Funny, since Nixon I've thought the best Libertarian outcome is the reverse: Dem President, Rep Congress -- the Congress really DOES have the purse-strings.
Usually better to be split; but Dem president, until they have a reasonable (agreeable?) solution to terrorism is too scary. Crony capitalism can, at least, be undone after some mostly econ damage.

Michael,

You fell for Matthew's classic strawman. He states that the right sees the left as intentionally supporting Saddam and wanting an American city destroyed. He implies that the right is nuts for thinking that about the left.

But that is not what the right thinks. The right sees the left as having greater trust in multinational organizations than in American sovereignty. The problem with American sovereignty as the left sees it is that Americans sometimes give into their primitive impulses and vote for Republicans. The left trusts Annan, Chirac and Putin more than they trust Bush.

The left's position on the war was determined by the transnational socialist crowd. They fear an independent sovereign prosperous free-market America more than they fear Saddam. Some think capitalism causes black-lung (you know who I'm talking about). They want America to be subordinate to the UN. They think patriotism is a four-letter word and only use it as an insult. They think that the problem with Nazi style national-socialism was the nationalism rather than the socialism. They don't understand that the pathological nature of German nationalism was a manifestation of the failure of socialism. Fascism is the evolutionary descendent of marxism. They don't understand that American-style patriotism is rationally based on the ideals found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, in contrast to traditional, emotional European-style ethnic nationalism.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

And who the hell is Matthew to think that lefties are the only ones who care about the poor? I don't think the left doesn't care about the poor. Its just that their socialist policies manufacture and distribute poverty and they're too stupid to understand this. I just think they analyze problems emotionally rather than rationally and therefore draw the wrong conclusions.

The left is all tree and no forest. And then they wonder why the forest is burning.

Michael,

I think your response misses an important point. We conservatives have been hit with this kind of rhetoric for a while-- though that hasn't kept us from doing it ourselves from time to time.

Bad policy can come from good people, and good policy from bad people. I just wrapped up an epic, hours-long argument last night about our Founding Fathers-- which boiled down to a variation on the same theme. I got an earful of "white male slave-owners" as if the greatest experiment in liberty in history is irretrievably ruined because our leaders lacked sufficient piety to moral standards of two hundred years later. These kinds of arguments always seem to break down because it becomes about "who is right" (intractable) versus "what is right" (debatable).

Our political process is designed to eventually lead to policy formulation. Those policies often have a significant impact on people's lives. So ultimately, it's all about making sure that impact is as positive as possible. I'd love to have Good Wholesome people running the show, but if a gang of Vicious Bastards raise America's standard of living, improve our freedom, and secure us from our enemies, then they'll do just fine.

There's all kinds of reasons that two people might disagree. I may not like the goals of your policy. You may not agree that the policy I offer will achieve goals we mutually value. Perhaps your policy will have other, tangential effects that I find undesirable. Or perhaps I simply believe that you lack the ability to execute a policy that we both agree on.

If I thought that Matthew was a closet fascist, sure, that would be a great reason to oppose him. But that's hardly necessary. During the runup to the war, someone attempted to show that Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Hitler. OK, that's true, but who cares? Is Hitler the minimum standard of evil now? Or is it difficult to accept that one needn't epitomize evil to be evil. Or, even more to the point, one needn't be evil to be a threat. It would be easy to conceive of a foreign nation being a threat, while still having a fundamentally good leadership.

The problem with the anti-war Left is that for them, foreign policy has become completely TV-itized. You know, if Matthew were a closet fascist, that would be the least important reason for being pro-war. I'm not in this game because I'm out to get Matthew Yglesias. I'm trying to find and enact the collection of policies 1) least likely to do harm and 2) most likely to do good. In that order.

Demonizing your opponents is useful tactically, in that they might lose an election or have trouble acquiring allies in office to enact their agenda. But it has zero bearing on the "decide what my goals are" phase of policy-making.

Which is where we get to the debate over the war. The anti-war crowd, for all their activism on the policy-advocacy side, were almost completely MIA when it came to policy-formulation. I waited, in vain, for someone on that side to advance a calculation of our national interest, and a strategy to achieve it.

Frustrated hawks fought a guerrilla war against an opponent we couldn't see, couldn't talk to, and couldn't confront. The anti-war crowd didn't have a discernable geopolitical strategy, just an enemies list. The closest they came was saying that terrorism was due to American policies-- in effect, that we provoked our enemies to attack us. But to be honest, that was more something I distilled from their position than something stated forthrightly-- they resisted every inducement to put forth an alternative perspective.

The problem with demonizing your opponents is that they usually aren't demons. I've no doubt that most of the anti-War movement are good people who want a more peaceful, prosperous world for everyone. I don't really know if Matthew realizes that we hawks want that, too.

Michael,
It seems that you are saying that whoever the Dems run for congress they will get your vote.
Shouldn't you wait to see who is running first?
Would you vote for the Torch or someone as corrupt as he was just because they are Dems?
Does the word Lemming have any meaning?
I do not mean that in a nasty way but I do think that who you vote for is as important as what party that are part of.

Michael-

As a former reader of Matt Y., I feel it necessary to point out just how intellectually dishonest he has been with regards to Iraq and the war. Matt has always been a Bush-hater first, so to try to ascribe deep reflection to his position regarding Iraq and the war is done only at the utmost peril.

Prior to the war, one of his primary objections to such a war was his stated fear that the President and his administration would not have the will to follow through with the necessary resources to rebuild Iraq and provide the Iraqi people with the tools to secure their own future.

That was, of course, a legitimate concern. However, when the time came to support the passage of the $87 billion in aid, Matt's response was a simple "I don't think the American people will support it." End of discussion.

And no support.

Why? Because to support the $87 billion would have required him to support President Bush, and in Matt's blighted world, nothing matters more than defeating George W. Bush in 2004. NOTHING.

So, on that basis, what is important is not the health, welfare and safety of the Iraqi people or Coalition troops, it is making President Bush look bad or incompetent or foolish. What really matters is not the success of defeating tyranny and spreading democracy, it is making sure a Democrat gets to sleep in the White House in '04.

His 'position' would be stupid-funny under less serious circumstances.

Look again in the mirror, focusing this time on your hairline and that little space next to your eyes that gets wrinkly when you squint. There's no easy way to say this, but . . . you're getting old. I am too.

Oh, yeah. I really have to rethink my newfound disgust with the left... it's just that I'm getting so old. I mean, once you hit 21, it all just heads downhill.

Need I add that Matt Y.'s attitude is one of the primary reasons that many thoughtful, principled liberals are running away from the Democratic Party as quickly as they can?

If Y. really wants to keep people like Roger L. Simon in the fold, he needs to approach the world a bit more seriously.

I am ashamed by those who demonstrated against removal of the Taliban regime, who suddenly became very concerned about the possibility of a stray US bomb killing even ONE Afghan when for years they had shown complete indifference to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who had died of starvation and illness due to Taliban's indifference to the population needs, those who were stoned, beheaded or beaten to bloody pulp for the crime of wearing white socks (white as the Taleban flag), to the masscres of Hazara at Mazar, Herat, Bamiyan and dozens more in smaller locations.

Idem for Irak. Conspicuouly absent in the leaflets of the "left" was the notion that a US invasion (like in the case of Afghanistan) would PREVENT a number of killings, rapes and tortures, that it would SPARE Iraqui lives. But nooo, they continued screaming about the "No war for oil, Bush lied" and similar. And even if the motives of the US were not so pure (a thing to be demonstrated) did they really think that the guy who is being tortured, whose daughter is being raped or who is scheduled for a horrible death would care of being saved by US soldiers? In name of what they dare to oppose to his rescue?

The most repugnant thing in present "left" is that they are ready to have millions of Iraquis, Afghans or Zimbabweans be tortured and killed in order a few Berkeleyites can feel good.

"It seems that you are saying that whoever the Dems run for congress they will get your vote.
Shouldn't you wait to see who is running first?"

In Congressional elections, it makes no sense to vote for the person running, as opposed to the party. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is which party you want to have majority control. The majority party has absolute control over what bills are voted on in committee and on the floor in the House, and to a great extent in the Senate. If you're a Republican, and it's a contest between David Duke and Zell Miller, you would be CRAZY not to vote for Duke. (OK, maybe I exagerate a bit here, but only slightly.)

And even if the motives of the US were not so pure (a thing to be demonstrated) did they really think that the guy who is being tortured, whose daughter is being raped or who is scheduled for a horrible death would care of being saved by US soldiers? In name of what they dare to oppose to his rescue?

I agree -- but let's turn that around, shall we? Crime was rampant for months after the fall of Baghdad, and is still a widespread problem: hundreds, perhaps thousands, of murders, rapes, carjackings, and kidnappings. How much comfort is it to those victims to say, "Hey, at least it wasn't Saddam who did it?"

That, I think, should limit our self-congratulation on removing Saddam. I also think we should refrain from patting ourselves on the back too hard until we really have established a free, democratic government there.

If there's an Islamic dictatorship in Iraq in a couple of years (and the Shia clerics have mostly stayed on the sidelines the past 6 months because they believe that will happen once the U.S. leaves), with someone else manning the torture chambers, the cheers for having removed Saddam will ring hollow.

Michael,

Do you support leaving the following autocrats in place?

1. Kim Jong-Il
2. Karimov
3. Kabila
4. Musharref
5. Asad
6. Mubarak
7. Khameini
8. King Fahd

Of course, the answer is, each case is different. In a perfect world, none of these assholes would be in power, but we need to be pragmatic about what we can accomplish. If I said to you that we need to invade N. Korea right now, and you said, "hold on a second, buddy," and I said "So you want Kim Jong-Il to remain in power?" you'd be pissed.

