect had been made against Bill Clinton when he was president?

I can't speak for "all." I can only speak for myself, and the answer is YES. I would be outraged.

I listened to quite a bit of the "visceral hatred" of the Republicans and/or conservatives. Know what? I never once heard any of them wishing the man dead. And I certainly didn't hear any voices in the media calling for that thing.

I mean, what's your point, irond_will? That somehow, if you can find a conservative who called for Clinton's death, that somehow that makes us hypocrites if we get P.O.'d about Brooker's comments? Please tell me you're not using the "but your side does it too" argument.

Please ignore or delete a TB to this post from me. It was meant for the previous post, which is now TB'd correctly. Thank you.

To Irond:

The only thing comparable to this on the Right was when Jesse Helms "joked" that Bill Clinton shouldn't appear at some military base in North Carolina because someone might take a shot at him. (I'm totally paraphrasing here...someone correct me if I have some of the details wrong.)

I was not a fan of Bill Clinton but I was outraged by Helm's statement. (Then again, to be fair, I was never a fan of Helms--he was a racist who should've been drummed out by the GOP- and it disappointed me that so many conservatives were apologists for him.)

But anyway, I think I'm consistent. Yes, I think this columnist was joking, but it wasn't funny and it shouldn't have been printed. When you consider the how many presidents have been assasinated and the pathological hatred on the Left for Bush, it was a despicable comment. I assume most reasonable liberals will agree.

Rage, of course, was my first response. Just as I was enraged at their "Operation Clark County" debacle.

But, I talked myself down like I was on some sort of liberal outrage bad trip. Look, these liberals are IDIOTS -- we all know that. And every time they do something insane and criminal as this, it always blows up in their faces. Just like Operation Clark County did. People will respond to this and they will lose all credibility. They always shoot themselves in the foot. Every time one of these liberal wacko rags does something like this, we conservatives come out ahead. They are doing us a favor.

(by the way, the above does not preempt my general attitude of "f**k you! to all of Europe.)

Fair enough - I happened to live in West Texas when Mr. Clinton was president, and, while not a great fan of his, was sick to my gut at much of the sentiment I heard regarding him.

I agree that the jokes regarding wishing ill or violence on our political figures are in very poor taste. The quip wasn't funny and should have been cut.

I'm not looking to denouce anyone for hypocracy here - this is to say, I'm not interested in digging around old Repub threads on usenet looking for something to demand you denounce.

I mostly read Dem blogs, being a Democrat, but am really looking for some Republicans who can help me understand your point of view. I was impressed that your moderator opened up a thread allowing Dems to post, and thought I'd see what you guys had to offer.

What I've found entertaining of late is the fact that the very same invectives tend to be slung against the "hated other" from any of these sites.

For instance, a lot of hay is made about the "other" being too ignorant to be making an informed decision. Both sides firmly believe that the "mainstream media" is in the pocket of the "other". Both sides believe the other side are either inveterate liars or delusional. Both sides liken the "other" to some discredited political philosophy (Communism or Fascism, mostly). Both sides think that the "other" hates America.

Both sides hate Maureen Dowd. She's awful.

A poster on a previous thread talked about Mr. Bush's refusal to "accept mistakes" as, essentially, defensive politics. I can accept this, but would extend this to Mr. Kerry's dodge of the Vietnam protest issue (which I would like to discuss, but this post is getting rather long).

I'm not sure if you guys are interested in having a Dem lurker who occasionally pops up - in a civil manner, I promise. If not, I'll be happy to respectfully withdraw.

-Fe Wm.

irond -

You probably won't like my conclusions (being a Dem), but you may enjoy the journey in these three posts.

Also, it warms my heart that both sides hate Dowd.

Let me reiterate - the quip wasn't funny, was offensive, and does not represent my views.

Keep in mind, please, that this was not a voice of the American left - this was a hack British comic who made a stupid, misguided joke at the expense of what he surely regards as "those fools across the pond."

He's not one of us - he's not an American.

-Fe Wm.

Good for you Irond-will....as I said, reasonable liberals would agree that this was over the top. This is what civil discourse should be about!

The second link you gave, This one, is really insightful and interesting. I, also, feel the "us" versus "them" impulse, deep in my bones, and am struggling to try to understand how fifty percent of America can be so solidly aligned with things that seem so awful to me.

My feeling is that there must be some angle I don't understand, or that I'm grossly misunderstanding the position that Mr. Bush's supporters feel he takes.

