Right. Just imagine President Kerry, Sec of State Albright, Natl Sec Advisor Holbrooke, & UN Sec Gen Clinton handling this...

I KNEW Bush meant Iran all those times he said "Iraq."

-Aiding and abetting terrorists (including links to Al Qaeda).
-Pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Wow - that is a powerful video. Who was that ranting? I think we need to explain it better - not for me - as I truly understand the war we are in - but for those who sneer at the concept that we are at war. THIS is what we are up against...and Kerry will do nothing about it except take a poll. Kerry doesn't understand that the world has changed and the ol' UN two-step (to borrow a pharase from "Clear and Present Danger")does nothing to address these issues. Can't you just see Bush saying to the UN, "sorry, Mr. Secretary-General, I don't dance!" (with apologies to Harrison Ford)

Good thing Bush invaded Iraq!

Kerry has already signalled he will go easy on Iran.

He'll attempt to buy their cooperation using the same failed plan that Clinton tried with North Korea.

Kerry = appeasement towards Iran.

Is it just me or is he threatening us?

He and his loyal followers need to be exterminated, of course, only within the bounds of the Geneva Convention and Ted Kennedy's personal code of surrender, I mean honor.

moebius, salvage -

It's unfortunate that you're too ignorant to recognize that there is more than one enemy out there, and Iraq was an essential lynchpin in something called "strategy."

And beyond that, the chances of leftie reactionaries like yourself having supported movement on Iran en vez of action in Iraq are about ... uh ... less than zero.

Read my linked treatise on Iran that discusses the implications of Iraq. Also read the Dick Cheney interview in Esquire that's linked a few posts below. Until you're done with your assignment and can phrase your criticism like informed grown-ups, just do us all a favor and be quiet.

I'm beyond tired of your shallow, childish carping that's unfettered by informed context.

Fear not, for President Kerry will arrange a summit and we will have Peace In Our Time.

That's all good and fine, but what about HEALTH CARE!?!

moebius, salvage,

Get out a map and look at Iran. By an amazing coincidence, we have heavy presence on their borders. While you were whining about blood for oil, the white house was plotting out a long-term strategy for dealing with these nutters.

Iran and Syria are the other two major trouble spots in the Middle East. We'll help the Iranians over-throw the mullahs (most ordinary Iranians hate those mullah assholes), and then Syria will fold.

Kuwait has already begun to reform; pressure will force Saudi Arabia to follow suit. Egypt will still need some work, but the smaller Gulf states--Yemen, Qatar--won't pose a problem.

Of course, all of this assumes that George Bush is re-elected. If he isn't, expect a third Palestinian intifada, increasing unrest in Iraq, appeasement of Iran, etc. Kerry would allow the Middle East sand swamp to remain a swamp.

Bill,

In answer to your question, "Are you prepared to let Iran go nuclear?"

Kerry's answer is YES.

<sarcasm>Oooooh . . . I'm soo scared!</sarcasm>

Fine, but start with making the punishment fit the crime - not condemning the 13 year old sister to being stoned to death, but making sure her brother is punished for the crime he committed against her.

If Kerry gets elected, anytime an issue comes up with Usama, he will blame the "policies of the prior administration for flaming the fires of terrorism". Count on it. He will be teflon with the MSM.

Dude.. Iran has 90 million people or so. Iraq had around 25 million, and their military was degraded.

Bush has done it right. Russia's at the North, China's at the Northeast, Iraq's to the West, Afghanistan's to the East... and the US Navy and Marines are floating to the South and Southeast.

Soooooo.... What's in the middle? Something the International Left very much wants to preserve and exploit to their International advantage, however perverse the result.

And there we find the French and Belgians... again.

So let me see if I understand this.
Invading Iraq, under a series of shifting premises, was part of the strategy to invade other countries in the Middle East.
And the U.S. being effectively pinned down in Iraq was part of this strategy? The Iraqi insurgency currently controls 22 different areas in Iraq. The U.S. army has been stretched thin to the point that the National Guard has gone from a few weeks a month to a life long commitment. Bush has had to make yet another request for emergency funds. So where is the manpower and money going to come from for an invasion and occupation of Iran? That’s an interesting strategy, to my uninformed eyes it looks like flailing and making stuff up as you go along. Describing each setback and difficulty as “part of the grand plan” doesn’t change the fact that Iraq has gone horribly wrong and it’s all the Bush administration’s fault. They rushed into this war, made a complete pig’s breakfast out of it and all you can do is swallow their spin that it’s all going to spec.
Iran needs to be stopped and thanks to Bush it’s going to be harder and bloodier than it had to be.
I am beyond tired of this blind devotion to Bush that seems to supercede sense. It’s not me and my shallow, childish carping that you have issue with; it’s the reality of the situation. You’d rather Bush win than America and that’s truly immature.

--------------------------
It's unfortunate that you're too ignorant to recognize that there is more than one enemy out there, and Iraq was an essential lynchpin in something called "strategy."
---------------------------

Yeah...our strategy was to a) tie down all our forces in Iraq, b) let them elect a Shiite government that will have more in common with the country next door than us, and c) piss away our credibility with the rest of the world, so the next time there IS a real threat (as there is in Iran) no one will want to help us because America has become a radioactive topic.

---------------------------
And beyond that, the chances of leftie reactionaries like yourself having supported movement on Iran en vez of action in Iraq are about ... uh ... less than zero.
---------------------------

I understand that the War on Terror is about a) getting at the root causes of why it started in the first place and b) killing the teorrirsts (which was not the situation in Iraq, until we gave them a target and made that country Al Qaeda's recruiting poster).