See how unfair this line of reasoning is?

Swopa syas: I agree -- but let's turn that around, shall we? Crime was rampant for months after the fall of Baghdad, and is still a widespread problem: hundreds, perhaps thousands, of murders, rapes, carjackings, and kidnappings. How much comfort is it to those victims to say, "Hey, at least it wasn't Saddam who did it?"

#1. Who is saying that? Herbert the Hawkish Strawman?

#2 You seem to imply that Saddam's totalitarian genocidal regime and the lawlessness that followed his downfall are somehow equivalently bad. Again, this strikes me as conservative, even ridiculously so. . . . That somehow the stability of the police state is preferable to the chaos ensuing from its demise. It's like saying that the Union shouldn't congratulate itself too much on ending slavery, because, well, "look at all the mayhem in the Reconstruction."

#3 I also think its perfectly fair to blame a great deal of post-Saddam crime on Saddam. After all, before he fell, he released from prison a huge number of criminals -- thieves, rapists, and murderers (along with any political prisoners he had not already tortured and killed).

Perhaps Yglesias should look in the mirror and ask himself if he actually believes the nonsense he spews about the president being a "total moron" when he's currently almost totally beating the pudding out of the Democrats and growing the economy at an astonishing rate.

"Ask yourself: Do you really believe that they opposed the Iraq War because they wanted Saddam Hussein to stay in power"

They opposed the war because they oppose Bush. It has nothing to do with Saddam. Saddam is but a mere footnote. If Bush were the CEO of a big pharmaceutical company, the left would oppose his efforts to find the cure to cancer and AIDS on the basis that his motive is out to make a profit.

"Perhaps Yglesias should look in the mirror and ask himself if he actually believes the nonsense he spews about the president being a "total moron" when he's currently almost totally beating the pudding out of the Democrats and growing the economy at an astonishing rate."

The problem with the left is they cannot consider a different point of view. I find it ironic, they'd call themselves liberals and progressives. Any view that is at odds with their leftist/religious dogma, they dismiss out of hand.

Praktike,

The very fact that it's not a perfect world makes asking "if X then why not Y?" an interesting but irrelevant exercise.

In the real and imperfect world, each case is and has to be evaluated on its own merits. A reasonable person should accept that Saddam combined such a spectacular collection of pyschopathic cruelty and bloodthirstiness, real stupidity in his actions, and demonstrable threats to the region that he had that category all to himself. You just can't lump them together.

Btw, you left Mugabe off your list.

JJ says: They opposed the war because they oppose Bush.

Herbert the Hawkish Strawman says: that's right. Anybody who was anti-invade-Iraq (like Brent Scrowcroft) was anti-invade-Iraq because they opposed Bush. They only pretended to actually debate the merits of invading Iraq. They always oppose Bush, like the way Howard Dean opposed going into Afghanistan to get Osama. Oh, Dean supported Bush there? My bad.

So your saying Bush isn't a Moron? Your deluding yourself...

praktite: If I said to you that we need to invade N. Korea right now, and you said, "hold on a second, buddy," and I said "So you want Kim Jong-Il to remain in power?" you'd be pissed.

Actually, no I wouldn't. I don't know if we should take out Kim Jong Il or not. It is entirely possible that the North could do too much damage to Seoul in a war. If that does turn out to the case, yes, I would say it is better to leave Kim Jong Il in power so he will not destroy Seoul. I would take full reponsibility for that position. And I would not dare, as anti-war activists do, to pretend to speak for the well-being of the North Korean people when I made that argument.

So, just to be clear, you're performing simple CBAs for each situation, Michael? If removing X does not make things for Y worse, then removing X is good.

Well, great. That's a position I'm willing to accept. Except -- so many things could have gone wrong, here. Had Saddam actually had the WMDs we thought he had, Haifa could have been glowing green glass right now. He could have chosen to lob a few cannisters of VX gas the Kurds' way as a sort of final "fuck you." Etc, etc, ad nauseum. I mean, delightfully, he didn't, but there was always the possibility that this would become a very different war than it actually became.

I don't think, in the end, that CBAs are all that useful when determining which rabid dictators get to continue tyrannizing their subjects, and which done, after all.

Praktike,

The very fact that it's not a perfect world makes asking "if X then why not Y?" an interesting but irrelevant exercise.

In the real and imperfect world, each case is and has to be evaluated on its own merits. A reasonable person should accept that Saddam combined such a spectacular collection of pyschopathic cruelty and bloodthirstiness, real stupidity in his actions, and demonstrable threats to the region that he had that category all to himself. You just can't lump them together.

Btw, you left Mugabe off your list.

Please that's a completely ridiculous analysis. By your metric the anti-warniks were well within their rights to evalute the Iraq war on its merits. And, sadly its clearly evident that our approach to this war was to cocksure. We had an opportunity to bring all of our resources to bear in effectively handling Saddam, though now it seems we are in no position to effectively rebuild Iraq. It was simply a matter of "timing", however its been obvious for months now that the decision to invade Iraq had been made long ago. To bad they weren't planning for the occupation while we were debating the merits of the War. It was simply a matter of "timing". We lost our opportunity to effectively get ride of Saddam because we were too "emotional", and credulous. But still we are too credulous.

Michael,

[O]pponents of the war (both left-wing and right-wing) did prefer a course of action that would have left Saddam in power.

Yes, but ONLY if the alternative was a unilateral invasion based on flawed premises, manipulations of intelligence, and a dangerous doctrine of preventive war. Why is this so hard to understand? As praktike mentioned, most people tacitly prefer a course of action which leaves in power numerous tyrants around the globe. Why? As you yourself point out, the cost-benefit analysis does not always favor a different course of action. I would say that the same cost-benefit analysis holds true for Iraq. While the liberation of the Iraqis is a laudable outcome, even administration officials admit that this, by itself, would have been insufficient grounds for the war (Wolfowitz' Vanity Fair interview). The probable costs and risks of the war were known in advance, and it was known that they would be considerable, both in terms of economic and political costs, to say nothing of American lives. What tipped the scales in favor of the invasion was the claim of WMDs and links to terrorism. I have seen nothing to support those claims. Therefore, I will and must hoist the administration upon it's own petard and say that the invasion was unjustified. This does not make me "soft on fascism," it makes me a concerned and rational american.

Markus,

I guess I have no sense then because I'm probably to the right of Limbaugh, and I think Coulter is great, and yet, I voted for a state representative who is a Democrat. Sure, he got lauded by the NRA and by a tax-cutting group, and all that, but a , gasp, choke, Democrat...

Ultimately, you can only accept so much compromise of your principles, and if the other side is right, then they are right.

And our Republican governor(Sundquist--boo!) wanted an income tax, and the Democratic replacement (Breesen--yea!!) is forcing the budget into order. There's another Democrat I'll vote for despite his being affiliated with That Party.

Picking up on Wolfowitz, his argument goes as follows:

a: Iraq has WMD
b: Iraq supports terrorism
c: Saddam treats his citizens in a criminal fashion.
d: invasion is justified.

Wolfowitz said:
If and only if a,b, and c are true, then d is true.

If a or b is false, then d is false.

Hence, by Wolfowitz's logic, the invasion is not justified.

It’s ironic the Bush increased the relevancy of the U.N. by actually enforcing its resolutions and ridding the world of a brutal dictator who had brazenly violated their organization and humanity. Eliminating a totalitarian genocidal regime that exported terrorism, tortured its citizens and hid WMD programs is still not bad enough to justify liberating Iraq for most of our “concerned and rational” Dems.

If you're a Republican, and it's a contest between David Duke and Zell Miller, you would be CRAZY not to vote for Duke. (OK, maybe I exagerate a bit here, but only slightly.)

Normally, voting in a primary ethically commits you to supporting the winner of that primary, in the same way that voting in an election commits you to supporting the government that is fairly elected.

HOWEVER, in extreme cases, this need not apply. And you are not committed to liking the outcome, or pretending that you do.

Yes, holding a majority in the House or Senate is crucial. But this can be taken too far. Given the choice described, I'd vote for Senator Miller in a heartbeat (fortunately, Duke has been a Democrat as well-- like many bigotted, extremist opportunists, his is a flag of convenience).

The quality of the man in office is critical. An effective Rep or Senator can bring great benefits (and not just pork) to his district. He can be a leader, sponsor and push through powerful bills, and earn the respect and cooperation of even his colleages on the other side. An ineffective legislator can (at times) be worse than useless.

Usually, the candidates meet a minimum standard of competence and character, so that voting the party line is appropriate. If you have complaints, you should have voted in the primary. However, it is certainly possible for a nincompoop to slip through: a crook or fool who would be a disservice to his constituent, country and party. I don't see anything wrong with switching then.

Some comments to other posters:

Tom Grey:
Dem president, until they have a reasonable (agreeable?) solution to terrorism is too scary.

Just what about the Democratic solution is so scary? Given that the Republican solution seems to be to launch massively expensive invasions of countries at best tangentially related to terrorism, methinks you shouldn't be calling the alternative scary.

HA,
He states that the right sees the left as intentionally supporting Saddam....But that is not what the right thinks.
Funny, seeing as you have accused me of treason on several occasions, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that that is exactly what you think. If you do not wish to give that perception, you mmight want to choose your words more carefully.

