Iraq Is the Issue

They came to hear Howard Dean.

But they got the message that matters from Arianna Huffington.

That's because, while the chairman of the Democratic National Committee delivered a tepid and predictable address to the Campaign for America's Future's "Take Back America" conference on Thursday, the columnist and author who not that many years ago identified as a Newt Gingrich conservative was the speaker who showed up with a road map for renewal of the Democratic Party.

Where Dean made no direct mention of the war in Iraq during a lengthy address to the morning plenary that kicked off the fullest day of the annual gathering of progressive activists, Huffington went to the heart of the matter.

"We cannot continue to ignore the debacle in Iraq if we are going to have any hope of [Democrats] ever again being a majority party," said Huffington, the conservative who came in from the cold and has recently lent her name and energy to the Huffington Post.

At a conference where the schedule was heavy with domestic-policy discussions but short on discourse regarding foreign policy, Huffington bluntly told the crowd, "We cannot have a solution on the domestic front without addressing what is happening in Iraq."

After a quick tour of the quagmire ("Ahmed Chalabi is the oil minister -- this is like something out of Saturday Night Live") and of the Bush Administration's steady pattern of misdeeds and missteps, Huffington asked the fundamental question of Congressional Democrats and party leaders: "Where is the oversight?"

"There is no oversight going on in this most corrupt and most immoral Congress that we have right now," she said, adding that, "I'm very troubled by the way our Democratic leaders go on television and sound like spineless Republicans." (Later in the day, at the one conference session that was devoted to foreign policy issues, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern recalled Dean's recent "now that we're there, we're there" comment regarding the "need" to remain in Iraq and then said, "That sounds like Rumsfeld to me.")

Noting that, in a recent television appearance, US Senator Hillary Clinton said she was not comfortable talking about developing an "exit strategy" to withdraw US troops from Iraq, Huffington said, "With respect to Senator Clinton, if you are not comfortable setting an exit strategy, please point us to someone who is."

Clinton is much discussed as a potential Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. But Huffington drew some of the loudest applause of the conference when she said of the 2008 race, "I want a Democratic presidential candidate who can give a straight, unambiguous answer on Iraq."

It was deserved applause; if Democrats do not come to understand this message, they will doom themselves to an agonizing repetition of the electoral debacles of 2002 and 2004.

"There is no way in a time of war that you can be a majority party without having a policy position [that is distinct from the Republicans]," explained Huffington, who suggested that, instead of avoiding the debate about national security, Democrats need to turn the debate on its head.

"The Democratic leaders need to make it clear that these men running our foreign policy are dangerous," she said. "There is no way Democrats can win an election unless they make it clear that these Republicans are not making this country safer."

Comments (72)

1. Wait a minute...two "liberal" icons are making statements in favor of American troops staying in Iraq, and they are being berated by a former conservative spin doctor? Arianna Huffington making more liberal noise than Hilary? Strange days indeed!

   Posted by Turk33 at 06/02/2005 @ 12:28pm

2. Screw the Democrats! The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Dems have enough consideration to put a little grease on it before they go up in you. Does anyone not read history? Was it a Democrat or Republican that got our country involved in Vietnam? The two parties are nothing more than different sides of the same coin. Being pro-choice does not make you a leftist or liberal (anymore than being anti-choice makes you a conservative). The last thing the working people of this country need is a corporate lawyer bitch like Hillary Clinton or any other DLC trash; and Howard Dean has demonstrated all too well that you can't get to the top without selling out (if, indeed, he ever had anything other than a bunch of smoke to sell).

   Co-opting the anti-war sentiment isn't nearly enough; the working men and women of this country deserve a party that is willing to represent their interests; the Democrats have proven election after election that they are not the party of the working class, of the average American (i.e., the men and women that provide the forces for the occupation of Iraq). Discuss the issues affecting the vast majority of the population--the offshoring of jobs, the rising costs of a higher education (when I started school back in '84, a full load of classes cost less than $300 at UT Austin!), and all the other negative effects the global economy and these bogus "piss down" "tax cuts create jobs" (in India and China!) policies have on working America. Only a party that represents these concerns can enjoy any kind of significant impact on the government. Only such a party will make geniune efforts to ameliorate the many wrongs being committed by our government--by both the Republican and Democratic parties.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 06/02/2005 @ 2:35pm

3. Although Huffington has a point about developing a clear exit strategy on Iraq, I think that we need to be a bit easier on the Democrats on the issue as a whole. Their unease about leaving Iraq is a lot like the rest of the country's. To say that Howard Dean sold out because of a statement on Iraq is simply ludicrous. Senators like Jack Reed and other vigorous opponents of the war don't really know what to do either.

   Instead of punishing very good political allies, like Dean (I mean, the guy actually wants the DNC to be more grassroots, and is doing so!!), the left should come up with a list of key values for Iraq: democracy and women's political participation, limited use of US soldiers, educational and political aid of certain types, an honest accounting of the US relations with Saddam Hussein and the U.S., etc. Once these values are set in place, liberal Democrats will have a much easier time supporting a withdrawal of some kind. Right now they are lost in a morass.

   This type of initiative would require that Democrats take ownership of a bad, perhaps meaningless war of President Bush, which is pretty hard to stomach. Still the world would learn a lot more about intervention, Iraq, and might come to respect liberalism and left more in the process.