------------------------------
Read my linked treatise on Iran that discusses the implications of Iraq. Also read the Dick Cheney interview in Esquire that's linked a few posts below. Until you're done with your assignment and can phrase your criticism like informed grown-ups, just do us all a favor and be quiet.
-------------------------------
Read it. Your argument for Iraq boils down to "many strategic realists" are wrong, and "I'm" right.

Well, "many strategic realists" have concluded that the war in Iraq was a mistake. So have "many" intelleigence experts (who now agree that destabilizing Iraq has helped terrorist recruitment) and "many" military leaders (including "many" from Republican administrations).

But lets take your points one at a time on Iraq.

1. They didn't. We know they didn't. Bush, were he not dead set on invading in January 2001, would have known they didn't have the weapons or the capability if he'd made the effort to find out.

2. Without the hint of WMD, the American public would have kept the status quo in Iraq. If he thought the American public would support going into Iraq as part of some grand transformational strategy, Bush would have been honest for our reasons in invading.

3. Invading Iraq tied down our troops and made us vulnerable to attacks in our rear if we invade Iran. Meanwhile, we've let a relatively friendly country mostly willing to give us bases (Afghanistan) that had a dedicated internal opposition to the authoritarian regime (the Northern Alliance) slide downhill and given the Taliban a chance to get back in the game.

4. A nudge could knock over OUR house of cards...in Iraq. War with Iran means their troops have carte blanche to go into Iraq and aid the insurgents.

5. Israel does the dirty work and the Arab Street will go insane. It will be confirmation of the "American-Jewish conspiracy" to "keep the Arab down." Much the way invading Iraq was likely perceived.

6. Correct. States move toward nuclear weapons because states fear the Great Powers or want a deterrant. Invading Iraq didn't make Iran decide to get nukes; they would have done it anyway. But the reasons (they fear the US) are the same.

-----------------------------
Get out a map and look at Iran. By an amazing coincidence, we have heavy presence on their borders. While you were whining about blood for oil, the white house was plotting out a long-term strategy for dealing with these nutters.
-----------------------------

Sure...we can let the insurgents mind the store while we go invade Iran.

Now get our your map, and look at Iran. We already HAVE a dedicated military presence in the region...in Afghanistan. Which conveniently borders Iran.

Moebius -

Read it. Your argument for Iraq boils down to "many strategic realists" are wrong, and "I'm" right.

And your argument relies on some strategic realists being right and others being wrong. As much as you'd like to call it, this is in no way over.

Not by a long shot.

The fact is, and you should have gathered this from teh Esquire article, the prewar situation with iraq was unsustainable.

Present an alternate situation taht denies Iraq eventual obtention of WMD? A situation that protects the populations in the N and S of Iraq without ad infinitum no-fly zones?

You can't.

Sanctions were collapsing, he was reconstituting his programs.

You have no solution except to allow Saddam to regain power and stability. You have no solution that prevents the massacre of the Kurds and Shiites in the South. You have no long term solution for terrorism except to rely on defense.

You complain about the institution of a theocratic state in Iraq, yet ignore the overwhelming evidence against it, including a mass of polls that show that Iraqis want a secular government.

And who, praytell, said about invading Iran?

That's an impossibility, and shows much about the way you interpret any of the material that I suggested that you read.

Now get out your map and show us your brilliant strategy to reform teh Middle East towards pluralism and moderation while leaving Hussein's regime in place. I can't wait.

"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons.

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."

--From JohnKerry.com 11/1/2004

Uhh--John, I think their intentions are already clear.

Four words, two phrases.

Mass graves.

Children's Prison.

"childish carping that's unfettered by informed context"

This is not in defense of moebius... There's well informed people on both sides Bill. You are amost boiling this down to a wrong choice and a right choice, but you know it's not that simple. We all have access to the same glut of information, but we all have different filters in place for this information. Most Dems/Libs are pissed because we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. However, this does not mean that we don't see the point of invading Iraq.

We could debate this until we are blue in the face, but I believe:

1. That we didn't have enough evidence to go to war
2. That Bush & Co knew that the evidence was not compelling enough to justify war to the U.S. citizens
3. That Bush & Co decided to over inflate the urgency so that they could proceed with the war

Call this misleading, or call it by its real name "a big lie". Call it whatever you like, but it doesn't fit within my filter. I guess I just feel like you are trying to beat your message into our heads by saying it louder and louder. We get it -- we truly understand your point -- but we don't agree. Sorry.

1. I reject That Bush & Co knew that the evidence was not compelling enough to justify war to the U.S. citizens, because you ignore reality: EVERYONE, even strident war critics assumed that Iraq had weapons. The question was what to do with it. Ah, what short, selective memories we all have. They focused on the weapons (see esquire article) because it was the facet that they though made the strongest case.

2. I'm not trying to "beat anything into your head." Fact is, I personally think that your analysis is so consistently off course, I really hold no illusions about convincing you of anything. But while I present my complex cases for action in Iraq, hard line on Iran, etc., on this blog, I quickly lose patience with superficial analysis that doesn't begin to address the other side of the issue and merely chimes in with a selective smart-ass comment.

This is what gets on my nerves, and what I was referring to.

And while I think Moebius's conclusions in his last addition are wrong, at least he attempted to answer my challenge with a structured case that offered his contrary opinion - His previous comment however, did not.

As it is, this blog is not set up for contrarians to show up and take a dump in the comments section without specific, factual argumentation, which was my point.

Which, for the 8,000th time, you totally miss.

Most Dems/Libs are pissed because we invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

What about Resolution 1441 wasn't clear?
What about the terms of the 1991 ceasefire wasn't clear?
What about the egregious human rights violations wasn't clear?
What about the demonstrated propensity for aggressive war wasn't clear?
What about the demonstrated willingness to use chemical weapons on military and civilian targets isn't clear?

These are not false pretenses. All of these are reasons presented to go to war. Just because one of the reasons remains unproven hardly invalidates these others.