The right sees the left as having greater trust in multinational organizations than in American sovereignty.
I'd like to think I can have trust in both. You attempt to create a false dichotomy wherein one can only support American interests or the UN. Bullshit. The two are not incompatible, and can be mutually reinforcing. Had we engaged in actual diplomacy and received real, meaningful international support for an invasion, we might have more resources to confront other global threats, which would enhance our national sovereignty. What I do NOT trust is the current administration. Please do not confuse this with a lack of faith in America.

Rob:
The problem with the anti-war Left is that for them, foreign policy has become completely TV-itized....The anti-war crowd, for all their activism on the policy-advocacy side, were almost completely MIA when it came to policy-formulation.
It's nice that you think that one shouldn't demonize one's opponents, but merely portray them as intellectually challenged reactionaries out to score political points at the expense of our national interests. As for being MIA on policy-formulation, I'm baffled as to what you mean. As you specify the "anti-war crowd", I take it to mean you refer specifically to Iraq. The extremely dubious veracity of your assertion aside, it is simply not necessary to have a better solution to a problem in order to criticize someone else's. If a person is about to jump off of a bridge in despair over their situation in life, I would feel entirely comfortable in trying to talk them out of taking that plunge, even if I don't necessarily have the solutions to all of their problems. An alternative policy is only necessary if a change in policy must be made. This was not such a situation. Iraq was not an immediate threat to America, or even to it's neighbors. A decision could have been put off until a clearer picture of the nature of the threat emerged, and util a real coalition was assembled to deal with whatever threat was determined to exist. This war was rushed into to make use of the public fervor over terrorism, plain and simple.

Many posters have averred that the left disagrees with Bush's policies simply because they hate Bush. This is a confusion of cause and effect. We hate Bush because of his policies. The distinction is important.

d-rod,

It’s ironic the Bush increased the relevancy of the U.N. by actually enforcing its resolutions and ridding the world of a brutal dictator who had brazenly violated their organization and humanity. Eliminating a totalitarian genocidal regime that exported terrorism, tortured its citizens and hid WMD programs is still not bad enough to justify liberating Iraq for most of our “concerned and rational” Dems.

First of all, we were not enforcing UN resolutions. As it was a UN resolution, it falls to the UN, and the UN alone, to enforce it. Those who choose to take it upon themselves to enforce laws which they have no right to enforce are engaging in vigilantism. Had there been an obvious and immediate threat posed by Iraq, and this threat was being blatantly ignored by the UN, vigilantism of this sort might have some merit. But as the UN was still in the process of gauging the degree of the threat posed, to me that seems like taking it upon yourself to kill an accused murderer while the police are still investigating the crime. "Exported terrorism"? Paying the families of suicide bombers, while morally deficient, is hardly the same as exporting terror. This, along with your elision of WMDs and "WMD programs" is intellectually deficient.

I think your "concerned" pro-Saddam rationalizations are intellectually deficient as well as morally blind. You don't know much about the U.N., apparently. They have no ability to "enforce" their mostly sanctimonious resolutions by themselves, so it cannot be "up to them" to enforce it. The U.S. has played the necessary and thankless role of providing collective security in this world for years. Get a grip, man.

For 1/50th of the cost of invading Iraq, we could have permanently ended measles.

Is it fair for me to say, "That said, proponents of the war (both left-wing and right-wing) did prefer a course of action that will have allowed measles to kill 870,000 people this year."? When we do one thing, we have to give up other things.

For 1/50th of the cost of invading Iraq, we could have permanently ended measles.

Why can't we do both? 1/50th of the cost is damn cheap, if true.

For 1/50th the cost of eradicating measles we could have eradicated pacifist silliness. Pacifist silliness is far deadlier than measles: fifty million in WWII, two millions in Cambodia and so on.

Rob brings up an interesting point: "One needn't be evil to be a threat. It would be easy to conceive of a foreign nation being a threat, while still having a fundamentally good leadership."

So, lets consider France. Chirac might not by a Saddam, a Stalin, or a Hitler... but is France a threat? If it is, then what? Do we go to war against France? Do we try to bring down Chirac via the CIA? (mind you, I am not, necessarily, against going to war against France).

On another point of debate... maybe Saddam WAS as bad as Hitler and Stalin. I mean, by his own admission they are his role models.

And maybe Chirac is as bad as Saddam?

Discuss...

SWOPA wrote: "Let's turn that around, shall we? Crime was rampant for months after the fall of Baghdad, and is still a widespread problem: hundreds, perhaps thousands, of murders, rapes, carjackings, and kidnappings. How much comfort is it to those victims to say, "Hey, at least it wasn't Saddam who did it?"

Interesting point. But actually, I DO think there is some comfort in the "Hey at least it wasnt Saddam" line. Think about it this way... the previous 20 years of rape and murder was perpetrated by both one man and by the state (one in the same). Such that the horror was a personal assault by one man upon a nation. And a subject person could look forward to the continuation for (how long has Fidel been around) ever. And not only could you not hope to stop it, you couldnt even complain. Whereas today the violence is Iraqi upon Iraqi (excusing foregin Arabs and Muslim "volunteers"). The government, while appointed by us and perhaps completely impotent, is an outside authority of some fairness (of at least intent) to which you can complain. You can also get on TV now and complain to the world. The violence, while epedemic, is not systemec.

I also think we should refrain from patting ourselves on the back too hard until we really have established a free, democratic government there. If there's an Islamic dictatorship in Iraq in a couple of years (and the Shia clerics have mostly stayed on the sidelines the past 6 months because they believe that will happen once the U.S. leaves), with someone else manning the torture chambers, the cheers for having removed Saddam will ring hollow."

Well, I dont worry too much about this. It is silly to expect that we could ever "garantee" freedom and democracy to another nation. On the other hand we took oppression with out end and broke it on our knees. From this point on the ultimate fate of the Iraqis really rests with the Iraqis, not with us, even if we removed Saddam from power. If they put up or allow another Saddam to take power... well, at the very least the Left wont be able to cudgel us with "you put him in power".

d-rod: as someone who was better than 50% in favor of the war, I must tell you, Smokey's arguments are less "intellectually deficient" than your posts, which seem to appeal to emotion rather than reason and strict definition.

"Eliminating a totalitarian genocidal regime that exported terrorism, tortured its citizens and hid WMD programs"

The society Hussein ruled over was definately a totalitarian one, and he did torture his citizens. But he was not strictly genocidal: he did not try to systematically slaughter all Kurds or Shites, for instance. Neither is there evidence that he was exporting terrorism, except perhaps by paying the families of Palestinian terrorists. That would be legitimately be a matter of direct concern for Israel, but not the United States. Also, no WMD's.

Saadam was a real monster, and you shouldn't have to use inaccurate rhetoric to demonstrate that fact. Those in favor of the war should argue their viewpoint using the real reasons -- humanitarian, the opportunity for democracy building, the need to "hit somebody" after 9/11 --rather than false ones like WMD's and stopping terrorist networks.

The world is not and probably never will be this island of cooperation, peaceful dispute resolution and friendship some envision. Collective security is basically maintained by the usual means - armed force and balance of power, the positive power of which shouldn't be underestimated. Millions have been killed in genocide on this planet. Millions of others have been saved by preventative actions. Saddam’s forces shot at U.S. and British planes over 400 times last year. I'd say commercial production of suicide vests would count as exporting terror to anyone who is not morally deficient. The threat Saddam posed to security and stability in the Middle East region and the world struck me as real and growing.

Bush struck just the right note with the U.N., challenging them to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam brought this all on himself and his country, and yet Smokey wants to "blame" Bush or American arrogance or whatever to reverse and undermine Iraq's liberation. Puhleeese.

Off topic to Kimmett: Clinton was against signing the U.N.s Landmine Ban Treaty – does that mean he stood for the mutilation and killing of innocents?

"I'd say commercial production of suicide vests would count as exporting terror to anyone who is not morally deficient."

It's not a moral question at all, it is a tactical one. The point is that there was almost no danger to Americans from Iraqis wearing these vests prior to the invasion. Since then, this threat has increased exponentially. There is a strong argument to be made that Saadam was in a box just before the war, and that this was exactly where it should have been in our interest to keep him, even though it would have left the Iraqis worse off.

Marcus wrote: "[Saddam] was not strictly genocidal: he did not try to systematically slaughter all Kurds or Shites, for instance."

Im sorry, but you are wrong on this one. Webster's defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".

Saddam's genocide against troublesome ethnic groups is well documented. It included both destroying the physical habitat and the cultural signifiers of a people. He even destroyed racial names.

Saddam threatened the families of Kurds in Mosul and Kirkuk unless they signed new ID docs proclaiming themselves Arabs (he then had the gall to fine them for having lied about not being arabs in the Past). He also banned local religious festivals and the use of the Kurdish language. Then he used the new "majority status" of Arabs to excuse driving all others out of these cities. See the above definition.

Saddam drained the marshes upon which the Marsh Arabs have lived, which defined the patterns and forms of their lives for a thousand years. He created purposefull government policies to relocate these people among the inland tribes. And he forbade the use of words and phrases, and even family names, that defined this group. This was a diliberate attempt to destroy their cultural distinctness. See the above definition.

You could call this "ethnic cleansing". But Saddam's intent was not just to drive the Kurds accross the border, but in the case of the Marsh Arabs, for instance, it was actually to "destroy" them as a group. The thing to keep in mind is that it is not necessary to hunt down and murder every member of a genetic strain to have committed genocide.

Marcus wrote: "Neither is there evidence that he was exporting terrorism, except perhaps by paying the families of Palestinian terrorists. That would be legitimately be a matter of direct concern for Israel, but not the United States. Also, no WMD's."