   Posted by jocraft at 06/02/2005 @ 3:24pm

4. The Democrats should have come out hard and unequivocally against the war before it started. Looking at the vane and going which ever way the wind blows demonstrates all too clearly that you are bereft of any principles and nothing more than a vote grubbing politician. They had their chance to do the right thing.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 06/02/2005 @ 4:04pm

5. I wonder why it is so hard for the left to grasp a very simple military concept? Read this clearly, Giving a timetable for withdrawing your troops while fighting an insurgency is telling them exactly how long they must hang on.

   That is mind-numbingly foolish, and you don't have to be a military strategerist to see that. You guys really need to do more than just say you'll focus on Iraq or KN you need a plan or at least a clue. Maybe I could host a seminar, "How to not expose your natinal security cluelessness" Cordially,

   Uncle J

   Military Matters [madison.com]

   Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 06/02/2005 @ 5:33pm

6. I find the Hillary hate to be amusing. Hillary is shrewd and knowledgeable and an operator...as are all politicians on the national stage on the Dem. side. What she is not, was not and will never be is liberal, nor progressive. To pretend that this is a flip-flop is to ignore history - see the health care debacle for example.

   The problem is what the reviled Nader said it was. As now constituted there are two different organizational entities, both sitting on one side of the see-saw, but no two national organizations that do not share the same polity. The sole difference seems to be who gets the pork, rather than whether there should be pork.

   We engage in the kind of fruitless debates that throw the discourse into the laps of Karl Rove and avoid the immense issues that really will define whether we are a different party, or just a different sow at the same trough.

   Arianna is as sincere as a three dollar bill, but she is absolutely correct. When the Dems chose Kerry, they wrote off the election because the only issue with traction was the war. Everyone knows that GOPers want to strip social services, remove liability from corporations and generally funnel all money to the rich. That's a given and not an issue that has traction with voters. Getting wonkish about domestic policy had about as much chance to succeed as an electoral strategy in a world that embraces reality television as...Kerry-esque equivocations about why he voted for the war.

   Abu Ghraib, the Downing Street Memo, Gitmo, WMDs. There is no ground on which the GOP can stand there except the 'support our troops' canard, which should be responded to with a list of the dead. We aren't supporting our troops by asking them to die BECAUSE the current administration is waiting for some magical moment where we can withdraw without drawing comparisons to the withdrawal from Vietnam. Note to Shrub - until we give up our Chalabis and like, ya know, let the people actually put in their people (that democracy thing), I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one. See Thiem, Cao Ky, Big Minh and so forth on the public approval rate of imposed leaders in farcical processes.

   Hillary is a skilled politco, but the Dems need a direction and that direction can't be just a larger share of the trough. It MUST be to move out of the wallow.

   Posted by smparsons at 06/02/2005 @ 5:34pm

7. Uncle Jimbo

   Alright, so staying in for 10 or 12 years killing our men and women in a foolish exercise that will never succeed in attaining our goal (since we have none other than stealing the oil)works better?

   Let the insurgents win, what difference does it make? When we have left, the insurgency goes away and democracy *might* start. Stay and we ensure insurgency and death.

   This isn't a pissing match where someone loses face, it's a real life situation where people live or die based on our decisions. The object is not to "win" in the sense you mean, it's to establish a peaceful society where people can live decent lives. It is absolutely and positively true that our presence as constituted now is doing exactly the opposite. We need to drop our puppets, let the Shia and the Sunnis sort it our amongst themselves and stop being a touchstone for violence.

   That's how to 'win.'

   Posted by smparsons at 06/02/2005 @ 5:39pm

8. I enjoy the "Minority/Majority" in the Nation. It's a great column and it sould be continued. Somebody's got to keep an eye on the Democrats. I sent off an e-mail to my member of congress and I said "shame on you" for voting for the banks and credit card companies. A two page b.s. form letter was sent back. This person is a true-blue-dog Raygun-Democrat. Worthless.

   Posted by jazzfan at 06/02/2005 @ 5:43pm

9. Flip flop? Hillary? She's always been a corporate lawyer bitch. Politicians are whores regardless of their party affiliation; they do what the corporate money wants. It's a capitalist society and everything is for sale.

   Yeah, Jumbo, you go hold a seminar about military tactics. Too bad Jr. and his herd of swine refused to listen to the professionals (or even his father) before this debacle in Iraq (Oh, they'll greet us with flowers, virgins, barrels of oil, kiss our feet, name their children Georgie Jr....).

   Posted by mtspence05 at 06/02/2005 @ 6:49pm

10. Zero,

    Did you just quote a Treasury official on international security policy? That is a fairly weak argument.

    The thing most of you folks don't want to face or admit is that an insurgency with no popular support is doomed. The current one has killed almost exclusively innocent Iraqis and consequently the people have turned against them, including the Sunnis. If you can't hide you gotta' run. They are running and doing as much damage as they can, but they are unable to hide among the people and that means we can hunt them and kill them. There is not an infinite supply of jihadis and we are also interdicting their infil routes from Syria and Saudi Arabia.