"your analysis is so consistently off course, I really hold no illusions about convincing you of anything."

Bill: Think what you will about me, and insult me all you like. I show a modicum of respect for you and every member here by not just showing up and dumping crap on your pages. I try to add to the conversation, and I feel that my viewpoints add to the interest of your site. I really don't know how interesting this would all be if it were just a bunch of conservatives re-affirming one another all of the time. I'm okay with the conservative slant and the occasional corrections in your favor. But lately it seems like you've completely given up on tolerating any viewpoint which does not coincide with yours -- even if you know that you are debating an issue without a right or wrong answer.

Don't get angry and boot me -- I'd like to be around for post-election. Have a good day.

Bill: I forgot to end my strong tag after "me" -- I didn't want it to be all bold. Please correct if you can? Thx.

I show a modicum of respect for you and every member here by not just showing up and dumping crap on your pages.

Once again, your emotional defensive posture about my comment misses the point, AS. It's like a game of telephone, except I make the comment directly to you, and you start crying.

I'm not talking about you. I was explaining the comment that you criticized.

It's not all about you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you and you.

Everytime, you take things personally, whether it's Bush's dastardly policies that have somehow led to your broken marriage, or my explanatory comments that you interpret as an attack on you.

Get a grip.

Clean-up in aisle five, clean-up in aisle five. We need a pair of pampers and a hanky, stat!

1942:

Japan wants us dead? Good thing Roosevelt invaded the Solomon Islands!

1943:

Germany attacking Europe? Good thing Roosevelt invaded North Africa!

Bill: When somebody says, "your analysis is so consistently off course, I really hold no illusions about convincing you of anything", I take it as a dig about me. I really don't know how else to take it. This is how you respond to me every time. You've become a bully, especially with your last resonse, so I'm done -- block me from posting if you like. Can I retract my vote for you as Best Blog 2004?

Bill lied! People died! :-)

Freaky video. Amid all the back-n-forth, I am curious as to what might happen in the case that we need to go into Iran. Pinpoint strikes? Ground forces? Mobilizing the youth/reform groups? I assume the last is already going on. Do any of you think that Bush has the stomach to send troops into Iran if it became blisteringly clear that there was no other way to deter them? (That's an honest question by the way - not to be read "do any of you really think Bush has the stomach...?)

If so, how do you think it would happen? Think we would go the UN route again, or scrap all of that?

AS -

Sniffle.

Invasion is not the only tool we've got. It's not even a very good tool. Sometimes it's necessary, though. I think Iraq was one of those cases. I don't think Iran is.

I see bits and pieces of what appears to be a plan to deal with Iran. Groundwork is being laid right now. I believe the final stage will look like either Poland (Solidarity) or Romania (a rope), though there might be some elements of East Germany (a slip of the tongue).

If things continue on this course, next June may be the time.

If Iran goes 100% nuclear, then the Mullahs will likely use nukes against Israel first, and then the US. They'll have the option of launching missiles (against Israel), or seaborne-suicide boats (both Israeli and US targets). In the case of the suicide boats, their delivery would be through terrorists groups, making their origin uncertain (Iran? Pakistan? North Korea?). This make me believe that the terrorist route would be the preferred method, since we may not know against whom would we retaliate.

It will take 5 US Army/Marine divisions to bring Iran to heel. Luckily, we just happen to have them on both the eastern (Afghanistan) and western (Iraq) borders of Iran. This stategy of surrounding the enemy seemed to work well for the Allies in the Second World War.

I will note that Kerry's Iran policy is to stick to the Deterrence strategy of the 20th century, where Bush has his new doctrine of Preemption. For the sake of this country, I hope American voters choose wisely tomorrow.

James C. -

If Iran goes 100% nuclear, then the Mullahs will likely use nukes against Israel first, and then the US.

I actually think this is backwards, as they'd be hesitant to irradiate the Holy Land.

---------------------------
EVERYONE, even strident war critics assumed that Iraq had weapons.
----------------------------

That's rather strong, unsupportable language, Bill. All I'll say on the subject.

-----------------------------
1942:
Japan wants us dead? Good thing Roosevelt invaded the Solomon Islands!

1943:
Germany attacking Europe? Good thing Roosevelt invaded North Africa!
-------------------------------

The Japanese pre-emptively occupied the Solomons in January, 1942, six months before we invaded. This is a ridiculous analogy. If you're using this as an example, you'd have to prove Al Qaeda had bases in Iraq BEFORE we invaded.

Furthermore, North Africa was controlled (however tenuously) by a Nazi ally, Vichy France. Furthermore, German forces were present in North Africa, if in retreat. That analogy is also rather ridiculous.

Who is the enemy here? Al Qaeda.

Where can we find Al Qaeda? Just about anywhere but Iraq.

What did we do when we invaded Iraq? We invited Al Qaeda to come join us, and we gave the locals 100,000 reasons to support the enemy.

How do you fight an effective War on Terror? By:

1. Killing the terrorists where they are (Afghanistan).

2. Not making the problem worse by giving fence sitters a reason to support your enemy. If that means Hussein is in power 5 more years, so be it. His weapons program would take at least twice that long to reconstitute, even if exposing Oil for Food and a strong inspection regime DIDN'T force him to mind his manners. The status quo was falling apart, yes, but we were doing nothing to rebuild it. Because we didn't want to. Now we look like the bad guys.

3. By addressing the root of the problem; twisting the arms of the governments supporting Wahabbism (again, NOT Iraq) by pulling out of the Mid-East oil market over the next 10 years. This incidently has a better chance of pushing the Saudis to reform their regime than invading their neighbor; do the Saudis really think we're going to invade them if they keep winking at the fundamentalists behind our back?