Wrong. Saddam's connections to exporting terror are also well known. Not just with Palestinians (although isnt that enough)? But with his support for the first WTC attack and a planned assasignation of Bush The Elder (after he was no longer acting as President) in Kuwait (both documented here). And funding Baathist terror campaings in Iran and Syria. He is also linked to Ossama Bin Laden (I know everyone is practiced in denying this, but it is true nonetheless, also see here). And the WMD, although not yet in our custody were not even doubted by the French, by the UN, or by many Democrats before the war and the evidence for these programs remains substantial, no matter if all the hard evidence has been either moved to Syria or Iran or destroyed. And you still cant discount actual Iraqi humans who will gladly tell you what WMD programs they worked on, when and how. Can you?

"Herbert the Hawkish Strawman says: that's right. Anybody who was anti-invade-Iraq (like Brent Scrowcroft) was anti-invade-Iraq because they opposed Bush."

It's funny the whole argument is about how dishonest "liberals" and "progressives" are regarding this war, and yet you trot out a conservative to make a point? I am not saying there are no good arguments against the war. But the ones coming from the left are phony and dishonest.

Where are all the "peace" activists? Where are all the human sheilds now that Iraq civilians are really being targetted by terrorist bombings? What? Don't care anymore?

Praktike, Hawk, Smokey..

Excellent arguments.

I am so tired of this issue posed as the great dichotomy. While such thinking is elegant in its simplicity, it precludes exploration of middle positions.

And, if one were to do a "job progress report" on many of the assumptions given to us beforehand: flowers, short-term involvement, reconstruction financed by oil, Chalabi as president, Al Qaeda ties, that allies would join us once seeing our success, and on and on... I would find it very hard to find any justification for continuing to "employ" this administration.

The AEI still asserts that Saddam was involved in 9/11...

With all these wrong assumptions -- we are to put these aside -- and continue to believe that the neo-conservatives vision of how best to approach the issue of terrorism is the right one?

For 1/50th of the cost of invading Iraq, we could have permanently ended measles.

Somebody has the cure for measles and is holding it for ransom? I can't believe we'd put up with that. We should just go and take it from them. Even if the cost is greater, on principal we should never negotiate with terrorists.

Not just with Palestinians (although isnt that enough)?:

No f**king way. We send Israel big bucks and big guns, we don't send them big American soldiers.

Regarding Saadam - Al Queda link:

See this month's washington monthly article by spencer ackerman, 'the weakest link.' (Unfortunately, not available online)

Regarding trying to knock off Poppy:

c'mon, i thought you were only supposed to tell me about all the BAD things that Saadam did...

Seriously, G.W. is mad enough about this for the both of us.

Regarding WMDs:

Here the issue is murkier, and yes, we don't have all the facts. What the Democrat's may have thought is irrelevent. But nobody knew for sure, and post-9/11 we clearly needed to get the inspectors back in the country. This was a very legitimate outcome of Bush's initial push toward war, and he could have gotten it earlier than December 2002 if he had made it clear he was looking to disarm Saadam, not looking for a pretext to overthrow him. Seymour Hersh has detailed article in last week's New Yorker on how conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons. Here's the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

d-rod
They have no ability to "enforce" their mostly sanctimonious resolutions by themselves, so it cannot be "up to them" to enforce it. The U.S. has played the necessary and thankless role of providing collective security in this world for years.
Sure, but there is a huge difference in providing that security under UN aegis and going it alone. Of course the UN depends on it's member states to actually carry out military actions, but it is ridiculous to suggest that a single member state can claim that authority in defiance of the body as a whole. You can carp about the ineffectiveness of the UN all you want, but you were the one claiming we were simply enforcing 1441. If the UN was so "sanctimonious", why did you bother to even cite it? Could it be that you want to have your cake and eat it too?

I'd say commercial production of suicide vests would count as exporting terror to anyone who is not morally deficient.
Show me evidence that those vests have ever been used outside of Iraq and I might agree that that qualifies as "exporting" terror. Or show me any evidence that those vests were used, or even made, before the invasion.

Bush struck just the right note with the U.N., challenging them to enforce their own resolutions. Saddam brought this all on himself and his country, and yet Smokey wants to "blame" Bush or American arrogance or whatever to reverse and undermine Iraq's liberation. Puhleeese.
Struck just the right note for what? What salutary result did his speech have? The UN is far less likely to cooperate with our wishes now, the international community is largely united in their distrust and disdain for Bush, and you think it was "just right"? Just right for pandering to his base, maybe.

but still, there's the real moral dilemma for me, and a reason why I'm often at this blog rather than Howard Dean's:
there's every reason for not going to war to overthrow saadam
vs.
that file photo of uday hussein, future ruler of Iraq, grinning and smoking that long cigar.

Markus, that is the problem. The world isn't perfect. Bush and his people made mistakes, some of them serious. Things could have been done better. But the fact of the matter is that the time to eliminate Saddam was now. Sanctions wouldn't have lasted much longer. American troops in Saudi Arabia were causing ever increasing resentment. North Korea has the bomb. Iran is going to get it soon. Libya a little later. We had to eliminate Saddam before he became a big problem again. He was not an imminent threat, that we know now. It would have taken a decade for him to get back to his power before Desert Storm. But his sons were all set to take over after him, particulary Uday, and they showed no signs of being any different from their father. Letting Iraq stay as a long term safety hazard in the ME just wasn't good policy, something had to be done.

I don't like everything Bush has done. I think that he pushed WMD too much. He didn't emphasize enough, just how long term this project was, and how important it was, to the American people. But simply put, he was the only option available. Do you think Al Gore would have done this?

Gore, despite his comments after the 2000 election, was very hawkish throughout his Senate career and as Vice President. Assuming he would have had to deal with 9/11, he unquestionably would have knocked out the Taliban. Iraq of course is a different story. I doubt he would have gone in with the level of opposition that Bush tolerated. But I bet he would have forced the issue of getting the inspectors back in. And by the way, the inspectors were in fact doing a hell of a lot of disarming in the mid-nineties.

I think its also likely that Gore would have been much harder on the Saudis. (Allowing us to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia is by far the best outcome of this war so far, from the USA perspective.)

Right FH,

Let's bring back the ghost of Diana into this for a moment. She had stated,

The ME won't necessarily be better off w/out Saddam if his demise brings about a Shiite Muslim state. Remember: It could always be worse. - Diana

I responded,

The shift that has already occurred in the ME balance of power will be changing the entire region for generations to come. Liberating Germany and Japan could have gone badly if everyone was this negative. - d-rod

Smokey - The U.N. is composed of a lot of unsavory regimes, including France. When it comes to French national interests, the U.N. does not exist, and they are rarely squeamish about “regime change”. In fact, France has been the self-appointed sub-Saharan cop since 1960, and intervened militarily to either change regimes or to restore deposed thugs dozens of times. Yet they continue to act as the lead destroyer of American diplomacy on the Security Council, while the sole reason for their permanent seat is based on the politics of the world circa 1945.

U.N. Res. 1441 was unanimous, did threaten force and had teeth" so stop with the "unilateral" BS. I'm not against the U.N. bureaucracy playing a peripheral role in the future, after it has undergone a lobotomy or two. As for France, Paris needs a regime change.

Why can't we do both? 1/50th of the cost is damn cheap, if true.

Who cares? The point is not "Hey, we can squeeze an extra $3.7 billion out of our already tortured budget." The point is, things cost money -- when you do one thing, you give up other things. When we invaded Iraq, we forewent using that money and those troops for other things; now significant portions of Afghanistan are once again controlled by the Taliban, for example. If you want to justify something, you have to say more than, "Boy would it be nice if we could do this." You've got to explain why it would be better than spending those resources elsewhere.

To borrow some phrasing: "What matters in the real world is that measles will kill 870,000 people this year, next year, and the year after that -- because Michael Totten had his way."

Sean wrote:

So, lets consider France. Chirac might not by a Saddam, a Stalin, or a Hitler... but is France a threat? If it is, then what? Do we go to war against France? Do we try to bring down Chirac via the CIA? (mind you, I am not, necessarily, against going to war against France).

This is a very good point. A threat consists of both capabilities and intentions. France has the capability to do us harm (in a mean, small way) and, apparantly, the intention to do so.

But not in a direct, Attack On America kind of way.

The emergence of a European superstate could mean the kind of cordial relationship of equals or near-equals that we currently enjoy with Russia. We don't agree on everything, but we cooperate where possible and negotiate where necessary.

The other model, though, is more bleak. That is the Chinese model. Again, equals or near-equals, but while we're not exactly rivals, we aren't very friendly. France seems bent on steering Europe on this course. Except that whereas China simply is moving to their normal place in Asia, France's stated goal is the reduction in American power. This is obviously intractably at odds with our interests.

Left unchecked, you could see the rest of Europe fall into line, plus alliances from other Great Powers (like Russia and China).

Now, I'm NOT saying, "let's bomb Paris". That isn't the kind of rivalry I'm talking about. But we need to take a serious look at the problem, when it costs little money and zero lives to fix. Most of Europe was anti-war, but they are also against the Franco-German dominance in the EU.

But the recognition that France is at least interested in seeing what harm they can do our international position would be helpful in getting those first steps.

Personally, I think that France has miscalculated. First, any US "hegemony" in the world won't be undone right now by the EU. Any power we relinquish will go to Russia or China, not Europe (which is still paralysed with its integration issues). When the EU comes into its own (if that's their decision), then they will be glad of the stability and peace that we encouraged, and be able to, without real challenge, take their place as our equals.