I'm still not sure how this election is going to turn out. I do know, however, that which ever way it breaks, fifty percent of America is going to be heartbroken and enraged. We need to prepare ourselves to live in the America of November 3.

-Fe Wm.

My feeling is that there must be some angle I don't understand, or that I'm grossly misunderstanding the position that Mr. Bush's supporters feel he takes.

Want my personal take on what lefties don't "get?"

Absolute naivete on foreign policy.

Upon a few moments of reflection on the Guardian piece, I feel quite good. Now I am grateful to this leftie brit for helping illustrate beyond any doubt that GWB is the right man to lead America. Anyone who drives the extreme left that crazy has to be doing something right!

Ah, foreign policy. I follow foreign policy pretty closely (I work in a related field), and still know there's volumes of things I don't know. It seems to me, though, that the heart of a robust foreign policy is diplomacy; I agree with Kissinger (and Mao) that military action is just an extension of diplomacy.

Now - I'm no world-peace-visualizing hippie. I know and accept that the international game is played with a strong eye towards national advantage. I'm not convinced, though, that Mr. Bush has worked diligently towards securing our advantage so much as fixating on a specific enemy and ensuring their disadvantage.

I really do believe, after much agonizing, that Mr. Bush decided to invade Iraq, principally, as a foothold for modernity in the Middle East - I believe that he felt (and feels) that the spread of modernity is the best way to contain terrorism. Fundamentally, I agree with this, both as a philosophy and as a desireable aim.

But I think he made a mess of this goal in invading Iraq the way he did. I think that the "imminent threat" was an argument made in poor faith. I think he needlessly alienated allies. I think he's fostered resentment and the appearance of American imperialism by the manner in which American corporations were favored in reconstruction.

I want Iraq to become stable, democratic and free. I really do. It's in American interests, Iraqi interests, and the world's interests.

But I don't see it happening under Mr. Bush. Iraq is a mess, and I think, at this point, it's too personal; it's the world - and especially the Muslim world - against Mr. Bush.

-Fe Wm.

For the record here's my Email to Mr. Brooker:

Dear Charlie,

Charlie, I regret I must tell you this, but I doubt you will find many U.S. citizens, no matter what political party they support, who will not be absolutely repulsed by your comment in the Guardian. It's obvious you suffer from a severe personality disorder with perhaps a touch of paranoia, not to mention an acute case of cognitive dissonance. For your own sake I hope you can get help.

I will also assure you that you will hear from many other Americans who do not agree with your comment. Some of them will be as demented as you are. Please treat them as you wish to be treated. After all, they are just a product of your own self-expression.

Assuming you are capable of deviating to sense, I hope this helps you gain a bit of remedial understanding all humans should have. Otherwise, disregard this note.

made a mess of this goal in invading Iraq the way he did. I think that the "imminent threat" was an argument made in poor faith. I think he needlessly alienated allies. I think he's fostered resentment and the appearance of American imperialism by the manner in which American corporations were favored in reconstruction.

1. The way he did? Against the wishes of countries that had invioble ecomonic interests and were receiving billion of dollars in bribes from Saddam Hussein duping a corrupt oil for food program? As I said, "naivete."

2. Bush never said that the threat from Iraq was "imminent." This is a lie. This is a piece of conventional unwisdom that's been spread like a virus.

John Edwards, however DID say Iraq was an "imminent threat" in 2002. And you are voting for him, despite the fact that he made this argument in "poor faith."

And John Kerry said that the President should have built a coalition to confront Saddam Hussein sooner after 9-11. But now he says Bush "took his eye off the ball." And yet you are voting for the man who made both or one of those arguments "in poor faith."

3. "Needlessly alienated allies" - Rumsfeld's comments about "old Europe" don't mean anything compared to billions in oil for food vouchers. The oil for food program's scandal is the biggest story taht no one has heard of. The UN is broken. The Security Council's utility is almost dead, considering it harbors two direct competitors and one wary player.

4. "American corps favored"

Leaving the opponents out of contracts is called a stick. Allowing foreign contractors that are allies (and had arguably BETTER chances at contracts than American companies) access is called a carrot. Once again, this pereception is based on spin.

As I said, these are the naive points, among many others, that make shake my head.

I'm a liberal in so many respects on so many social issues, but I cannot abide a suicidal or microhumanistic foreign policy, or cynical prevarication and lying about war - which is what the Kedwards ticket really represents - George Bush? Not so much.