    We have won freedom for the Iraqis, and they have taken advantage. The insurgents will kill some more before they are sent to see Allah for their 72 goats but they can't prevail. Sorry folks we won this one.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

    Military Matters [madison.com]

    Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 06/02/2005 @ 7:16pm

11. First off, Jumbo, the US did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqis from the monster it once supported. The motives of the Bush administration to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam are self serving; ergo the occupation is doomed to failure.

    Those that opposed the invasion have been proven correct. The arrogant, ignorant swine running the executive cannot stand being wrong. Those that spoke up and have had their unpopular views validated by events are even more disliked, shunned by Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/02/2005 @ 7:29pm

12. When I think about a war where our country has invaded another with absolutely no provocation, I always try to think what we would do if the same happened to the United States. What if the invading power controlled the world's media outlets and used them to dehumanize us and our beliefs? I have no doubt that we would fight back. We would attack the invaders and the collaborators. This would be no time to worry about collateral damage. We would do whatever it takes to win. If we die in battle, of course we would go to heaven for such honorable deeds as defending God's chosen country. Inevitably, they would make attempts to hold 'elections' here, but this is America. How can we accept elections imposed by foreign invaders? Where would this end? For us, it can only end with the withdrawal of the evil, inhuman, obviously godless invaders. It's two sides of the same coin. People are people. If you had been born in Iran, the odds are that you would have been a Muslim. You'd have the same brain and the same genes, but you would still be a Muslim. If you had been born in the US, you would probably be a Christian. How can we justify occupying Iraq unless we can accept the idea that we would allow occupation of our country if others saw enough injustice happening here? This is the lowest form of humanity and the height of immorality. We need to pull out of Iraq as soon as we can! We broke it, but we don't own it. We're not deities. We don't own other peoples. Look at Vietnam now. Is that country ruined because we pulled out when we did? Would it be a more democratic country if we had stayed another 10 years? We can take care of our internal affairs and so can they. The only moral act we can follow now is to stop arming the Middle East including Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and the rest of our 'friends'. Of course anyone can justify anything done to anyone by dehumanizing them. That doesn't make them any less human. Unfortunately, the only effect is to make us less human.

    Posted by D1od1o at 06/02/2005 @ 10:32pm

13. I really love being dismissed by folks with no chance of ever actually doing so Zero.

    Any popular support still drawing breath is only Sadaam die-hards, another limited talent pool. Unfortunately for insurgency cheerleaders, this is slipping away every time a jihadi or Baathist is forwarded to Paradise. Keep hoping for a loss, but plan for more humiliation.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

    Military Matters [madison.com]

    Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 06/02/2005 @ 10:33pm

14. Uncle J, How like a Republican to ignore all the facts and resort to rhetoric and spin. But after all, the winning Republican strategy is to convince people to vote against their interests by using fear mongering and self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Unfortunately the Democratic party still hasn't figured out a way to burst the conservative force field. If people like Jimbo still defend those who have deliberately and illegally attacked another nation; who can claim to represent a "culture of life" when Bush signed more death warrants than any other governor and even more as President (body count of soldiers over 1600 and Iraqi civilians in the tens of thousands); who claim to be Christian (WWJD - what would Jesus destroy?); who have lied outright to the American people (Downing memo); and who have shown over and over a complete disrespect for America, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, common morality and the rule of law, let's face it, what can we do to change their minds? NOTHING! Just like alcoholics, the first step to recovery is to admit there is a problem, and apparently the brainwashing of the radical right will not allow for any admission of guilt or error, however small and/or justified. In my deepest, most pessimistic heart, I think that the solution to the insane direction the country is headed is not in the hands of the Demodratic party, but in the hands of a Republican, a Republican with conscience and the courage to stand up to the radicals setting the agenda for the Republicans. we have seen glimpses (Senator Voinovich, Senator McCain, the stem cell bill in the House), but not enough to turn the tide. Please convince me that I'm wrong, because I don't see the Republican juggernaut slowing down any time soon.

    Posted by Turk33 at 06/03/2005 @ 10:18am

15. The problem with your argument Uncle J is that there is not a limited supply of people in Iraq that wish to do our solidiers and moderate Iraqis harm. There is a new group of insurgents streaming into the country from Saudi Arabia (the same crew that gave us 9/11). What I think is playing out in Iraq is a war between the US and the Saudis over oil and a repressed civil war in Saudi Arabia itself.

    Posted by ajcreer at 06/03/2005 @ 10:37am

16. I think Jimbo is right, there is a limited supply of people. And when the palestinian extremists runs out of people then we'll have some idea of when the Iraqi insurgency will run out of people. Now the palestinian extremists have been at it for about 57 years now with a tenth of the population (more or less depending on how you count it), and they haven't run out quite yet...So we should be checking into Iraq at about....say...2305 and see if they are at the same point.

    Good point Jimbo - give this another century or two, and they'll run out of insurgents. Maybe sooner if we continue to cut off their water and food and medical service.

    And when they are all dead - along with millions more, we will have WON!!!! And won't that be all warm and fuzzy?

    Posted by smparsons at 06/03/2005 @ 11:13am

17. MTSPENCE05 write "Flip flop? Hillary? She's always been a corporate lawyer bitch."

    It's an offensive slur and he/she/it should apologize. 'bitch' is a low and facile remark. Maybe mtspence05 says she is a "bitch" to corporate laywers, thus the ensuing 'whore' remark - again attacking the senator from New York for her gender. An enlightened position to be sure.