If Iran goes 100% nuclear, then the Mullahs will likely use nukes against Israel first, and then the US.

Israel is a nuclear state, and from everything I've heard from Israeli colleagues (some of them veterans) the government's policy is if Israel's integrity is ever truly compromised, they'll not hesitate to unleash their nuclear arsenal on ALL the major cities in the Middle East. Including Mecca and Medina.

So, no, the most likely place for the Iranians to use nukes is on US troops in Iraq. Possibly in an area surrounded by Sunnis.

If Iran goes 100% nuclear, then the Mullahs will likely use nukes against Israel first, and then the US.

I actually think this is backwards, as they'd be hesitant to irradiate the Holy Land.

I doubt Israel will let Iran get nukes, they will blow up whatever needs blowing up before that happens. And while Iran has been careful in that they've spread their program around I have no doubt that Israel knows where the important bits are and can take them out with a few hours notice.

Killing the terrorists where they are (Afghanistan).

So the suicide Bombers in Israel and Al Qaeda camp in N Iraq aren't terrorists?

Wrong

His weapons program would take at least twice that long to reconstitute

Read the Duelfer report - Wrong

twisting the arms of the governments supporting Wahabbism (again, NOT Iraq) by pulling out of the Mid-East oil market over the next 10 years.

John Kerry has no real sig. different plan to accomplish this, and the concept of shifting the economy off of oil within a decade is a fantasy - though I agree with the sentiment.

As far as your WWII analogies go, it's a completely unrelated analogy. Bush's approach is strategic, much more abstract - an attempt to remake the societies that foster the problem.

Suffice it to say that we disagree on the methodology - but you pretending that that isn't the rational goal doesn't make it disappear or render it dissonant.

How do you fight an effective War on Terror? By:

1. Killing the terrorists where they are (Afghanistan).
-------------------------------------

Afghanistan is the only place they are?!?! I think not...
------------------------------------

2. Not making the problem worse by giving fence sitters blah, blah, blah...
---------------------------------------
"Fench sitters"; that's all we need to know right there. After 9/11 there should have been at least some direction on your moral compass...
---------------------------------------

3. By addressing the root of the problem; twisting the arms of the governments supporting Wahabbism....

-------------------------------------
Twisting arms does not work (see Sadam Hussein). That's the point of the Bush Doctrine.

Since when is it wise for a government engaged in a war to announce each and every one of its intentions publicly?

While it wouldn't have been good for the Bush administration to invent false reasons for invading Iraq, it also wouldn't have been good for it to state each and every reason for said invasion. Those who believe that the administration lied about WMD's are the same people who conflate lying with erring. Every intelligence agency in the world erred in their assessment of the state of Saddam's weapons programs; to date, no credible evidence whatsoever has been produced to show that the administration lied when presenting what it believed to be solid evidence concerning those programs. And since it was a foregone conclusion that we were going to win the war in Iraq, what sort of fools would lie to the world about the existence of WMD's? To impute that sort of stupidity to the Bush administration is the work of a less-than-clear-sighted person.

Why, then, did we invade Saddam's Iraq? Here's a short (and incomplete) list of reasons:

1. we believed that it was in possession of significant stockpiles of chemical weapons;

2. we believed that it was advancing towards possession of nuclear weapons;
3. we were concerned that it might surreptitiously pass chemical weapons and/or nuclear materials to terrorists;
4. we were concerned about the continuing threat that it posed to its neighbors (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, Israel);
5. we wanted to establish a new front line in the war on terror, after having trenched the Taliban and crushed al-Qaeda in Afghanistan;
6. we understood that helping to bring into existence a democratic state in Iraq could only redound to the good of the entire muslim Middle East (by bringing pressure on the autocratic regimes in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia).
   

Any reasonably intelligent citizen of the U.S. who is incapable of producing such a list of reasons for herself or himself is unlikely to prove useful as a combatant in the war on radical islamic ideology and its terrorist spawn.

I should have added biological weapons, too, of course.

Noah D makes an excellent point.

Saddam had been engaged in a long term game of brinksmanship with those who he agreed to terms with following his expulsion from Kuwait.

His behavior all along has been to violate terms and flaunt these actions in the face of the UN and the members of the former coalition.

He had been careful to keep his violations behind an imagined threshold that the civilized nations would likely require him to cross in order for them to gather the political will to mobilize against him.

His ongoing public defiance of the terms to which he had agreed gained him prestige with other declared ememies of the non-appeasing developed world.

He sought to and was sucessfull in increasing his influence among the appeasers and fence sitters through bribery, sweetheart deals, and who knows what else.

He was at the same time lobbying for the complete removal of sanctions which he had already been sucessfully circumventing as well as laying the ground work for a restart of his weapons programs.

In short, he was gaming the system.

The very fact that he intentionally clouded the issue of the disposal of previously acknowledged stores would lead the prudent decision maker to presume that until otherwise verified, the stores should be considered to exist.

I believe that it is important for all of Saddam's apologists to remind themselves that under the terms to which he agreed the burden was on him to prove by independantly verifiable action that he no longer was a threat, not on us to take his word for it.

President Bush decided that in view of the events of 9/11, to continue to allow the sanctions to unravel and Saddam to potentially enhance his unbridled capacity for causing grievious harm to others, was not a risk we could afford to take.

Again, the apologists and appeasers should remind themselves that historically speaking, the number one responsibility and duty of the federal government is to provide for the common defense of the states.

It is easy to spout off on these topics when you are not the one who will untimately be held responsible for protecting the lives of millions of American citizens.

"Iran needs to be stopped and thanks to Bush it’s going to be harder and bloodier than it had to be."

WOW!!!!!!

I can see why you liberals are so emphatic about getting funding for embryonic stem cell research. You pine for this research to provide you with the ever-illusive LOGIC GENE you’re so desperately in search of.