Also please read John leo's column about Dem extrapolation of personal human constructs to foreign policy, and how it doesn't work:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041101/opinion/1john.htm

Naivete seems to be a charge I've heard a good amount on both sides - mostly when two people approach a question with a different set of axioms. I'm trying to follow your lead here to suss out the axioms by which you feel that effective (or realistic) foreign policy is calculated, and I beg your patience.

1) The Foor For Oil Program appears to have been corrupt through-and-through. We're only seeing the tip of this iceberg, and I'd be deeply surprised if some American corporations didn't have their hand in the cookie jar (along with detractors and allies in the Iraq invasion).

What I basically reject is the confluence of national diplomatic power and national corporate power (at least in the case of western Democracies - China may be different). The fact that a handful of German and French corporations were benefitting economically from the FFO program has no bearing upon the fact that the population of said countries is overwhelmingly opposed to our action there. Ultimately, these countries are democracies, and have a tough time defying public sentiment to such an extent.

In point of fact, the logical extension of your argument (that political action is driven by corporate financial gain) would be that America went to war because Halliburton or other American corporations stood to gain.

I reject this, not just in principle (the way things should be), but in fact (the way things are). This is not to say that economics is not a part of diplomacy, but it's not the whole pie - especially with regard to corporate finances.

2) "Imminent Threat" may very well be a meme I picked up in following politics. Words words words. What's the reason, in your opinion, for the immediacy with which war was undertaken?

I take Mr. Kerry's words to indicate he supported keeping the screws on Hussein. I did too. The stated goals of avoiding WMDs going to terrorists (or used in an unlikely Iraqi attack on Americans) appear to have been sufficiently met by the sanctions we had in place.

Anyhow, you and I would probably agree that WMDs and direct terrorist ties to Saddam had little to do with Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq. It was a selling point.

Perhaps I didn't underscore my point sufficiently - I support Mr. Bush's goal of bringing modernity to the Middle East. I just think that invading Iraq was a terrible way to do it.

3) The UN may very well be broken. But most of the world seems to feel that it has a kind of moral authority, and it's proven to be a very powerful tool in the past. The Clinton team managed to rally NATO and the UN around our invasions in Eastern Europe - largely against their economic interests. George H.W. Bush rallied the world (largely through the U.N.) around our liberation of Kuwait. Why couldn't Mr. Bush do the same thing?

4) We're currently suffer in a great big mess in Iraq, and could well use other countries (even Old Europe) in there with us. Wouldn't offering the "carrot" of reconstruction dollars to Europe, China, or especially Russia make the countries more likely to become involved to a larger extent? Wouldn't that behoove our interests?

If anything, pointedly excluding potential allies from reconstruction seems punitive and - how did you say it - microhumanistic.

In any case, I tend to see the "microhumanistic" characterization of foreign policy in the same way that I see anthropomorhism in just about every context (e.g., "my computer hates me"). It spins a narrative that people can understand, mostly post de facto, and I don't think that liberals or conservatives are more or less guilty of this.

By the way, I noticed you have a special disdain for Chris Matthews. I think he's terrible too.

-Fe Wm.

A quick amendment - I just realized what you were talking about regarding microhumanization of foreign policy - my contention that Mr. Bush will fail to garner support in Iraq because "it's personal". I'll hold to this:

In spite of the fact that Mr. Bush is supported by around half the U.S. population in his invasion of Iraq, the quarters of the foreign population I've been privy to seem to consider this "his" war. Who knows why - maybe Old Europe is awash in expatriated moonbats who vigorously deny American popular support for the invasion.

In any case, the course of four more years of Mr. Bush is fairly predictable: the coalition, currently comprised, essentially, of us, England and Australia with a handful of other symbolic designees will continue to fray. I have no idea if Iraq will improve or descend in this scenario - it could be that insurgents will pacify once they realize that they're looking at at least four more years of the same sort of occupation. More likely, they'd entrench and continue to organize.

Mr. Kerry that the possibility of reframing the occupation, declaring a "fresh start" and drawing in other allies. It's possible that the Iraqi insurgents would respond positively to symbolic redirections of policy (honestly, a de facto multistatist approach is probably the best approach - there's no way that a unified Iraq is a viable or stable state).

-Fe Wm.

1. "We're only seeing the tip of this iceberg, and I'd be deeply surprised if some American corporations didn't have their hand in the cookie jar (along with detractors and allies in the Iraq invasion). What I basically reject is the confluence of national diplomatic power and national corporate power (at least in the case of western Democracies - China may be different). The fact that a handful of German and French corporations were benefitting economically from the FFO program has no bearing upon the fact that the population of said countries is overwhelmingly opposed to our action there."