    I have very little use for Senator Clinton, or any 'centrist' (i.e. suck up) democrat. But very little space in civil discourse should be taken up by personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issues at hand and are merely illustrative of the prevailing societal fear of strong women. And the predictable use of derogatory verbiage that is appallingly FOX-like and demeaning.

    Demeaning is a great word de - meaning....sort of suggests bereft of meaning doesn't it?

    Posted by smparsons at 06/03/2005 @ 11:41am

18. Dean's job is to serve his party, Huffington's to serve herself.

    How clever would it be for Dean to oppose the Democrats in a war which in three years may prove a US victory?

    If Iraq is at that point a quagmire it will be easy enough to win at the polls. But suppose the insurgency is beaten?

    The electorate will then be reminded that the Democrats called for a pull out, that they would have denied America a signal success.

    In short, Iraq can go either way. A reasonably democratic and healthy society may yet emerge there. It would be reckless to step out in front of that path and possibily be run over.

    Huffington does so because she is out for the moment and for herself. Dean does not because he is out for his party.

    Posted by nacl at 06/03/2005 @ 12:21pm

19. Dean's job is to serve his party, Huffington's to serve herself.

    How clever would it be for Dean to oppose the Democrats in a war which in three years may prove a US victory?

    If Iraq is at that point a quagmire it will be easy enough to win at the polls. But suppose the insurgency is beaten?

    The electorate will then be reminded that the Democrats called for a pull out, that they would have denied America a signal success.

    In short, Iraq can go either way. A reasonably democratic and healthy society may yet emerge there. It would be reckless to step out in front of that path and possibily be run over.

    Huffington does so because she is out for the moment and for herself. Dean does not because he is out for his party.

    Posted by nacl at 06/03/2005 @ 12:31pm

20. That's agood point AJ about this being something of a proxy war with the Saudis, actually the jihadis are more or less the Saudi opposition.

    But I still believe the numbers are limited because the routes for new jihadis trying to enter are being interdicted. Even the Syrians arrested some wannabe bad guys. And we definitely need to put the screws to the Saudis as they are the biggest source of money and bad religion in the region.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

    Military Matters [madison.com]

    Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 06/03/2005 @ 12:54pm

21. Well done Jimbo...there are other 'towel heads' to worry about.

    Your point is increasingly vaporous.

    Posted by smparsons at 06/03/2005 @ 4:19pm

22. NACL - whaah?

    the presidency is the only thing that counts? I suspect that it is not, but thanks for playing, we have a lovely parting gift for you.

    Posted by smparsons at 06/03/2005 @ 4:22pm

23. Boy you people have some fairly reactionary stereotypes of those who disagree with you. Towel heads? C'mon, do I have to be a racist?

    It is possible to argue productively, although I can start with the patchouli references if you want.

    Your boy Johnny Nichols wrote a piece for the Capital Times that I smack around on my blog, which is on the same website as his paper. Read it, that will definitely make you feel better.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

    Military Matters [madison.com]

    Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 06/03/2005 @ 6:02pm

24. SMPARSONS

    NACL - whaah? the presidency is the only thing that counts? I suspect that it is not, but thanks for playing, we have a lovely parting gift for you

    Can I suppose that beside snidely waving a dish towel you are also able to explain what you mean?

    Posted by nacl at 06/03/2005 @ 7:10pm

25. Hello, Pardon my interruption to the on-going conversation. This is the first time I have submitted a post to this site. The comments by many here about a government devoid of the needs of its people are on point in my opinion. What is unsettling is the held belief by some people that Iraq is a success. What are you people smoking?

    To think that there is a finite number of insurgents is ludicrous. To dismiss the idea that we are creating more insurgents faster than they are being killed is naïve. The notion of non-support by the people of Iraq for the hostilities toward US troops borders on the insane. What is the most tragic of all is that the elected leaders in our government seem to subscribe to the above attitudes.

    All one needs to do is study the history of that area of the world to understand the tenacity of the people to fight against occupation. The sporadic glimpses of acceptance that are shown toward Americans are most likely from Iraqis who are using us to grab power. For every Iraqi killed by an American, an entire family becomes an enemy. The indigenous insurgency grows in a nearly geometric progression.

    What fools we have deciding our future. What fools we are for sitting by and watching it unfold on TV without a clue as to what is really happening. What fools we have become by being duped by a government and a mass media that are both owned and controlled by those who profit from our misery. We wave our flags like true patriots while standing in a pool of quicksand. The more we wave, the further we sink. Such is our "success" in Iraq.

    Regards, Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/03/2005 @ 7:12pm

26. All the talk about Democrats in Congress is annoying me. There are no Democrats in Congress. For anyone who remembers politics from the 1960s, the Senate is composed of Goldwater Republicans (the Bush kool aid drinkers), Nixon Republicans (the so called Moderate Republicans) and Rockefeller Republicans (the Democrats). Bill Clinton was a wonderful Rockefeller Republican President as would be Hillary. Who honestly believes that Joe Lieberman is a Democrat? There are no Democrats. Period. Where is the Hubert Humphrey of 2005? That's why the Progressive Movement (composed of real Democrats) is so important. But in order for Progressives to be successful, we all need to get over the mass delusion that there are any Democrats in Washinton who will speak for the people.