But they moved too soon. The EU is riven with national rivalries and integration issues. France and Germany AREN'T europe yet, and in pretending to be so, they rallied their rivals. Challenging us now alerted us to their perception (that a weaker US is a stronger EU, which again I say isn't the case), but before they are capable of implementing their policy.

Bottom line: We need to shore up our position in Asia (which we're quietly doing, I think). And we need to give thought to the policy that will empower france's rivals in the EU. Or a policy that will weaken the integrity of the EU itself. Again, I'm not talking about bombs, or even confrontation. Simply working to ensure that a loose confederation is permanently incapable of action against us.

Yes, I know. A little cynical and cold-blooded. I'm used to that. :)

Good comments Rob.

I guess its another Cold War.

I sure miss the days when we knew who our enemies were and just had to hit them.

On the eve of the Iraq war, let’s not forget the reality was an overwhelming majority of European countries were in favor of vaporizing Saddam.

European countries explicitly supporting the U.S. (16): United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia and Montenegro.

Supportive, but wanted a 2nd resolution (5): Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Neutral (6): Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland and Norway.

Opposed (6): France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece.

France has, for the most part, has disliked and distrusted America for as long as I can remember. I took French in college, but it never got me past square one with a single French gal. The only good it ever did was when I was in Greece and successfully hit on a fine Italian gal who didn’t speak English. Other than that it was useless.

" Crime was rampant for months after the fall of Baghdad, and is still a widespread problem: hundreds, perhaps thousands, of murders, rapes, carjackings, and kidnappings. How much comfort is it to those victims to say, "Hey, at least it wasn't Saddam who did it?""

Swopa,
Ummm, excuse me? It was "Saddam who did it". He emptied all the prisons (after executing the political prisoners) before the US attacked. I'd agree that we need to do better coping with what he did but we weren't the ones who let out the criminals.

Kimmitt, you live in a fantasy world. WE could not eradicate measles for anything close to what you suggest. Have you read the WHO report on this issue?
You're taking the polio/smallpox paradigm and applying it to a mutagenic prolose paramyxovirus that has been with us on earth since Neanderthal times. There are very distinct reasons why smallpox was able to be hindered and measles is not.
Besides have you nto read how imams are issuing fatwas warning Africans to not allow their children to be immuized, as this is why AIDS is killing them? It's a crusader plot you see.

Have you read the WHO report on this issue?

I gathered the number I did from WHO and US government reports on the issue.

There are very distinct reasons why smallpox was able to be hindered and measles is not.

Okay, hang on. Measles is very much able to be hindered; we have an extremely effective vaccine. In addition, to my understanding, measles is considered to be a prime candidate for extermination, since it has few to no nonhuman hosts, unlike much nastier diseases such as malaria and ebola. And there is ongoing discussion of how we could get rid of rubella at the same time, for obvious reasons.

Besides have you nto read how imams are issuing fatwas warning Africans to not allow their children to be immuized, as this is why AIDS is killing them?

Compared to the difficulty of tracking and distributing vaccines in areas with poor roads and weather, this is simply not a major difficulty. It's a problem we can work through.

Kimmit. I looked into this, since you brought it up. I find no information on any serious research into a "cure" for measles. Did you mean a vacine? A vacine is not a cure.

Measles is an air born virus. It can be spread just by talking to a person who is infected. You can even catch it by walking into a room shortly after an infected person was in it. That is SCARY man!

Fortunately it isnt all that dangerous. Only one in every 2,500-5,000 cases proves fatal. And only a million people are killed world-wide each year, out of 6 billion.

Measles can be prevented by a vaccine. In the UK it is given as part of a combined vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella known as MMR.

A vaccines is manufactured in different ways using part of the germ or virus which causes the disease.

Exposure to these parts of a germ or virus give the exposed immune system "experience" with the virus and help the host to kill it off on their own.

Not everyone recieves the positive benefits of a vacine and some people actually contract the illness (very rare except with the oral polio vaccine).

Vaccination has dramatically reduced the number of measles cases in the UK. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1968 there were around a quarter of a million cases annually in this country. An average of 85 people died each year.

The year before MMR was introduced 86,000 children caught measles and 16 died. In 1999 2,436 cases were reported (a drop of 97.2%) of which fewer than 100 were confirmed as measles.

Between 1989 and 1998 there were 19 deaths from measles in England and Wales, most of them from later effects (a drop of 88%). The last death from acute measles in the UK was in 1992.

The Red Cross, the UN, the CDC, and WHO are all involved in a campaign to vacinate Africa, where half a million children die of measles.

Interestingly the Rotary Club has been a major fund raiser, with over $300 million dollars in donations. And it only costs a dollar a child to vacinate.

The fact that diseases exist in the world and can be cured with money is ZERO reason to not spend money on a fire extinguisher for your home, or a 911 phone system, or an armed forces and the will to use it.

Saddam, Mullah Omar, Ossama, Kim Il, The Ayatollah, these people are all as much of a threat to America as fire or deasease. And considering the death tolls in N Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Sudan, etc. they appear to be just as much a threat as Measles to the third world.

If you are truly a Liberal lefty you should support BOTH measles vacination and the war in Iraq.

http://www.measlesinitiative.org/solution2.asp

http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/measles.html

A question that I'm not sure has been addressed yet: Who are you calling soft on fascism?!

(Sorry to post just a link, but the piece is too long for me to excerpt effectively here.)

By "curing" measles, I mean, by a rhetorical flourish, to refer to the extermination of the measles virus outside of a laboratory through the usage of vaccination programs.

Smokey,

Funny, seeing as you have accused me of treason on several occasions, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that that is exactly what you think. If you do not wish to give that perception, you mmight want to choose your words more carefully.

I don’t think you are treasonous because you support Saddam. That is just a symptom. I think you are treasonous because you oppose American sovereignty. I always choose my words carefully. You should read them with as much care.

I'd like to think I can have trust in both.

That is the problem with lefties. Because you like to think something is true, it must be true. No real world data will shatter your utopian illusions.

You attempt to create a false dichotomy wherein one can only support American interests or the UN. Bullshit. The two are not incompatible, and can be mutually reinforcing.

I didn’t create a false dichotomy. France, Russia and China and the transnational socialists created a real dichotomy. Admit it. The UN is a corrupt, failed organization and it is being used by nations who are hostile to America to constrain and weaken us. By requiring UN approval for US action, you are handing US national security to our enemies. And if you don’t already believe that France is an enemy, here is further evidence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55022-2003Nov2?language=printer

Had we engaged in actual diplomacy and received real, meaningful international support for an invasion, we might have more resources to confront other global threats, which would enhance our national sovereignty.

I think the UK, Australia, Poland are meaningful international support. There are dozens of nations supporting us now. Your idea of international support is apparently France, Russia, China, Germany and all the Arab/Islamic thugocracies. You are stating that we should have gained the support of our enemies. What would you have given our enemies to get their support? Our surrender is what they want. You’re prepared to give it to them.

What I do NOT trust is the current administration. Please do not confuse this with a lack of faith in America.

You don’t trust the administration. Given that Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force against Iraq with or without UN approval, you obviously don’t trust Congress. Since you don’t trust any of our national elected institutions, you obviously don’t trust the American electorate. Now explain to me the source of your faith in America?

Smokey,

First of all, we were not enforcing UN resolutions. As it was a UN resolution, it falls to the UN, and the UN alone, to enforce it.

The UN is not capable of enforcing anything. Even if it was, it would not enforce any of its own resolutions if they coincided with American national security because our enemies have veto power over UN action. WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF GRASPING THIS INDISPUTABLE FACT?

The UN is a failed corrupt cesspool. We should withdraw from the UN and kick them out of New York. Let the God damned UN loving French support the UN.

Swopa --

I read your "Who are you calling soft on fascism?!" post. Sounds to me like paralysis by analysis -- you would support it if only it were planned better. Baloney. Sometimes need to stop talking about doing something and actually do it. If you would have supported the invasion under ideal conditions, there is no reason that you shouldn't support it now that it's done. My suspicion: you oppose the invasion purely because it was done by GWB.

Here are ten reasons why we invaded Iraq:

1. Iraq was in violation of the 1991 surrender agreement.

2. Iraq tried to assassinate a former American president.

3. We needed to re-establish the deterrent effect against the Arab/Muslim state sponsors of terrorism.

4. Iraq had extensive WMD programs.

5. Iraq had extensive ties to terrorism including Al Qaeda, and there is a great deal of evidence Saddam was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing.

6. Iraq had the burden of proof to show that it no longer had WMD programs and failed to provide that proof.

7. The containment regime was being dismantled by France, Russia, Germany, China and the Arab/Muslim thugocracies.

8. The only time Saddam ever cooperated was when we had sufficient force in the region to attack his regime. It was not feasible to maintain that force level indefinetely or redeploy in the future. It was use it or lose it.

9. We had a moral obligation to get rid of Saddam for betraying the Iraqi people in 1991. That's what you get when you limit yourself to UN mandates and listen to the stability freaks.

10. The example of a free and democratic Iraq has the potential to transform the Middle East.

The case for invading Iraq is overwhelming. I don't think any reasonable person can claim otherwise.

Markus,

Neither is there evidence that he was exporting terrorism, except perhaps by paying the families of Palestinian terrorists.

Saddam was know to be harboring one hijacker from the Achile Lauro, and one of the 1993 WTC bombers. And his support of Palesinian terrorists is certainly a threat to US national security. Do you believe that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is irrelevent to US national security?

Tunnel Vision,

The AEI still asserts that Saddam was involved in 9/11...