You skip over the convenient fact that it wasn't just corporate welfare or bribery - payments of oil coupons went to both UN employees AND highly placed government officials that were typically placed in govts. that opposed the war. Of course public opinion swayed many countries - but public opinion didn't stop others from doing the right thing and showing a united front even before the war.

Also, when France and Russia have economic ties to Iraq that actually affect whole digits of their GDP (as opposed to Spain, UK and the US, for example), the corporate angle DOES make a diff. Context.

2. ""Imminent Threat" may very well be a meme I picked up in following politics. Words words words. What's the reason, in your opinion, for the immediacy with which war was undertaken?"

Because intelligence DID estimate that Iraq had WMD, and the urgency of moving and removing this regional bulwark against stability and reform was urgent. Beyond the WMD (which was a valid concern, w/o the benefit of hindsight), this is a terribly abstract concept that many lefties don't grab on to ...

But even tossing aside the WMD and embracing the reform angle - the urgency is clear. We need to get this party started, and the post 9-11 political capital needed to be spent before it disappeared. (as it is now that memories have faded). George Bush made a very strong, tough decision that could cost him re-election. And could have planted the seed of freedom in that part of the world. What else were we supposed to wait for? What other opportunity for Democracy was there in the region, and how to rush it along before those societies disinegrate?

I will always admire him for it.

"Anyhow, you and I would probably agree that WMDs and direct terrorist ties to Saddam had little to do with Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq."

No, we would not agree, as anyone that's been watching and reading about Iraq for the past 10 years would be forced to disagree. The new narrative is born of hindsight. I recommend the "Threatening Storm" by Clinton-era intelligence analyst Kenneth Pollack.

3. "The Clinton team managed to rally NATO and the UN around our invasions in Eastern Europe - largely against their economic interests.

Half incorrect. The Kosovo operation went against the directive of the UN (though not NATO), which chose to sit by as muslims were being slaughtered - literally a new genocide taking place on European soil less than 50 years after the "lesson" of the Holocaust. Many Republicans pissed me off as selective isolationists in that timeframe, btw.

And what was the problem with UN involvement in Kosovo? The same problem I describe today - the UN Security Council was staffed by someone that had a fundamental interest against playing ball: Russia, which didn't want military power projected so close to its border, and tacitly approved of Milosevic's killing. UN - broken as a moral arbiter.

George H.W. Bush rallied the world (largely through the U.N.) around our liberation of Kuwait. Why couldn't Mr. Bush do the same thing?

Two reasons -

a. moral and unambiguous - it is an immeasurably less abstract concept to rally countries to free an invaded country than to argue preemption.

b. practical - Saddam Hussein's threat to absorb Saudi Arabia put a gun to the head of all of the economies in the world. In contrast, the perception of recent US invasion of Iraq did the same thing - threatened world oil supplies and economic stability.

4. Wouldn't offering the "carrot" of reconstruction dollars to Europe, China, or especially Russia make the countries more likely to become involved to a larger extent? Wouldn't that behoove our interests?

Debatable. Giving countries that cooperated preferential treatment is arguably just as practical, as well as the right thing to do. In addition, taking away the carrot holds a carrot in reserve. This is a debatable point, but is certainly not a catastrophic or massively self-defeating move on the part of the US.

Above all, the countries that were obstructionist should always feel a sting for defying the US. Whether feel gooders want to admit it or not, this will cause a double-take the next time a country like France (whose economy has taken a tumble over the entire situation) decides to be a belligerent to the US.

I don't think that liberals or conservatives are more or less guilty of "microhumanism" in the broadest sense on all issues (think of reactionary right wing gut feelings on social issues as policy), but I do think that liberals tend to be insulated children that apply unrealistic humanist constructs to foreign policy issues.

The left has aquitted itself very poorly these past few years on grasping the enormity of the challenges we face in this century.

My outlook is very grim, and I can probably write a thesis persuasive enough to drive some folks to alcoholism. George Bush's admin, for all its flaws, for all its mistakes, has grasped what's coming down the pike and is enacting a strategy (rather than tactics) to give us a shot.

Hardly anyone on the left has, except for maybe Bob Graham (who's flaked out), Joe Lieberman (who'll be excommunicated soon), Dick Gephart (too boring for you guys) and the host of other Dems that are real Dems (not Zell Miller), but are voting for Bush.

Your party could have had this election in the bag, but you got the wrong guy. Except for Howard Dean or Clark, (and the ne'er wins), this is the man that I feel most uncomfortable about taking control of the White House.