    Posted by billsheasf at 06/03/2005 @ 9:49pm

27. Just give me a National Health care system as good as the UK's and I'll vote for you for the rest of my life. Until someone shows me proof that Hillary's health care push in the 90's was meant to fail, I will support her. What good is National Defense that is the greatest of all time if we're not prepared to protect the health of the citizens of this nation for a fraction of that cost? I watched as Harry and Louise lied to the Nation about Hillary's Health Care plans in ad after ad and we all stood by and watched them nearly destroy her for her tremendous courage. If we don't support her after that, who will ever stand up for the kind of health care system that this country really needs to compete in the Global economy? I'm ready to give her another chance at it. Give President H. Clinton and a Democratic congress a majority for one term and if they don't produce this result then everything that has been said about the Democrats being just another shade of Elephant will have been proved once and for all to be true and we can all comfortably vote Green Party knowing that we were throwing our votes away before anyway.

    Posted by D1od1o at 06/03/2005 @ 10:30pm

28. ZERO

    You say to me:

    You wish for thousands and thousands for more deaths, and more mutilations, and misery, poverty, starvation, chaos, and distress ... for electoral purposes? as part of a presidential campaign strategy in an election years down the road?

    The NY Times yesterday ran an op-ed quoting a poll wherein most Iraqis want us to stay and believe things are improving. Most are sure, without the US civil war will ensue and the killers who are now deliberately and indiscriminately murdering hundreds of civilians weekly will regain control of Iraq. Those fascists held that country by the throat under Saddam, amputated tongues, caused losing sport teams to tremble for their lives, put 300,000 civilians into mass graves according to the UN and HRW. Were you wringing your hands when that was going on? But now suddenly you dissolve in pity and want to abort the one chance Iraq has ever had for a decent govt.

    My guess is, you don't give a damn about those people, how they live or whether they live. You want the administration to suffer a debacle, that is what you care about. Nevermind that it will ultimately not be Bush's defeat but ours, America's. Nevermind that a success in Iraq would prove a blessing for the entire Middle East. Nevermind that it would advance the diplomacy, prestige and the national security interests of America. Why does that not interest you?

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 12:17am

29. To NACL

    How does one go about conducting an unbiased poll in Iraq? Putting aside the ability to frame questions in a survey to get the desired response, how does one even approach the common Iraqi in such a hostile environment in order to conduct a poll in the first place?

    What type of an answer would you expect from an Iraqi if the person conducting the poll is being escorted by armed American troops? Any other Iraqi who might be approached is probably one working for the occupation force, or living within the safety of the Green Zone.

    This is the type of media hype that duped the people into going to war, the type of hype that deflects any accountability away from those responsible for this farce, and the same type of hype that keeps Americans from having the courage to ask the tough questions of their government officials as well as themselves.

    To find the real motivation behind the onset and continuation of this administrartion's immoral lie they call democracy for Iraq, just follow the money. Who is benefitting from this war? Does the word like Halliburton ring any bells?

    While it does seem to be a noble effort to democratize the mideast, one had better define what kind of democracy the people of Iraq envision. Is it a buzz word they use to preamble their actions for gaining power. If an Iraqi says he wants democracy and then goes out and blows up his opponents, does that mean he understands how to use the system better than we do?

    I am for democracy in Iraq, but I believe it has to be done by them. I'm certainly not for democracy in Iraq if it costs us our own, along with thousands of our loved ones thrown on the sacrificial alter of global big business interests.

    Iraq, as we know it by its defined borders, has no sense of commonality among the many factions that reside there. Differences in religion, ethnicity, and milleniums of open hostility among them make the idea of a common government acceptable to all impossible in our lifetime. "Staying the course" at the rate we are now will bankrupt our nation financially and emotionally sooner than a lifetime as we pour billions of dollars and thousands of lives into a misrepresented cause.

    But, if you're one of the "have mores" profitting from the $billions being spent by taxpayers, then perhaps the idea of a democracy in Iraq has a capitalistic potential for those certain few. Other than that, the rest of the world is spiralling the drain as it tries to re-civilize the cradle of civilization in a manner not acceptable to those who live there.

    Regards, Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/04/2005 @ 02:13am

30. Also to NACL

    'quoting a poll'? How about this poll: 'As of Friday, June 3, 2005, at least 1,668 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.' Not to mention the over 12,000 American soldiers injured. Most with one or more missing limbs, brain damage, or some other permanent injury. How can anybody seriously quote a poll of people who at any time are subject to immediate arrest without charges or even immediate death by either the Americans or the insurgents? Go ahead and plot my poll with a monthly trend and see if you see any evidence for your optimism. As for the assertion that we 'want the administration to suffer a debacle', that has already happened. Not counting rotations, ten out of every 100 American occupation troops have been killed or seriously wounded in a war that we started. If this war is so important to National Security, why are we funding it with $300 billion (and counting) in debt? Why aren't we reinstating the draft so that the sacrifice is more equitably distributed among our population? There is no doubt that this is a purely politically motivated war. I can't even say that oil is the reason. Certainly China has no problem getting all the oil it needs for its growing economy with a small fraction of the military budget we require. Also, there is one fact that can't be stated enough times. There are many reasons for waging this war, but the freedom of the Iraqi populace is absolutely not one of them. I just wonder what motivates those who repeat the ‘freedom' claim to ignore our cozy relationship with a multitude of repressive dictators like the Saudi crime family and Musharraf of Pakistan. We've had many chances to impose ‘freedom' on Kuwait, but we haven't gotten around to it yet. As for ‘giving a damn about those people', we didn't start this war. Only one man on this earth started this war and it wasn't the ‘war criminal' Saddam Hussein nor was it Al-Qaeda. By the way, we used to call patriots who fought against all odds to protect their country against a repressive occupation force ‘Freedom Fighters'. We used to call that repressive occupation force ‘the Soviet Union'. How times have changed.