Kerry seems to have an almost religious faith in the UN.

So perhaps that is Kerry's real religion: UN-ism.

As in the past, the US has the benefit of having two vast oceans separating her from potential enemies. Israel is surrounded by potential enemies, and currently within range of Iranian missiles (purchased from North Korea).

For logistical and practical reasons, I believe that Iran would target Israel first, and then the US later. A leading Iranian mullah recently proclaimed that Iran was willing to tolerate million deaths in order to eliminate Israel once and for all. http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm Need I say more?

"Twisting the arms of the governments supporting Wahabbism (again, NOT Iraq) by pulling out of the Mid-East oil market over the next 10 years." - moebius

The day I see people like moebius stop driving their cars, using 80% less energy in their homes, recycling 100% of all metals/plastics and using their current computers and TVs for next 20 years is the day we no longer need to rely on oil from the Middle East. In other words, not likely.

"I have no doubt that Israel knows where the important bits are and can take them out with a few hours notice." - salvage

How can you have no doubt? What if Iran has successfully "mirrored" its nuclear program in facilities above-the-ground and below ground? What if these underground facilities are buried 100s of meters beneath the ground behind 10 meters of concrete, steel and lead? Not even our bunker-busters can go more than a few meters underground.

In February 2003, did you have any doubt that Saddam Hussein had completely dismantled his unconventional weapons programs in 1995? Or did you have the benefit of hindsight?

orady:
====================
"Fench sitters"; that's all we need to know right there. After 9/11 there should have been at least some direction on your moral compass...
====================

By "fence sitters" I was referring to the foreign countries, particularly in the Mid-East. I don't expect you to understand that. Even the Middle East was generally supportive of our effort in Afghanistan, less the wackos who thought it was Israel that did 9/11.

But Iraq...

Bill,

----------------------------
So the suicide Bombers in Israel and Al Qaeda camp in N Iraq aren't terrorists?
----------------------------

We invaded Iraq to take out a single POTENTIALLY Al Qaeda AFFILLIATED camp, established not by the Iraqi government but by a terrorist group, located in OUR "no fly zone," based on information provided to us by the Kurds (who had a vested interest in getting us Iraq in the first place)? Even if it's true, we weren't capable of doing that with Special Forces and smart bombs? It's yet another ad hoc "aluminum tube" justification for invading Iraq.

Hardly Afghanistan.

------------------------
Read the Duelfer report
-----------------------

Fine, read the pertinent section. A year to get chemical weapons...ASSUMING the Iraqis tried to restart in 2003.

Again, hardly the immediate "clear and present danger" we were sold on, because:

1. Iraq re-starting depended heavily on the sanctions being lifted.
2. Diligent exposure of Oil for Food, or of Saddam's effort to restart his program, may have been enough to get the sanctions back on track. We'll never know now.
3. Even ASSUMING the sanctions were lifted or Saddam started reconstituting, that STILL would give us a year to deal with it.
4. Diligent weapons inspections by UN/US forces, a real possibility in the run up to war, COULD have confirmed that there was no stockpile AND that they were trying to evade sanctions (a big black eye for France and China). Again, we'll never know, because we didn't try.

----------------------------------
As far as your WWII analogies go, it's a completely unrelated analogy. Bush's approach is strategic, much more abstract - an attempt to remake the societies that foster the problem.
-----------------------------------

Not my analogy. Merely debunking someone who 1) had no clue about World War II (by assuming that there were no Japanese in the Solomons before we got there, and no Nazis in North Africa) or 2) assumed Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq.

But I'll take your last point..."societies that foster the problem." Which societies foster the problem? Pakistan, a nuclear power who put the Taliban in power and whose security service is rooting for Osama? Saudi Arabia, who funds the problem through it's wink wink support for Wahabbist clerics? Iran, a nuclear power who it looks like was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda and letting the Taliban hang out in their mountains?

So how do we fix these societies? Invade them? Because that's where the problem is, and invading Iraq ISN'T going to make the Saudis shape up...because they know they're safe.

--------------------------------
the concept of shifting the economy off of oil within a decade is a fantasy
-------------------------------

First of all, it's not "shifting the economy off oil," it's shifting the economy off Mid-East oil. That's a damn big distinction. Whether that means China and India pick up the slack is debatable. But it is in our best interests not to be the convenient scapegoat for bad governance in the Arab world, and that means we have to stop enabling those governments by plying them with oil and guns.

Second of all, we're the greatest military, economic, and scientific power in the history of the world. If it's possible at all, if we make a concious decision to do it, if we make it a worldwide effort (brining in net oil importers like Japan) and if we're willing to invest the resources, we'll get it done. A Manhattan Project for our generation.

Ann Observer wrote:
Since when is it wise for a government engaged in a war to announce each and every one of its intentions publicly?

Funny thing. As I write this and read your comment, the History Channel has another documentary on Operation Overlord. (More exact: "Clash of Warriors" episode featuring Eisenhower vs Von Runstedt.)

Can you say "First US Army Group"?

Kerry wants to outsource our security to the UN. The UN probably does more to undermine security than help it, for it often gives cover and legitimacy to dictators and tyrants. Its bureacracy is corrupt, and perhaps the worst problem about the UN is that so many people buy into the utopian illusion that it is the solution to all of our problems. Thus, the UN often prevents real corrective action from being taken, serving as an illusory substitute.

Yet Kerry trusts the UN more than the US, more than the US military.