He has no character that can stand up to politically dangerous choices that WILL be the best options for America, exactly as we are on the cusp of losing our status permanently via catastrophic attack and/or new extended state deterrence via weapons proliferation. Wrong man, wrong place, wrong time.

Bush ain't perfect, but he is the best we've got - and he does have a plan.

Let me start by saying I'm enjoying and learning from this, and appreciate your patience.

1) I'll cede that economics drive foreign policy more than many lefties (or righties, to be fair) grasp, and you may be correct that the OFF monies were being allocated in just a fashion that influenced Old European policy regarding the war.

Occam's razor, though, would point to the strenuous popular opposition to the war in these democracies. Formerly allied European politicians are running on anti-American platforms now that conjure up the bad old days of South American meddling. Blair will, very likely and very ironically lose the Cabinet to the Tories because he snuggled up with the Americans too much. It's a lousy state of affairs.

2) Because intelligence DID estimate that Iraq had WMD, and the urgency of moving and removing this regional bulwark against stability and reform was urgent. Beyond the WMD (which was a valid concern, w/o the benefit of hindsight), this is a terribly abstract concept that many lefties don't grab on to ...

The WMD estimates were largely cooked and altogether cherry-picked. You and I know it now, but didn't then, and your point about hindsight is well-taken in our cases. Intel people - the CIA and NSA - knew it then, and so, certainly, did the DoD hierarchy. It should have been a tip-off that Mr. Powell's presentation to the U.N. swayed so few people.

Why did Mr. Tenet famously assure George Bush that the WMD motivation for war was "a slam dunk"? Motivations aren't "slam dunks". But justifications can be.

No, we would not agree, as anyone that's been watching and reading about Iraq for the past 10 years would be forced to disagree.

Iraq had very little in the way of organized military, had little autonomy, were permanently embargoed, and had bluehats picking through their business. They were the LEAST likely country in the region to develop nuclear weapons.

And let's, for the moment, be clear about the "Weapons of Mass Distruction" term. Chemical weapons, while horrible, pale in comparison to Nuclear weapons. Stores of mustard gas or anthrax are nothing compared to a nuclear weapon, and do not constitute a risible threat on the same scale.

You describe Iraq as a "regional bulwark against stability and reform". This is may be literally true, but it's hard to think of any Muslim country in the ME (besides Jordan) that doesn't meet this definition.

I think you and I are on the same page when you summarize the motivation as "We need to get this party started, and the post 9-11 political capital needed to be spent before it disappeared." Iraq, it seems, was the target of our Wilsonian nation-building mostly because it was weak and we had a pretext for invasion (WMDs).

What galls me, though, is that if our primary motivation in going into Iraq was nation-building, then why have we been making such a mess of it? I honestly think that Rumsfeld and his cadre, while having studied the business of battles very closely - the initial miliatary campaign was very well-orchestrated, even if the telecasts of Baghdad in flames made and still make my gut clench. These neocons, though, seem pretty much asea when it came to a really important part of "invading a country to nation-build" - i.e. the second part.

This is why I have such a problem with the Bush administration on Iraq. I DO think they intentionally misled the American people with the cherry-picked WMD intel, but I could almost live with this. I DO think that the war was started with undue haste, and I think that the U.S. disregard for NATO, Europe and the UN was more based on ideological revulsion at internationalism than on political calculation. I could almost live with this, also.

What I can't live with is that, at the rate we're going, our occupation of Iraq has actually been counterproductive in the grand goal - to modernize the Middle East. Reptillian and virulently anti-American sects are enjoying a boom of recruiting right now and will for the forseeable future. The results of our action has been a sizable step back in the "war on terrorism."

THAT is the unpardonable sin that the Bush administration

3) The UN is not - let me repeat - NOT a useful actor for proactive change, nor is it meaningful moral arbiter. They suck at it, and we should never wait for them to take the lead on anything. This being said, the UN is a necessary tool for international action, and we would be wise to not dismiss this. George H.W. Bush didn't and Mr. Clinton didn't.

4) I do think that liberals tend to be insulated children that apply unrealistic humanist constructs to foreign policy issues.

This relatively fair criticism of your lib-in-the-street might be balanced by a similarly fair claim that conservatives tend to be brash bullies that apply unrealistic schoolyard concepts into foreign policy issues.

The left has aquitted itself very poorly these past few years on grasping the enormity of the challenges we face in this century.