    Posted by D1od1o at 06/04/2005 @ 03:08am

31. ALIAS

    You ask:

    How does one go about conducting an unbiased poll in Iraq?

    Like everywhere else. Either you believe the science of poll taking can achieve reasonably accurate samplings or not. If you know that Iraqi surveys are conducted at the point of a gun provide your source.

    This is the type of media hype that duped the people into going to war

    You think the media hyped the country into invading Iraq? It did so by manipulating polls? Do you have some evidence for this?

    And how is the media keeping people from having "the courage to ask the tough questions of their government officials as well as themselves"? What tough questions have you in mind?

    You think the war is being conducted on behalf of Halliburton. $300 billion are spent so that Halliburton can make three or four billion dollars in profits?

    I am for democracy in Iraq, but I believe it has to be done by them. I'm certainly not for democracy in Iraq if it costs us our own, along with thousands of our loved ones thrown on the sacrificial alter of global big business interests.

    Was that your argument in Bosnia? The Bosnians should not be murdered by the Serbs, the Kosovars should not be ethnically cleansed, but they must do it by themselves? Would that have been your argument during the Civil War? Freeing the slaves is fine, but they have to free themselves. (That was the tune during the NYC draft riots.) Would you have said during WWII, democracy for the Europeans is fine, but they have to kick the Nazis out themselves? Why suffer 3,000 dead just on June 6, 1944, and another 100,000 dead to free Festung Europa which had accommodated itself to Hitler? Half a million even volunteered for his Waffen SS.

    Or would you have said, a democratic Europe is in the US interest. A fascist Europe, even if not an immediate threat, is a long term danger to US national security.

    In short, if enormous sacrifices made sense to secure a democratic Europe sixty years ago when we were 140 million, why not a democratic Iraq today when we are 300 million and have a 12 trillion economy? Back then it made sense to suffer 300,000 dead in four years of war, and spend billions to rebuild Europe and decades of occupation etc., Why does it not make sense to expend a tiny fraction of that effort for the chance of a stable and democratic Middle East?

    Arabs are not worth as much as Europeans? The war is being fought for the well being of a few capitalists? You, a socialist, want Iraq governed by mass murdering fascists?

    You sound like a real democrat, a humanitarian. You are for the little man, I can tell.

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 04:11am

32. ZERO

    ... yes, assuredly, three or four hundred billion dollars of public money can be expended so that private, well-connected companies like Halliburton can realize billion-dollar-per-year profits.

    If you were in power in Washington would it occur to you to spend $300 billion of public money and thousands of lives so that a handful of your friends, all worth hundreds of millions already, could become a little richer? Is that how you feel about your friends? You'd sacrifice the country so that they could be a little wealthier? I'm sure you would not. Why do you think a Chaney, a Rumsfeld, a Wolfowitz, a Rice are so much less decent and patriotic than you? Even if they are so low, you suppose them such fools that they could not devise a less spectacular route to help their friends to a lot more?

    My reference was to, The State of Iraq, a June 3 op-ed by Brookings Institute fellows. It noted that 65% of Iraqis believes their country is headed in the right direction, up from 50% a year ago; also, that 75% of Iraqis now supports their govt. And the govt wants the US to remain, period.

    Many of that survey's other numbers are not encouraging. That makes that 75% support from the man in the street, in the face of the daily slaughter of the man in the street, all the more remarkable.

    Further, their "constitution" forbids them from owning their economy. That is not democracy. That is colonization.

    I don't think a constitution exists yet. A primary role of the present govt is to write a constitution. But if you mean, that govt supports private enterprise as against the state controlling the means of production, you are probably right. That, in your eyes makes the present Iraq undemocratic and a colonial puppet?

    ... the media did drive the manufacture of consent for the invasion of Iraq ... dutifully amplified the propaganda and hysteria, without criticism, into a full-blown consent manufacturing process. This is a matter of open public record. Books have been authored.

    The hysteria around here is yours. The war was widely and reasonably discussed. The anti-argument was amply represented. The pro-war faction had the disadvantage of an astonishingly lame spokesman. We saw an open society debating a serious matter. It is ridiculous to suggest a bellicose media stampeded the country. The media began the war singularly lukewarm, thus the improvisation of embedded journalists, and has grown more skeptical. For a pro war media look to WWII. There every newspaper edition, newsreel, news broadcast, Tin Pan Alley song, Hollywood movie, radio comedy, theater drama - supported the war effort. Even in VN, it took three years before the media turned hostile. In VN we defoliated a third of a country and killed 2 million people. In WWII GIs hacked to death with entrenching tools Germans who had surrendered. After the peace Ike allowed tens of thousands of SS POWs to die of undernourishment and exposure. And that was the good war. Now we tear our hair out over a torn Koran and Iraqis tortured through contact with buxom women.