Corner an animal and it will bite. You libs seem to think that the terrorists are willing to negotiate. Yes, Iran is a terrorist state and to think otherwise is foolish. They are already cornered and fighting, due to the fact that their ideology is at direct odds with that of the west. We cannot talk them (terrorists and regimes) down, so we must take them out or cause change from within. I would argue that taking Iran out would be more difficult than changing them from within. The people of Iran understand what is before them, a chance to change their country for the better. The intelligentsia of Iran has seen the fruits of democracy and the importance of being a part of the world market. Unfortunately the hurdle is the Iranian regime itself. Could the U.S. propagate such a change without Iraq being free, I would say NO. Iraq is part of the strategy to bring change in the Middle East. I remind you, this change is necessary for our safety from the evils that are born there. Will our actions bring more terror enlistment, Yes. But this is a short-term problem. Freedom would lift these people out of the oppressive desperation that causes them to seek heaven through the act of martyrdom. Most of the terrorists are not ideologues; they are simple-minded people so desperate for a better life that they will follow anyone’s lead or order.
To sit back and negotiate through the U.N. would allow these countries to continue to suppress their populations, thus enabling the spread desperation. Much like communism, Islamic fundamentalism will spread with our without U.S. verbal opposition. Much like communism, Islamic fundamentalism can be stopped by decisive action. We have slowed it down and like the Pres. says, "We are on the March".

moebius -

First of all, it's not "shifting the economy off oil," it's shifting the economy off Mid-East oil. That's a damn big distinction.

The oil market is not tied to selective geography - this is a myth. It's nearly impossible to select certain regional oil; it runs against the way the market is set up.

Which societies foster the problem?

All of them. The domino theory didn't work for the Soviets, but it worked for Democracy, because when people taste freedom they don't want to go back. Wolfowitz has born this theory out under two previous administrations, in two other parts of the world.

Again, hardly the immediate "clear and present danger" we were sold on

A falsehood. Bush specifically stated that the threat was not imminent. It was merely time to deal with it before it became more pressing, when Iraq had provided such casus belli in the past 12 years. Because iraq was emerging from the sanctions and the no-fly paradigm and oil-for-food was unsustainable, it was now-or-never.

You might be surprised about the concept that a third Clinton Admin might have been forced to make the same choices.

We invaded Iraq to take out a single POTENTIALLY Al Qaeda AFFILLIATED camp, established not by the Iraqi government but by a terrorist group, located in OUR "no fly zone," based on information provided to us by the Kurds (who had a vested interest in getting us Iraq in the first place)?

No taht's not why we invaded Iraq, I was just pointing out a clear example of terrorism that wasn't based in Afghanistan. Many Al Qaeda operatives moved in-and-out of Iraq freely. It was a safe-haven. Also, the info about Ansar being connected to foreign terror was not just provided by the Kurds:

Human Rights Watch:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm

Green berets:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041018/usnews/18excerpt.htm?track=rss

And invading Iraq to get Ansar al Islam isn't nearly the whole of it. See also this:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Start with that and we'll talk. Hunting terrorists is a tactical, unwinnable solution to a strategic problem. You have to either

A. invest in the success of these societies, with an initial military application to kickstart the installation of Democracy

B. Almsot completely disengage from the region

B isn't going to happen, so ...

James C.

---------------------
The day I see people like moebius stop driving their cars
----------------------

I don't own a car. I haven't even driven a car in three years. I live in an urban area with good mass transit.

------------------------------
using 80% less energy in their homes
----------------------------

You know an awful lot about energy consumption in my house. Ever been over? Then shut the hell up. I'M not part of the demographic likely to buy an SUV.

----------------------------
recycling 100% of all metals/plastics and using their current computers and TVs for next 20 years
----------------------------

Looked in my recycle bin, lately, have you? Again, an ad hominem attack with no basis in fact.

The truth is, for the last eight years I've lived in a country (Germany) or American cities with incredibly progressive recycling programs.

Who are the main offenders when it comes to energy consumption per-capita? Why, according to the Department of Energy's last available Multi-State comparison (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_multi_states.html) it's:

1. Alaska
2. Louisiana
3. Wyoming
4. Montana
5. North Dakota
6. Texas
7. Kentucky
8. Indiana
9. Alabama
10. Maine

Notice anything about those 10? Well, the top 9 are Red states, for one thing. My last two states of residence? Bottom 10. Even if you just cut it as "Petroleum consumption," the bias is towards states with large populations.

So look in the damn mirror. The Left has CONSISTENTLY been more environmentally conscious than the Right, INCLUDING the issue of oil consumption.

-------------------------
Start with that and we'll talk.
-------------------------

Look for a post in about six hours.

REMEMBER: The West and Israel were completely blindsided by both scope and scale of the buried secret Libyan nuclear WMD program. It is becoming more clear this was a proxy Iraqi program among Baathist sycophants in the region. Iraq had the scientists from the 1980s; Syria, Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis were along for the ride. Fear Iran might trump them with strategic nukes provided the central unifying onus. Such was indeed a reasonable fear.

POINT: Bush's Iraq invasion CAUSED the Libyan unilateral abandonment of this program. This unilateral disarmament took weeks, not years as was the case with Saddam.

It is not a stretch to consider that such a totally effective secret program would still cause ripples and rumbles that would look like a clandestine illegal program that would point suspicion at Iraq. Nor is it impossible to consider Saddam deliberately behaved so as to obfuscate the Libyan identity of the program by using Iraq to secure the deception.

Today, if my readings are correct, there are 18 active regional military conflicts which ring the "geographic muslim continuum."

We are facing a system of conflicts. They have multiple and conflicting champions, and multiple loci of protagonistic operating centers and sponsorship.

The linear legalisms of the DNC and Kerry are intellectually unfit to address multi-variate complex systems that are more a matter of biologic than logic. To hear Kerry opine about these dynamic problems provides a case study of reductionism pathologically manifesting rhetorical form and presenting as a clinical thought disorder.