What ARE the challenges of this century that you see so clearly? I see a U.S. economy in steep relative decline - we're dead in manufacturing and industry, and the "communications age" economy is slipping from our grasp. Our vast military is next to useless against the non-state-actors we're facing. Our economic inequality distribution is in gilded-age territory. Our culture has been overtaken by a new breed of apocolyptic Christianity that disbelieves the very notion of modernity and social responsibility. Our international capital is all but spent, and our alliances are fraying. Our democracy has been driven up a tree by moneyed interests and their subsidiary lapdog, the media. Our deficits are bigger than ever. Our social safety net is vanishing.

Things are tough. They're really tough. Outside of recognizing the threat of international terrorism, I don't think Mr. Bush even notices these things. Moreover, to the extent that he DOES notice these things, he's either indifferent or actually considers them good.

I DO think Mr. Kerry sees these threats (including the foreign policy threats). I'm sure he'll not be able to fix everything, but I'm confident that he'll try to the best of his ability.

For all the "pansy factor" Mr. Kerry garnered for his characterization, terrorism IS more like organized crime than a traditional war. Traditional military action in trying to combat terrorism is astonishingly ineffective.

And - yeah - I like Bob Graham, and like Dick Gephart even more, but loathe Joe Lieberman. For some reason, he's an insurance-interest sellout who's convinced himself that Evangelicals are going to cozy up to him just because he's an Orthodox Jew. He's pushing the Democratic party in the wrong direction and hurting us.

You tell me that Mr. Bush has a plan. Aside from continuing the long, hard rebuilding of Iraq (which Mr. Kerry will do as well, and probably better), what is it?

-Fe Wm.

- irond_will - Two points that support the Naivete' charge...

- A great deal has been made about the WMD's or lack thereof. In fact enough of the truth of the OFF scandal has bubbled to the surface in the 9/11 commission report and the reports of at least two social administrators who worked under Hussein that it is now clear that he was using the whole OFF program in effect as a WMD directly starving and killing needy and ill women and children who never got the benefit of the billions he stole....

- Kerry's positions on things, changing as often as they do not withstanding, its reasonable to say he would want to negotiate and continue the sanctions at the time for some period of time (unspecified)....

- In that regard I would be perfectly within bounds to ask how many more Iraqi's blood would he have on his hands until he finally acted...How many more mass graves would we be unearthing eventually if 2 or 3 more years had gone by before we acted....

- Kerry's vote against the original desert storm action when everyone in the free world including the entire UN security consul had backed it makes it pretty clear that the truth is there never would be enough coalition or world support for Kerry to act...He's a total anti-war peacenik, even when its absolutely necessary...

The Guardian story is a perfect illustration of the breadth and width of anti-americanims in the world. And this has nothing to do with Bush, its always been there and, so long as America is head of the class, it will remain. If another country were

I have heard the story about squandering the world's good will after 9-11 more often than any other story in the past 3 years. There is not a shred of truth in it.

Too many people seem to have forgotten the images of Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere rejoicing on 9-11 as news of the terror attacks was spreading.
But it wasn't only in the Middle East that people were rejoicing.
"Le Monde", the French "news"paper was, on 9-12, contemplating the notion that America brought the terrorism upon itself. The whole of the German media soon followed suit. "Die Zeit", not long after 9-11, and a year before the Iraq war, ran a piece by Christoph Schlingensief in which he advocates blowing up Bush.
The BBC is currently airing a series, entitled "The Power of Nightmares" - which Charlie Brooker also mentions in his Guardian column - that advances the theory that Michael Ledeen and Paul Wolfowitz are responsible for 9-11.

For more information, read this WSJ piece.

This is only slightly off topic, but I'm posting a link here to The Wit and Wisdom of John Kerry, because it's funny.

Here's my letter to Mr. Simon Waldman of The Guardian:

Dear Mr. Waldman:

Apparently your organisation, The Guardian, is advocating
assassination of the leader of my country, the United
States of America. I would like to point out that wistful
remembrances of would-be and actual presidential assassins in
regards to my country's leadership is inappropriate,
particularly since you are not a citizen of my country.
Beyond that, of course, it's just not polite.

Imagine, for example, that I sent you an e-mail describing
my support of Islamic Fundamentalists to rape and behead
your mother, your wife, your daughters, and you. That would
be totally inappropriate of course, as would my desire, in
this hypothetical exercise, that the rest of your extended
family be summarily dispatched by various means including
mail bombs, poison, vivisection, and mandatory daily reading
of The Guardian.

But fortunately we live in more gentile times vis-a-vis
rude commentary, and I would encourage you, as a
representative of The Guardian, to find more constructive and
less dangerous ways to put forward your biased point of view.