    Books have indeed been authored, and you offer excerpts from Naomi Klein. I could offer you Melanie Klein the Austrian psychotherapist whose specialty was ultra-aggressive fantasies of hate, envy, and greed. BTW, show me a war were fortunes were not made. Arthur Miller's play, All My Sons dealt with war profiteering in WWII.

    You "encourage" me to attend to ideologues. I urge you to shovel out of the bs you are under and acquire some common sense.

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 3:50pm

33. smparsons: I wasn't trying to be nice to Hillary. She is a corporate lawyer bitch, and as such she has absolutely no interest in the lives of working men and women. Screw her. And no, "whore" was not a reference to her gender. Politicians are whores.

    You wanna play nice nice? What's happening to the working people in this country--and that's labor, small business owners, many white collars--is not nice. Crude language? That's nothing compared to the ruthless economic policies pursued by both Democratic and Republican pols.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/04/2005 @ 4:11pm

34. NACL

    Zero covered much of what I was going to say in my reply to you. Your post exemplified what I was referring to about framing questions for surveys and slanting stories to portray an altogether different point of view. Through false association, you linked slavery in the South with the Iraqi people under Saddam. Nice try, but totally wrong. A good example of one of the most common used logical fallacies. The same applies to the reference to Nazi Germany.

    Poll taking can be a source of good information when collected objectively and calculated scientifically. However, it can also be used to solicit a desired response when the questions are semantically engineered to bias the answers. As in the way people were asked if they favored an Iraq ruled by Saddam or an Iraq under a democratic form of government, the obvious answer being that a democratic Iraq was preferable. However, one cannot construe from the obvious answer to the question as being an affirmation for a foreign government to ram a prescribed form of democracy down their throat. One would think that the population living within a country should be allowed to employ religious leaders and clerical policies in their government, rather than secular rulers using foreign capitalistic influences to secure their positions of power, if it is a true democracy of, by, and for the people.

    You wanted to know what some of the tough questions are. How about this; Can the United States (government) be wrong? Is the United States acting more like Hitler or more like a true liberator of the people of Iraq? In your post, you referred to Europe and WWII. Was not the United States asked, even begged, to join in the fight against Germany by those other European countries, but did not do so until attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the United States? Who in Iraq declared war on the U.S.? Who attacked America on 9-11? Did I miss something?

    Ah, the WMDs that we heard about ad infinitum et ad nauseum. Despite many opinions by experts who said Saddam did not have them to the extent that was propagandized to the American people, the decision for invasion was made by an egomaniac and a puppetized congress. Now, the United States has been proven wrong about the WMDs. What was the response and where was the clamor for accountability? An, "oops, too bad, someone told me they were there," just doesn't do it for me.

    If Russia would have taken the exact course of action that the United States did, go into Iraq under false assumptions, take over the oil fields, kill thousands of Iraqi civilians, and restrict the access to reconstruction contracts and crude oil to only those that Russia deemed worthy, I'd bet the present U.S. administration would not be applauding such efforts to liberate Iraq. What do you think?

    As far as calling me a socialist, a true democrat, and the other sarcasms about being a true humanitarian who is for the little guy, I thank you. You can also add liberal and isolationist to your list. I'm not afraid of McCarthy-esque labels or the "out-of-fashion" brandings that are attached to my point of view. I am self-serving to the point of wanting to preserve my standard of living and my way of life in America. If we, as a country or as an individual, can help others to achieve the same freedoms then I'm all for it. But, if we have to loose our freedoms, reduce our standard of living, and bankrupt this country morally and financially to save face for an egomaniac that can't admit to a mistake while pocketing my sacrifices for himself and his cronies, then I'm against that type of "leadership." My question to you is, what level has to be reached before you feel it is costing too much? How many lives, dollars, and lost chances to help those who want the help must be wasted?

    Our country is already experiencing an economic breakdown, loss of decent medical care for the middle class, a deteriorating social safety net, and an education system that is dumbing down our children so the future generation won't notice, won't know about what used to be, and won't have the ability or will to fix it. The paths left for the next generation to find their American Dream are limited. The lucky ones are born into the elite families, others might achieve interdependence if they buy into the status quo of the global mega-corporations, a few might attain some degree of independence if they are not too ambitious in their creativity, and those that once made up the working class will have to depend on drugs.

    But hey, whadda I know? I'm just another American mushroom. Left in the dark and fed "h-------t" through biased textbooks and the convergence of a controlled mass media. Which brings me back to a previous point and another question for you. If Hitler had played ball with the corporate elite in Europe, and Germany would have won the war, would we now be reading about how Hitler unified the nations of Europe like Genghis Khan did in what is now the Mideast. Hitler would have accomplished what the European Union is trying to do now. (Darn free-thinking French people just seem to cause trouble for everyone that tries to tell them what to do, don't they?) I wonder how many marks textbooks and a higher education would cost today… Any thoughts, Mr. Salt?

    Auf Wiedersehen,

    Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/04/2005 @ 4:27pm

35. ZERO

    I am sorry, I forgot to address this part:

    (PS - who is the greater killer of Iraqis, over the many years? Saddam Hussein? Or the US national government? Before you answer so quickly, try to remember that the US has driven two wars into Iraq, as well as a decade of sanctions that killed lots of Iraqis through the consequences of poverty and economic strangulation. Do you believe that Hussein killed as many Iraqis as the US national government? Do you have numbers to support your claim?