What basis do you have for asserting that he was not involved? There is enough evidence to justify speculation that he was involved:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp

This isn't a court of law. This is war. Sometimes we have to act on imperfect information.

Smokey,

but it is ridiculous to suggest that a single member state can claim that authority in defiance of the body as a whole.

If the UN won't enforce its own resolutions or does so arbitrarily, the UN forfeits what little "authority" it may have. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Swopa,

From your link:

I wanted more countries involved because that would mean more manpower and more money.

Are you really so naive? Do you really think nations beyond the coalition we already had were going to line up with manpower and money if we had just been more diplomatic? Get real.

HA, they are incapable of understanding. The idea that Western nations would actively oppose the US and its interests is something that is incompatible with their worldview. Thus, it can't be true. So they will trust France despite all the evidence that it, and other nations, aren't acting in an egalitarian manner.

Kimmit,
Before you think it is that easy read this article http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-11-2003_pg6_23

The UK is facing a measles outbreak because some scientist said that the MMR vaccine could cause atuism. Now he recants that conclusion but there are many parents refusing the vacine for their children. Are you going to force them to take it?
We do that in some US cities before children are allowed in public schools but not every child goes to public school and even in cities like Houston the vacination rate is below optimum.
I wish the world was as easy to change as you think it is but that just isn't the case.

HA

What basis do you have for asserting that he [Sadam]was not involved? There is enough evidence to justify speculation that he was involved [in 9/11]:

To be honest, I don't know why I even try... because if your assertion that "there is enough evidence to justify speculation" that Saddam was involved in 9/11 is in an article by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard... again, why even try.

Do you honestly believe, given all that has happened, that if there WAS a link -- this administration would just sit on it?!?

I dream of the day when the only measles outbreaks are the last few little sputters from vaccine-frightened communities, followed by blessed health and freedom from even the tiny dangers posed by vaccination.

Tunnel_Vision,

Do you honestly believe, given all that has happened, that if there WAS a link -- this administration would just sit on it?!?

I don't think that there was a link between Saddam and the specific attack of 9/11. But he certainly had ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and it is a real possibility that he knew that some kind of attack was being planned.

Our national policy should be that if a nation fails to disclose information regarding terrorist attacks, or if they allow terrorists to operate in their country, or if they give safe harbor to terrorists who have attacked us, or if they provide support in any way to terrorists, it is an act of war against America by that country. In such circumstances we have every right to wage war against such nations regardless of whether we get "approval" from the UN cesspool.

Terrorism is an act of war not a criminal act. It is the preferred means of war of the Arab/Muslim nations. We need to start treating it as such.

http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/prolayton03.htm

Here are the American victims of the Arab war:

http://avpv.tripod.com/AmericanVictims.html

Arabs have killed American presidential candidates, diplomats, soldiers and thousands of ordinary citiziens. How many more Americans are you, Putin, Chirac and Annan willing to see killed in order to protect the corrupt Arab regimes?

HA,

I think you are treasonous because you oppose American sovereignty.
When argument fails, simply accuse your opponent of treason. Nice. So are you saying that anyone, such as the 80% of Americans who support our membership in the UN, are all treasonous for opposing American overeignty?

By requiring UN approval for US action, you are handing US national security to our enemies.
By this logic, Saddam was correct in defying the UN, as complying with it's resolutions would have been handing Iraqi national sovereignty over to it's enemies. Like it or not, we belong to a community of nations. As a signatory to the UN charter, we have a responsibility to abide by it's decisions, just like any other member nation. If you wish to indulge your paranoid fantasies of withdrawing from the UN, be my guest and try. Then you might have a case. Until that unlikely day you are, as usual, wrong.

I think the UK, Australia, Poland are meaningful international support. You're certainly free to think that, just as you are free to think that the UN is a transnational Socialist puppet and France is our greatest enemy. Fortunately, none of these things are true outside of your fevered imagination.
What percentage of troops in country are Polish? Australian? What percent of the military budget are they providing? Meaningful support should be, you know, meaningful. As for the "dozens" of countries supporting us, if by "support" you mean "do not actively oppose", then maybe. But I personally think support should be a bit more active.

Given that Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force against Iraq with or without UN approval, you obviously don’t trust Congress. Since you don’t trust any of our national elected institutions, you obviously don’t trust the American electorate. Now explain to me the source of your faith in America?
I think both Congress and the people were led to support this war under false pretenses. The resolution authorizes the president to use force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." It cannot be reasonably argued that Iraq posed a threat to our national security sufficient to justify the costs of an invasion. That threat was predicated upon the existance of WMDs and links to anti-american terror. Congressional authorizatio was predicated upon the existance of that threat. Ergo, no WMDs or links to terror = no threat = no authorization. As for the latter, many of the Senators who signed off on it were under the correct impression that military force under these circumstances would require UN approval. The UN charter states that "plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council." Furthermore, the text of the resolutions in question quite clearly state that all further actions regarding the resolutions are to be decided by the SC. Resolution 687 says that the SC "Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." Other applicable resolutions contain identical language. In short, we cannot claim to be enforcing UN resolutions without the explicit approval of the Security Council. Just cause you don't like the rules doesn't mean you can ignore them. I suspect most Congressmen assumed the administration would play by the rules.

If the UN won't enforce its own resolutions or does so arbitrarily, the UN forfeits what little "authority" it may have. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Another example of a brilliant analytic mind at work. This argument has no basis in international law. Once again, the fact that you dearly wish something to be true does not make it so.

in reply to TunnelVision:
There is enough evidence to justify speculation that [Saddam] was involved [in 9/11]
War is not something to be conducted on the basis of "speculation." The paper you cite is rife with said speculation, dubious conclusions, and innuendo. The paper cites US intelligence sources, and then says that the CIA disagrees with it's conclusions. A speculative article from a partisan magazine is simply not very convincing.

in reply to Markus:
Saddam was know to be harboring one hijacker from the Achile Lauro, and one of the 1993 WTC bombers. And his support of Palesinian terrorists is certainly a threat to US national security. Do you believe that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is irrelevent to US national security?
If the existence of links to palestinian terror is sufficent in itself to justify invasion, then we should be immediately launching invasions of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our best allies in the region. The question is not whether Saddam was a bad man, the question is whether the threat he posed was sufficient to merit the response. The presence of Abu Nidal is not meaningful in this analysis.

in reply to Swopa:
Are you really so naive? Do you really think nations beyond the coalition we already had were going to line up with manpower and money if we had just been more diplomatic?
Why is this so absurd to you? Are you really so convinced of the world's enmity for us that you think diplomacy is pointless? We assembled a coalition for the first Iraq war that contributed all of the necessary funds. What has changed since then that makes you think it so implausible that we could not have done better now? Please note: paranoia is not an acceptable substitute for argument.

HA said, "By requiring UN approval for US action, you are handing US national security to our enemies." Smokey replied, "By this logic, Saddam was correct in defying the UN, as complying with it's resolutions would have been handing Iraqi national sovereignty over to it's enemies." But notice Smokey's switch from "national security" to "national sovereignty". Smokey sure doesn't want to get caught saying that Iraqis are more secure with Saddam in power than with the U.S. in power. After all, the majority of Iraqis disagree with him, and for obviously good reason, what with Saddam killing 3,000 of them per month on average over the last 20 years. We should always keep right and wrong at the fore when thinking about what to do. Don't just think in terms of laws.

HA said, "I think you are treasonous because you oppose American sovereignty." Smokey replied, "When argument fails, simply accuse your opponent of treason. Nice. So are you saying that anyone, such as the 80% of Americans who support our membership in the UN, are all treasonous for opposing American overeignty?" But Smokey makes it seem that UN membership, favored by Americans, requires doing whatever the UN says, which is not favored by Americans. Given Smokey's position, Americans are very confused. But they're not, so Smokey can't be right. Americans like the goodwill of membership, but they always think about right and wrong in making decisions.

HA said, "I think the UK, Australia, Poland are meaningful international support." To which Smokey replied, "What percentage of troops in country are Polish? Australian? What percent of the military budget are they providing? Meaningful support should be, you know, meaningful." But allied troops have been sent to die, and allied countries have signed themselves up to be next on the terrorists' list. That's meaningful.

Smokey says, "It cannot be reasonably argued that Iraq posed a threat to our national security sufficient to justify the costs of an invasion." But Iraq sponsered terrorism, showed evidence of ties to al Qaeda, and had a WMD program. The cost of losing St. Louis to a dirty bomb would be, say, twenty years of national econdomic depression, and about 250,000 lives. There, I gave a reasonable argument to justify the costs.

Smokey says, "As a signatory to the UN charter, we have a responsibility to abide by it's decisions." But this is obviously false. If we were about to be invaded by Canada and Mexico, and the UN told us to forego defending ourselves, we would be under no moral obligation to obey it. Smokey would agree, I'm sure, so even he wouldn't abandon the U.S. to the UN's whim. But he thinks Iraq was not such a threat. Yet, he gives no argument for that view other than to assert that the contrary "cannot be reasonably argued." Yet, obviously it can.

When the best that liberals can come up with to counter the Republican war on terrorism is the cure for measles, their party is shot.

Smokey, please remember how the successful anti-Vietnam war Left "won", and the US left SE Asia, and 2+ million Cambodian's were murdered by Asian Leftists. You did see The Killing Fields? The reality of US Leftist political victory. The US was there to stop that; when the left won the public argument, the US left, and millions died. Did you ever cry for any of them?

The US gov't makes many mistakes; but fighting commies was a noble cause. And the alternative is terrible. But fighting can be, is, expensive. The US can't afford a Leftist victory in Iraq.