Regards,

Ed Sutton
Resident, USA

P.S. I purposefully misspelled "organization" above so that I
could avoid any misunderstanding on your part.

The Guardian has corrected Booker's column:

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Hat tip: Instapundit

How nice of them. There, you see? A simple apology does it all.

"...an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand."

Well, that was predictable, it's all the readers' fault for being too stupid to recognize humor when we read it.

Does the apology get him off the hook for hate-speech?

What if someone in Illinois, in response to a Keyes statement, said "Where's the KKK lynch squad when you need them?" Sorry, some shit ain't funny. You don't get off the failed satire hook that easily.

Hey Hunter,

A great deal has been made about the WMD's or lack thereof. In fact enough of the truth of the OFF scandal has bubbled to the surface in the 9/11 commission report and the reports of at least two social administrators who worked under Hussein that it is now clear that he was using the whole OFF program in effect as a WMD directly starving and killing needy and ill women and children who never got the benefit of the billions he stole....

I don't buy this. There's no doubt that Hussein was a brute and a skunk, and I'm happy to see him gone. This being said, the charge levelled by Mr. Bush was that Hussein was actively developing literal Weapons of Mass Destruction. Post de facto analogies likening the man himself to a "WMD" doesn't satisfy the misleading of the American people.

Now - as to whether or not we should have acted, and when, is a reasonable argument. It also happens to be the argument Mr. Bush should have made before going into Iraq. Had he done so, it's likely he could have wrested strong international support for the action. At the very least, he would have had my support.

Regarding Mr. Kerry's vote against the 1991 Gulf War - yep; it was a wrong vote, and was likely informed by his youthful anti-war ideals. I don't know why Team Bush hasn't tried to make more hay off of this. Maybe because it draws Poppy Bush's well-executed war into contrast with Junior's botch, but I'm just guessing.

-Fe Wm.

Post de facto analogies likening the man himself to a "WMD" doesn't satisfy the misleading of the American people.

When are you going to get it through your skull that there was NO "misleading?"

It was bad intelligence, the same intelligence John Kerry had access to to make him utter the SAME statements. George Tenet told George Bush it was "a slam dunk," as documented by that norious right-winger, Bob Woodward. (he was the one played by Robert Redford, in case you need a ref)

It's like you're brainwashed. I try to be respectful, but this is such a load of hogwash. It;s reasonable to criticize Bush's decision, but this bs about being lied to is bs. Think logically and comment accordingly, please.

Well - I was responding to the claim that "Saddam Hussein was HIMSELF a WMD". I hope you'll agree with me that this argument is hogwash, as you put it, with respect to the issue of whether or not Hussein was developing real WMDs.

As for the misleading - the intel was cherry-picked and (in some cases) cooked at the gathering and dissemination phase. Tenet should have known better as CIA director. It Mr. Bush had been hoodwinked by a hawkish CIA, this would have been bad enough, but Richard Clarke's testimony suggests that the Bush Administration was in on it.

I'm not certain there the Senate's "tap" into the intel flow existed (i.e. - were they also presented with the cherry-picked data?).

While an honest reveiw of the intel did not categorically dismiss the possibility that Hussein was covertly developing WMDs, it also was not the "Slam Dunk" that Tenet described.

I don't think I am brainwashed - like you, I paid close attention to the lead-up to war, and the strong, confident case the Bush Administration put forward regarding WMDs. We place a great deal of confidence in our President's ability to analyze intelligence, and whether through mendacity or incompetence, he failed us.

I'm, frankly, incredulous that more conservatives aren't outraged.

-Fe Wm.

Re: the Guardian's apology -

Nice that they did the right thing, or almost. But I wish they'd acknowledged that what Mr. Brooker did was the equivalent of exclaiming, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Even though I believe he did mean it as a joke, someone is bound to take it seriously.

irond_will -

First off, thanks for a nice civil debate. It's good to see civility in disagreement - there's been too little of that around the 'Net lately.

I agree with you that there were much better arguments that Bush could have made prior to going to war than the one that he did make. I certainly don't think Bush is perfect. However, let me share with you one of the primary reasons why I'm planning to vote for Bush rather than Kerry next week, and why I think you should, too:

Character.