Worse, Kerry's winky-tinky logic synergizes his narcissism. I have seldom observed such unbridled Hubris and duplicity in a highly-placed public official.

The DNC has said it will do "whatever it takes" to win this election.

Kerry pronounced after Osama's last video that he would do "whatever it takes" to kill Bin Laden.

I wonder. These rogue soldiers at Abu Ghraib. Were they Democrats too?

I wonder. These rogue soldiers at Abu Ghraib. Were they Democrats too?

I don't understand what your comment is supposed to imply.

my one and only question about all of this....why....oh why.....do the left think that the only terrorists in the world are al-Quada?

mobius--I'm sure you have a 100-meter windmill in your backyard, generating electricity for your 10 square meter home. And you've always used mass transit your whole life, except for the time you built your solar-powered vehicle out of metal can and wire hangers. And you're always careful to recycle those NiCad batteries in your 15-year old laptop computer.

I live within a hair's breath of Berkeley, Marin County and San Francisco, and virtually every liberal here drives an SUV (imported or non-union built, of course), uses disposable plastic products, lives in an all-white neighborhood, hires illegal aliens to cut their lawns and clear their houses, and sends their one child to a whites-only school (usually private).

White liberals like you are "do as I say, not as I do." So that's why I don't believe a word of what you say.

You are white, aren't you? Hypocrite...

got a call from the Kerry campaign in Virginia asking me for my vote, along with a vote for Jim Moran (a known wife beater). I let her have it and it felt SOO good!

Sorry Bill. That was a bit recondite.

I weary with the hyperbolic claims of Kerry and DNC lawyer-pundits about "doing everything it takes" with their vitriolic posturing to "stop at nothing" to win the war on terror and kill or capture Bin Laden.

I've been darkly amused by their implication that anything goes when they're in charge -- that they will be unrestrained and uninhibited in "getting the job done."

So, I just couldn't resist torquing it a knotch or two into the ridiculous. Somehow hearing the Ivy League Rambo roar of his primal certainty to do whatever it takes, I thought: "War Crimes? ... Really? ... Wow.. How about them down and dirty Democrats."

And then the idiocy of it became clear: Abu Ghraib. Uninhibited. Unrestrained. Bad-ass. Making things happen. How could I help but wonder: "Hmmm... were they Democrats too?"

Re: Iran - I will NEVER allow us to go back to the days of back-alley abortions! I will ALWAYS protect a woman's right to choose!

[sarcasm]

James,

What I love about this is the "all bad things go together" rhetoric that I've seen too many times here (liberals do it too in their forums, to be fair to the reasonable people on this board). Not only are liberals anti-environmental baby-killing Nazi Communist traitors, but we routinely express racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic views. When we're not pushing for the dissolution of traditional Western society so we can engage in an orgy of self-destructive hedonism, of course.

It's amazing that we can find time for our daily lives at all; you can't imagine how hard it was for me to refrain from kicking animals on the way into work this morning.

Your argument amounts to calling me a liar. Becaue I'm a white liberal and "White liberals like you" are always hypocrites? That's the sort of weak.

Nice use of the race card, by the way. Would I be less of a liar if I were an Asian liberal?

----------------------------------
virtually every liberal here drives an SUV (imported or non-union built, of course)
-----------------------------------
I'd like to see you provide some statistics on differential rates of SUV ownership by political affiliation, to counteract the conventional wisdom. I'd also like you to show me some Conservative support for banning SUVs in California (a typical "totalitarian" Leftist position in that state).

Personally, I'm surprised that "virtually every liberal" in the East Bay or SF can AFFORD an SUV, let alone drive one on the city's crappy-ass streets. Hmm...I also noticed you use "every liberal" and "white liberal" interchangably. Are there no non-white Liberals in the Bay? If there are, do they too "virtually all" drive SUVS?

-----------------------------------
uses disposable plastic products
----------------------------------
Again, rather surprised that liberals allow you in their homes, since you're busy calling them all liars and hypocrites. Maybe you go through their trash?

-----------------------------------
lives in an all-white neighborhood,
-----------------------------------
So do we let non-white liberals live in all-white neighborhoods, as well?

Managing to pack all the white liberals in the bay into all-white neighborhoods would be pretty tough, assuming some white liberals live in Berkeley, SF, or Oakland.

My old stomping ground is the corner of Shattuck and Alcatraz, on the Berkeley/Oakland border. Go visit sometime, and report back on the demography. My current neighborhood is in East Cambridge and heavily Portuguese, Chinese, and Brazilian (lots of young families, recent immigrants, and graduate students).

But I'm lying, right?

---------------------------------
hires illegal aliens to cut their lawns and clean their houses
---------------------------------
I don't have a lawn (nor do most people in Cambridge) or surely I'd be trying to hire illegal aliens to care for it as we speak.

And I didn't realize that hiring illegal immigrants to do work no one else wants to do is hypocritical; you'd think Republicans would be for it, considering they were trying to get them all denied government services 10 years ago based on the argument that they're all "hopeless welfare sponges."

Ahh, good old Prop 187. Would you rather I hire based on California Republican Party principles? You know: "Two million immigrants. Two million unemployed."

Another thing...again with the veiled racism. "Virtually all liberals" means "virtually all white liberals" in your attack. Considering Alameda county (to use an example we're both familiar with) is minority white but majority Democrat, what you're suggesting is almost assuredly statistically impossible.

----------------------------------
and sends their one child to a whites-only school (usually private).
---------------------------------
White Liberals have a one-child policy? And they go to "whites-only" private schools? What is this, the 1950s? I would think that white liberals would want to at least play act at multi-culturalism (in a controlled environment, of course) by hanging out with some "token" rich minority friends before they send their children off to Andover and Yale. You know...to build street cred.