Clinton made a weak agreement with No. Korea, they prolly have a few bombs, making it almost impossible to attack them. [Maybe the US should suggest it will give Taiwan bomb tech, since it's "one China" and has a bomb, unless China pressures No. Korea?] Iran will prolly soon get one; Iraq was in line. Will Iranians rebel before Tel Aviv gets bombed, or will the world sigh with relief, while publicly bloviating, against an Israeli pre-emptive strike?

I'm really glad Saddam's gone; the 17 UNSC resolutions, plus non-total cooperation with Blix (still this year, only Feb., seems ages ago), made me support an attack. Bush's questionable tactics at selling the war is a negative. But so much hatred is focussed on Bush, and in his defense, that too little is focussed on best policies. Now. For the Iraqi people.

Like sending the Army battalions more money, immediately, to distribute w/ minimal paperwork to locals fixing local problems. More local city councils getting elected, and getting budgets to have civil budget battles (welcome to democracy!) over.

Matthew's a real bright guy, but Bush hate is acting like real dark shades.

Let's be honest, there is no way France or Germany could send money or troops they have neither to give. France is too busy keeping its African colonies in order. They also have very little money in the coffers to give. They are in serious Violation of the EU charter.

France also just had a very big Elf Scandal where it appears Elf had been bribing Politicians. Interesting since Elf had that big contract for Iraqi Oil, once the sanctions were lifted. Do you think there is any possibility of France wanting Saddam gone and those contracts no longer good.

Poland sent its special forces, they have only recently been released from the Communist nightmare. And I imagine those excellent Special Forces will be used to create a regular Army. Until they have a good westernized Regular Army, they could not really help us.

Australia also contributed well to the Liberation of Iraq. As did the UK, just because Germany, France and Russia did not, means little. After all, each of those countries had signed deals with Saddam for Monies owed. Do you think they would really put themselves in a situation to not get that money. Please.

Iraq was about to get a chair on the Sanctions committee, which is as dumb as having Libya and China on the Human Rights Committee.

Am I wrong about any of the above?

The war is a cock-up, a fiasco; it is the result of a scheme by a pack of liars who will offer up the children of their constituents rather than sending their own. Mr. Bush is a liar or a fool. Take your pick.

And if it takes acting like facists to get rid of them, I oppose that. In that case, maybe I am softer on fascism than you are.

First of all, no, we don't think Liberals are evil (even though the feelings are not mutual obviously). We just think they are silly and misguided, and therefore dangerous to us all.

It doesn't matter to me what "feelings" Liberals had towards Saddam. "Feelings" is not the realm of conservatives. We deal in facts on the ground, and logical conclusions based on those facts. Libs would have Saddam still in power, and all the repercussions thereof, so their feelings about him isn't, and has never been the issue.

Even to pose the question in those terms is touchy feely liberal. Ridiculous.

"Feelings" is not the realm of conservatives. We deal in facts on the ground, and logical conclusions based on those facts.

You must be outraged at the Bush Administration's continuous manipulation and obfuscation of "facts on the ground." I can see where you'd be stuck, however; what do you do when the standard-bearer for your philosophy betrays you so thoroughly?

When the best that liberals can come up with to counter the Republican war on terrorism is the cure for measles, their party is shot.

I'm all in favor of the Republican war on terrorism. What does that have to do with invading Iraq?

"I'm all in favor of the Republican war on terrorism. What does that have to do with invading Iraq?"

What a proven, in this thread alone, moron statement.

Kimmit is being purposely obtuse. He will never grant you that the Iraq war is ok on ANY grounds. Nor will he will not admit that Islamists would attack us even if we turned Red as the hills.

He will never admit that Saddam converted on the battlefield in 1991; had God Is Great added to the national flag; signed up as the sponsor of Palestinian terrorism; and invited Al Queda into his country to provide them with money, arms, and training - and is therefore directly linked to the global War On Terror.

So we should table this discussion and move along.

-S

"and invited Al Queda into his country to provide them with money, arms, and training "

Yes. I will not admit this without proof. Harboring a single Al Qaeda member and giving him medical treatment does not a major alliance make.

You see, "making shit up" is not the realm of liberals. We deal in facts on the ground, and logical conclusions based on those facts.

"I'm all in favor of the Republican war on terrorism. What does that have to do with invading Iraq?"

What a proven, in this thread alone, moron statement.

Sure it's moronic now that we have terrorists bombing the Red Cross in Iraq. Go back a couple years, when people thought "War on Terror" meant "destroy Al Qaeda and find bin Laden" (who, by the way, is responsible for 9-11, not Saddam), and you maybe you'll see the point.

I see you got yourselves into a heated, pointless discussion and just want to contribute a bit:

What difference does it make if measles are curable? Just substitute something else in Kimmit's argument... world hunger for example. I don't think anyone here would argue against the fact that millions of people would have been saved if money used for the war were diverted for food purchases? Some of them in the United States. So instead of losing American lives, we could have been saving them. Is that really less important than having Saddam in power?

Jim,
Yes, you have cleverly divined my nefarious intentions. In truth, I simply mistyped. HA is usually ranting about the threat that the UN poses to US sovereignty, I simply misread his original post. My bad. I don't think it changes my argument in the least, though. And don't accuse me of being a Saddam supporter. You can disagree with me if you, but that is the lowest form of argument.

But Smokey makes it seem that UN membership, favored by Americans, requires doing whatever the UN says
Are we not a signatory to the UN charter? Generally, international agreements are considered to be binding unless one withdraws from them. As we have not done so, we are still bound to abide by the terms of the charter. And you accuse me of not being bright? The goodwill of membership? What do you think the UN is, a social club?

But allied troops have been sent to die, and allied countries have signed themselves up to be next on the terrorists' list. That's meaningful.
How many of them have actually died? And what "allied countries" are you talking about? Britain provides meaningful support, but who else? We are so desperate for support that we almost accepted troops from Turkey, for god's sake.

But Iraq sponsered terrorism, showed evidence of ties to al Qaeda, and had a WMD program. The cost of losing St. Louis to a dirty bomb would be, say, twenty years of national econdomic depression, and about 250,000 lives. There, I gave a reasonable argument to justify the costs.
Simply stating a vague possibility of disaster does not make your argument reasonable. To do so, you would have to show that there is a reasonable chance of it actually occurring. Canada might decide to invade us next week, but the chances of it actually happening are so vanishingly small that I don't think we need to launch a preemptive strike on Ottawa. I tire of these assertions of links to al-Quaeda. Even the administration, except for Cheney, has backed off of that. As I said earlier, much stronger ties to al-Quaeda can be found among our putative allies in the region.

But he thinks Iraq was not such a threat. Yet, he gives no argument for that view other than to assert that the contrary "cannot be reasonably argued." Yet, obviously it can.
You seem to be confused about the rules of argument, Jim. Must I also provide argument that Canada is not a threat, lest it be invaded? The onus is upon those who support a preemptive war to provide evidence of a threat sufficient to justify it, not the other way around. I do not say that we must always accede to the consensus of the UN. In extreme circumstances, where there is an immediate threat to our national interests and the international community refuses to act, defiance would be justified. But those caveats don't apply here. A theoretical threat many years in the future just doesn't cut it. That argument could be used by any country to justify any war.

Tom Grey,

Funny, I thought it was the Khmer Rouge that killed millions, and now I find out it was the Democrats? I'll have to change my party affiliation immediately. My history is obviously wrong, as I had thought that it was a Republican president that pulled the troops out of Vietnam. Was Nixon a closet leftist? Damn those fifth-columnists, they're everywhere!

Seriously, blaming the left for the Killing Fields is absurd. If you want to get into a tit-for-tat, I could blame the right for Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. But I won't, because it's a ridiculous argument. Second-hand blame of this sort is fundamentally flawed, as it relies on what-if speculation, which makes for great comic books but poor history. The Khmer Rouge killed people, the American left did not. End of story.

Smokey, I see the turns of phrase in my post that might be read as insinuations that you are not bright and are a Saddam supporter. I meant neither, and perhaps I should have rephrased. Nothing you said was not bright or Saddam-supporting.

Our disagreement turns on the question of the degree of threat posed by Iraq before the liberation. You maintain that Iraq was no more a threat to us than Canada, and you've misapplied the rules of debate. I've given you reason to distinguish Canada from Iraq (WMD program, support of terrorism), which you shrug off as too "vague" to render any distinction between Canada and Iraq. But even if you were to reply, I think we've reached bedrock on that issue. Some people say I'm nuts to hang glide, others don't. Risk management has a bedrock level where people simply have different degrees of tolerance of risk. But I put the loss of an American city, given Saddam in power, as in the 5% range. The loss would be intolerable, so I say act. You might question my basis for the 5% figure, but then I'd question your putting it at the Canadian level of near zero. Too late, we have to act. No more argument.

You said, The goodwill of membership? What do you think the UN is, a social club? It's a political forum, somewhat above social club. As for goodwill, there is too little goodwill toward America in the UN to make it worth taking the charter seriously. The charter permits preemptive self-defense if members vote in favor of it. So, the underlying premise making participation rational is that enough members of goodwill are in the UN to make it a body worthy of yielding to. There is an implicit contract of goodwill underlying the charter. That contract was broken years ago by the rise of anti-Americanism in the UN. This renders any moral duty we had to abide by the letter of the charter (regarding self-defense) now void. Moreover, the UN shows no goodwill for the Iraqi people. We volunteered to liberate them and the UN said no. The loss of its moral fabric removes any duty to obey the UN's laws. Should Jews in 1938 Germany have obeyed any German gun-control laws? No. That's an extreme analogy, but the principle is the same.