From what I've seen of the two men, I trust Bush's honesty and moral character; I don't trust Kerry's. A man's character shines through most clearly in what he does when he thinks nobody's looking. A few moments that illustrate Bush's character:

The moment with Ashley Faulkner, which has now been made into a T.V. ad. (Bush was on a campaign appearance when a friend of the family told him, "This girl lost her mother at the WTC on 9/11." Bush dropped what he was doing, reached out to Ashley, and gave her a big fatherly hug.) It was clear that this was a genuine response on Bush's part -- the only reason we know about it is because Ashley's father happened to have a camera with him and snapped a photo, and later told the incident to the press. Notice that it was Mr. Faulkner, not Mr. Bush, who talked about the incident.

Looking for references to this one, I noticed a couple more incidents over here, which I won't lay out in detail so as not to make this too long. The one about Staff Sergeant Mike McNaughton I'd heard before. The one about Bush being undercharged for take-out food, realizing it later, and offering to send them more money -- that one I hadn't heard before.

These incidents -- none of which Bush trumpeted at the time (to my knowledge, at least, though I could be wrong) -- are the little details of a man's life. The way a man acts in the little things is the way he will act in the big things.

Kerry, on the other hand, presents a different picture. When I look at Kerry's actions, I see a man whose ego is all-important to him. I see a man who constantly brings up his service in Vietnam as a badge of honor. As Den Beste eloquently puts it, a true hero doesn't brag about his heroism. When I look at Kerry, I see a man who, when he makes a skiing mistake and runs into a Secret Service agent, angrily claims, "I don't fall down -- the S.O.B. knocked me over." Instead of taking responsibility for his own mistake (he was uphill and should have given way), Kerry blamed the other man for his own mistake.

All little details, but they add up. I would cheerfully lend a hundred dollars to Bush without a second thought; if Kerry asked me for a loan, I'd ask for a written I.O.U. to make sure I got my money back.

Hi Robin,

Thanks for the response - I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in a frank but civil manner with you conservatives - it's not an opportunity I'm oft afforded.

The "character issue" is an interesting one. My take on this is that, given the fact that we have third-hand access to the candidates, we tend to associate them with "character archetypes" that we either like or dislike. Often, it seems, the candidate that appears in our mind is just a composite of people we've either known personally or characters we've read about/ seen in movies/ seen on TV (where biographical detail and "the measure of the man" is always spelled out for us.

I've noticed that Bill (the webhost) has a special dislike for what he calls "moonbats". I, actually, share this - I grew up outside what amounts to a "moonbat colony," and the standard fuzzy-headed world-peace outlook (to say nothing of their questionable fashion and musical choices) actually found me as an active "Young Republican". When I look back, I can see that my affiliation was a reaction to these other people who I saw as ridiculous.

My college years, on the other hand, I found myself surrounded with "Red State" stereotypes - from nouveau-riche fratboys to violent survivalist-fantasizers to apocolyptic Christians to nihilistic profitmongers to racists of varying degrees. Not everyone I met, of course, fit these stereotypes, but, just as the "moonbat" composite had been created in my mind, so was born the "wingnut" composite.

I should add that I met many good people as well, who could be roughly approximated into some of these pigeonholes.

My opinion is that we tend to compartmentalize the candidates into our pigeonholes, especially the ones we're against. I know that, to you, George Bush is a straight-talking, resolute, morally-centered man of the people - the kind of guy you've enjoyed having a drink with.

I also know that, when a lot of people (including Bill the Host, I think) see John Kerry, he's compartmentalized as a disingenuous, faux-intellectual, opportunistic, closet unreconstructed moonbat snob.

I'll not treat you to the compartment I allocate for George Bush. Suffice it to say that my contact with the people he reminds me of hasn't been expecially positive, and doesn't speak well of character. In your mind's eye, the words "George Bush" summon a man with a megaphone standing over the wreckage of the Twin Towers, or a man heartfully embracing an orphan. My mind retrieves a man sniggering in a debate or tough-talk daring insurgants to "bring it on" to our soldiers in Iraq.

I strongly try to avoid falling into a "cult of personality" with regards to the candidate I support. I suppose that Mr. Kerry doesn't trigger my "moonbat" compartment (I think there's a world of difference between the callow college kids in "world peace" youth movement of the '60s and '70s, and the positions taken by returned veterans against the war). He doesn't seem to have the moral deficits or insecurities of Clinton. His strongest detriment as a candidate seems to be his Boston Brahmin aloofness and self-consciously poised oratory. I guess these traits don't summon up much of an image in my head - if anything, it reminds me of speeches of past presidents from before I was born (Roosevelt, Kennedy).

In short - I DO take the "character issue" somewhat seriously, but just don't see the same negatives you do in Mr. Kerry. I think it must have a lot to do with who we are.

-Fe Wm.