Once again, your argumentation rests on ad hominem attacks, which are all the more ridiculous because you don't know anything about me and it looks like they are based on a thinly-veiled racial stereotype. Really, it sounds like you know met a "White Liberal" once that you didn't like, and you're extrapolating.

And you can't even accurately stereotype East Bay liberals, which I find hilarious.

[/sarcasm]

Is Moebius an Amherst graduate or a State Department reject? From his rantings I cannot discern any degree of logic nor rational thought. Surely he is either one or the other.

I wish Bush would have said we're invading Iraq to take out Saddam because

A) he's an evil bastard
B) the evil bastards of the world need to see that the US and others will back a threat of force with force, unlike the marrowless UN leadership and the majority of that body's members

Same result, correct rationale.

moebius,

I think you're dealing with James all wrong here. Let's see, he says he lives "within a hair's breath of Berkeley, Marin County and San Francisco". First, James, it's breadth, not breath. Second, if that's true, he must live (gasp!) under either the Golden Gate or the Bay bridge. And we all know who lives under bridges right? Maybe that's why he hates all those SUV drivers; the exhaust fumes bother him. And as for why he thinks they're liberals, well, who knows. Maybe he lines his bedding with copies of the Weekly Standard that people throw out their windows into the bay.

I've must have hit a raw nerve with moebius. Meaning, everything I've said about him--he's a typical white liberal hypocrite from Berkeley and/or Cambridge--is true!

One day while in Berkeley or Cambridge, just go into town and open your eyes. Stand on the corner of the street. The white liberals can't tolerate being outnumbered Asians. That's why there are anti-Asian quotas at UC Berkeley, Harvard, and the public schools (re: "affirmative action")! Try to spin your way out of that, liberal white hypocrite.

You know I've got you pegged...because the stereotype of the liberal white hypocrite is true! I'll bet you used to drive a non-union Honda or Toyota. Or is it sitting in your garage?

James -

Some of your broader points about white rich liberal hypocrisy may have basis in fact, but how can you assume that the strangers that you're talking at embody that claim?

You're irresponsibly casual and strident with the accusation.

James,

You're:

1) Baiting me; or
2) Certifiable

---------------------------------
One day while in Berkeley or Cambridge, just go into town and open your eyes. Stand on the corner of the street. The white liberals can't tolerate being outnumbered by Asians.
--------------------------------

I wonder if any of the more reasonable members of this board are cringing at your rather blatant racism. Maybe if it were Al Sharpton saying this...

Personally, I don't go through the day thinking about ways to keep the API community down. But again...I'm just a lying "white" liberal, so you can't trust a word I say. Or can you???

----------------------------------
That's why there are anti-Asian quotas at UC Berkeley, Harvard, and the public schools (re: "affirmative action")! Try to spin your way out of that, liberal white hypocrite!
-----------------------------------

Those wacky white liberals, going out of their way to take college slots away from themselves, just so they can make sure they screw the Asians...

Which is probably why a majority (61%, to be exact) of Asian voters in California were AGAINST Proposition 209 (the referendum ending Affirmative Action) in 1996. See this article by Girardeau Spann in the Duke Law Journal if you don't believe me. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/DLJ47P187.HTM

Must have been false consciousness, or something. Maybe swamp gas.

I don't go to Harvard, nor do I keep track of the politics (I doubt you do either, frankly), so I won't speak to the goings on there.

-----------------------------
I'll bet you used to drive a non-union Honda or Toyota. Or is it sitting in your garage?
-----------------------------

Sorry...don't own a car. Never have. Lifestyle choice due to occuptional mobility. Don't have a garage either, but rather an apartment (so no illegal immigrants trimming the hedge sculptures on the lawn while I sip julips, I'm afraid).

I would hope the moderator would stop this before you hurt yourself, but it must seem rather entertaining to the outside observer.

I'll take a look at the articles you mentioned in the morning Bill, and hopefully we can continue the conversation we were having earlier.

Yeah, it's interesting.

whew, i need a drink after reading that.

no stress around here.

i think the avalanche take it this year.

hey bill, next time you are in reno let me know. there's a beer in it for ya.

Moebius, I know your type. You say one thing, do another. Typical white liberal hypocrite.

I don't believe that a dope named Girardeau Spann from Duke has a clue about prop 209 and how Asian-Americans in CA feel racial quotas that limit their numbers in college and public school. Girardeau--with that name, he must be one of those sensitive white liberals who sing Kumbaya on Sundays, and that makes him qualified to set racial quotas in CA. Hasn't shown up here at all.

(Slaps forehead)

The Spann paper is there as nothing more than support for the fact (indisputable, for reasonable people) that a majority of Asian Americans voted against Proposition 209. So did a majority of everyone...except white males (despite being a white male, I voted against). You can call me anything you want, but I think you may have sorely underestimated the degree of API solidarity on Affirmative Action.

And might I remind you that this is the third straight post where you've made my being "white" a factor in my behavior. Which makes you look really, really bad.

------------------------
Girardeau--with that name
------------------------
Now you're judging people based on their NAME? Ooooh...doesn't it sound FRENCH to you?

---------------------------
One day while in Berkeley or Cambridge, just go into town and open your eyes. Stand on the corner of the street. The white liberals can't tolerate being outnumbered Asians.
----------------------------

Let me rephrase this as a comment one could see being made by Al Sharpton, and see if you "get" it:

"One day while in Oakland or Jamaica Plain, just go into town and open your eyes. Stand on the corner of the street. The Jews can't tolerate being outnumbered [by] Blacks."

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it?

Racism, in any form, is unacceptable. I don't like it when I see it from supporters or politicians of the Republican Party (and I do). I don't like it when I see it from supporters or politicians of the Democratic Party (and I do).

The operative term is "white liberal". That says it all...

For the mathematical:

"White liberal" = hypocrite