Smokey,

Congressional authorizatio was predicated upon the existance of that threat. Ergo, no WMDs or links to terror = no threat = no authorization.

Sorry Smokey, but we don't live in a socialist tyranny yet. You can't declare the law of the land void by fiat. The Congressional authorization for war against Iraq still stands as the law of the land. If Congress thinks that Bush exceeded the authority to wage war that it granted, then Congress has the duty to impeach him. I suggest you contact your elected representatives to get the ball rolling.

As for the latter, many of the Senators who signed off on it were under the correct impression that military force under these circumstances would require UN approval.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about getting UN approval to declare war. Congress is given the sole authority to declare war. The UN Charter does not supercede the Constitution despite your apparent desire that it did so. Under no circumstances does Congressional authorization for war require UN approval.

Like it or not, we belong to a community of nations. As a signatory to the UN charter, we have a responsibility to abide by it's decisions, just like any other member nation.

I don’t give a shit what the UN thinks, but if the US and coalition invasion of Iraq is in violation of UN “decisions” then the other UN member nations should propose a resolution to condemn the coalition action. They haven’t. On the contrary, the UNSC has unanimously approved the coalition occupation of Iraq. As usual, reality intrudes on your dreamy utopian fantasy.

Kimmet. You do realize that one of the men responsible for the first bombing of the WTC lived pretty well in Baghdad right? Or the man responsible for the Achilles Lauran(sp?) lived pretty well in Baghdad.

Fact is the first man had ties to AQ. The second did not.

Or the fact that one of the AQ soldiers wounded in Afghanistan got medical treatment in Baghdad. But you are right, no AQ operatives there.

Jim,

I can't buy your 5% argument. If that is the threshold for preemptive war, we will be looking at a future of uninterrupted warfare. Also, you predicate your argument upon the threat of the loss of an American city and 250,000 lives. But to do that, Saddam would need a real live nuke. A dirty bomb, while perhaps plausible enough to cross your 5% threshold, would have primarily health and economic effects, with very few if any direct deaths. The effects would be limited in extent, depending on the nature of both the explosive and the radiological material, and would be unlikely to extend more than a few city blocks. I seriously doubt that the total cost of cleanup and healthcare for those affected would exceed the hundreds of billions we are likely to spend in Iraq. If you want to argue based on an actual nuclear device, the odds of that are far lower. Saddam had a moribund program, no enriched uranium, no means of enriching it, and no bomb design. He was many years away from having a device, even had sanctions been dropped. The odds of us being attacked with nuclear weapons is undoubtedly greater from North Korea, but our adventure in Iraq has left us with a mere toothpick to brandish at the negotiating table. Also, the doctrine of preemptive war has caused many potentially unfriendly states with dormant programs, such as Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia, to consider accelerating or restarting nuclear programs. Therefore, by your tolerance of risk criteria, invading Iraq has actually left us more at risk from nuclear attack, not less.

As for the UN, your argument that rising anti-Americanism absolves us from our responsibility to accede to international rules doesn't hold water. I'd say the UN was pretty anti-Iraq, what with the sanctions, no-fly zones, multiple resolutions, etc... Does this anti-Iraqism mean Saddam was free to ignore the decisions of the UN?
You say that the UN shows no goodwill for the Iraqi people. We volunteered to liberate them and the UN said no. I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. This post-facto attempt to pretend that the invasion was all about liberation is a bunch of hooey. We told the UN that Saddam had enormous stockpiles of sarin, anthrax, VX gas and other goodies. Liberation was never more than at best a tertiary goal of the invasion, until all of the other ones failed to pan out. The UN did not support the invasion because we failed to make a convincing case that it was necessary for international stabilty.

HA,

I think you, and maybe Jim, should form your own club, and put a big sign on the door of your clubhouse saying "No UN personnel and transnational socialists allowed." That'd show them.

Sorry Smokey, but we don't live in a socialist tyranny yet.
What is this obsession of yours with socialism? Did you grow up in a hippy commune or something? Did Karl Marx beat you as a child? I'm curious, because nowhere in my post did I mention anything about redistribution of wealth or the struggle of the proletariat. I thought we were talking about the UN.

If Congress thinks that Bush exceeded the authority to wage war that it granted, then Congress has the duty to impeach him.
See, I knew there had to be something we agree on.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about getting UN approval to declare war.
If you'll read my original post, you'll see that my argument about UN approval pertained to that portion of the congressional authorization which gave the president authority to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." I'd say that pretty clearly makes UN approval relevant. The other language of the resoltion, authorizing the president to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" requires the existence of a threat. What, exactly, was the nature of that threat? The balsawood drone aircraft? That vial of Botulinum bacteria? Perhaps he had a really long stick with which he could reach across the globe and poke us in the eye?

Doh! That should, of course, read: posted by Smokey.

That's what I get for rushing my post before lunch.

Smokey – Even the U.N. itself recognizes the U.N. is dysfunctional organization that needs major structural reform. You seem to constantly ignore and gloss over any of their inadequacies, while even most U.N. leaders have acknowledged the need for massive reform to overhaul the organization to better deal with 21st century situations. Sergio de Mello, when he was alive and head of the Commission on Human Rights, stated the Commision was not so anti-Iraq – actually he said it was “incapable of discussing human rights when it came to Iraq”. Don’t you think that is appalling? In the days of the Cold War, the Commission on Human Rights was always researching problems in Puerto Rico and Israel, but never in Cuba or Russia. The conclusions that the U.N. currently arrive at are far from an exercise in international democracy - one reason why, I suppose, most Americans have such a low opinion of it.

Smokey,

Nice try, but now we see the incomprehensible truth before our eyes: You are HA! ;)

Yes, I know the conventional wisdom on dirty bombs, but I recently read an article about very large one exploded at 200 feet in the air in Manhattan having casualties in the 1/4 million range. I can’t find the article now, so I withdraw the claim. But it’s not important. I can merely suppose that Saddam give five WMDs of type A, five of type B, five of type C, and also five dirty bombs to a cohort of 20 suicidal terrorists. Perhaps some would be caught at the border. The other ten would ruin us. As for the 5% figure, I still can’t see how you can suppose that every country on earth shows a 5% likelihood of attacking the U.S. with WMDs.

I don’t buy your argument that we’ve increased our risk of nuke attack. Bad dudes plotting to get us are now hurrying. We can just hurry faster. It sure beats waiting and waiting for the eventual attack.

Smokey: “The UN was pretty anti-Iraq, what with the sanctions, no-fly zones, multiple resolutions, etc... Does this anti-Iraqism mean Saddam was free to ignore the decisions of the UN?” Of course not, and the UN sanctions were anti-Saddam, not anti-Iraq. One has a right to opt out of a social contract only if the other party is the first to fail to hold up its end and has first given up goodwill for ill will. The Iraqi government was the first to break contract, not the UN. The UN didn’t exhibit anti-Iraqism in the relevant sense. Nothing I’ve said entails that evil people may point to their punishment as a justification for continuing to be evil. All I’ve said is that it’s not prudent or obligatory to cooperate with people who have unprovokedly decided to hate you and stand in the way of your reasonable interests – which is what the UN has decided to do to America.

The liberation of Iraq: Our primary motivation may have been our security. But that doesn't show that we volunteered to liberate the Iraqis and then liberated them against the UN’s wishes.

That last sentence should be "show that we didn't volunteer to liberate Iraq..."

Kimmitt,
"I'm all in favor of the Republican war on terrorism. What does that have to do with invading Iraq?"

Successful terror campaigns require what is known as a sanctuary, a place where they can recruit, train, store / obtain supplies, and generally operate unmolested. In the Vietnam War, that sanctuary was North Vietnam (since we were not going to invade or bomb at will), Red China, and the Soviet Union. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the sanctuary for the mujahadeen was Pakistan and ultimately the US. Note that a sanctuary doesn't have to be created by actual armed might; it can be created by restrictions your opponents place on themselves.

The sanctuaries for the War on Terror were/are Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. The ranking in importance / amount was unimportant. Afghanistan was a country no one would miss. By contrast, Iraq was a large country, centrally located, not a major contributor to the world economy thru oil (unlike Saudi / Iran), and it was widely believed to have (by the UN and MANY countries) to have WMD that we would not want in terrorist hands. It was perceived to have strong international opposition to effective action being taken against it, because France would provide Security Council cover. BUT, it was also a country against which we already had a casus belli, because we only agreed to a cease-fire after GW1, and we had the string of UN resolutions under Clinton.

By invading Iraq, we were able to remove one actual / potential sanctuary, position our troops to move on several others, and send the message to them that there was no power on earth to save them from our wrath. Mission Accomplished.... unless we continue to give them the idea that by playing to the cameras, they will influence the "useful idiots" to cut and run.

By invading Iraq, we were able to remove one actual / potential sanctuary,

Wait, which is it? Actual or potential? Because if we're spending $150 billion and half of our deployable military on a country that maybe someday could harbor a few terrorists, we may need to reassess our priorities.

And you didn't mention Pakistan, which I find interesting, since it is almost certainly where Osama bin Laden is hiding.

position our troops to move on several others,

So this was part of a plan to take Iraq first, then move out in concentric circles. Mr. Totten, are you paying attention?

and send the message to them that there was no power on earth to save them from our wrath.

...or our pique, or our President's oedipal complex. Except for nuclear weapons, of course, which is why every nation which values its sovereignity is now scrambling for them. Better get that draft up and running quick; our window of conquest opportunity is closing . . .

Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God.

Inertia is not limited to matter.

Don't wa