    So, you were also opposed to Desert Storm and forcing Saddam to disgorge Kuwait. Your idea of how the US should attend to her interests, and another example of your humanitarianism.

    As to casualties, the Iraq bodycount site, when I last looked, listed some 13,000 dead Iraqi civilians. (I don't take seriously the Lancet figures which postulated 100,000 dead on the basis of a 95% certainty that between 8,000 and 198,000 died.)

    But I do take seriously the UN and HRW calculation that Saddam put 300,000 Shias into mass graves. So far they have found 300 of those graves and now estimate the Baath killed about a million Iraq civilians in its years of power.

    It is also established that Mirage and MIG planes dropped canisters of gas (a cocktail from a Soviet formula) on Halabja in 1988, killing around 5,000 Iraqi Kurds. (Iraq was killing civilians with gas as early as November 1980, two months into the war, when Tehran Radio reported the chemical bombing of Susangerd.

    It is reliably estimated that that war against Iran, initiated by Saddam, killed around 750,000 Iranian and Iraqi soldiers.

    While sanctions lasted children probably did die of malnutrition as a result of Saddam's misappropriation of resources, though clearly not as many as his fake dead baby coffin sought to suggest. But the anti-war side argues that those sanctions were doing their job, that they contained Saddam, that they should have been continued rather than exchanged for an invasion. Where do you stand on that?

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 4:39pm

36. Saddam was a very bad man. I seriously doubt you could find many to disagree with that. The US invasion of Iraq was not about ridding the world of a cruel despot, though; it was not about WMD's, ties to Al Qaeda, or any other such nonsense. And for an administration to mislead the American public, defy international law, launch a war against a country that posed no threat to us, and then rationalize its illegal, immoral actions with claims of spreading democracy, liberating the Iraqis from Saddam is insulting. The Bush administration invaded Iraq for its own selfish reasons. Wrapping a piece of dung in bright, shiney paper with ribbons does not make it anything more than excrement.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/04/2005 @ 5:12pm

37. ALIAS

    You clearly don't think you have a very strong reply. That is why you feel the need to boldface your entire post. That far I agree with you.

    But not with the burrowing back into a rehash of all the arguments about the war. Let's stick to our point of departure.

    You challenged the possibility of accurate poll taking in Iraq. You claimed it was conducted at the point of a gun. I asked for but haven't received your evidence.

    You claimed the media stampeded the country into war; you have neglected to produce evidence or a coherent argument for thatas well.

    You said you wanted Iraq to be a free and democratic country. You have not explained why the same reasons for helping Europe against the Nazis, at considerable cost in blood and treasure, don't also apply to helping the Arabs

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 5:13pm

38. Do you really believe the US fought WWII to do anything other than defend its interests? This is a capitalist nation, governed by capitalists. How business men do you know that just give away money? Hitler and his ideology posed a dire threat to the capitalist system--much more so than "communist" Russia; and the Japanese...well, they went for their piece of the pie (just as Great Britain, the Dutch, France, and the US had already done)and came up way short. The Roosevelt administration fought the Nazis and the Japanese to defend the economic interests of the US, not to liberate the French, Chinese or anyone else.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/04/2005 @ 5:25pm

39. MTSPENCE05

    Do you really believe the US fought WWII to do anything other than defend its interests?

    Agreed. The US fought WWII solely in defense of her own interests. Indeed, it would have been treasonous to spend American blood and treasure in the defense of the interests of other countries.

    But the question is, what is in America's interests?

    The US has taken to heart the idea of enlightened self interest. It served us, our security, our economy, our future, to defeat the Nazis and Japanese militarists and replace them with democratic govts. That was also the reason for spending billions of taxpayer money on the Marshall Plan, on the UN, on NATO, etc. It served the US, even while it did others considerable good.

    And that is exactly why we are in Iraq. Our long term national security is served by stable and decent govts in Iraq and elsewhere. Dangerous are closed and fanatic police states reaching for nukes with feverish fingers.

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 5:47pm

40. Unless, of course, it's Israel.

    "Decent" is not part of the calculus. Stable, open to our economic penetration--it has nothing to do with "democracy" or human rights. Take Egypt, for example, or Saudi Arabia.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/04/2005 @ 5:57pm

41. MTSPENCE05

    Unless, of course, it's Israel.

    What do you mean?

    "Decent" is not part of the calculus. Stable, open to our economic penetration--it has nothing to do with "democracy" or human rights. Take Egypt, for example, or Saudi Arabia.

    You don't think the US would much prefer a democratic and decent govt, and an open society in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia?

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 6:12pm

42. Israel has nukes. For the Palestinians living within Israel it is a police state (hell, the US is a police state).

    So long as a country is stable, open to economic penetration, exploitation all other concerns or irrelevant to those running the show (especially this herd of swine currently in office). These specious arguments of yours, these lofty and righteous sentiments remind me of the "White Man's Burden" and other such self serving beliefs. It's all about money; it's crass, brazen. Like I said, wrap in whatever paper you want, but it still stinks like shit.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/04/2005 @ 6:22pm

43. MTSPENCE05

    Israel has nukes.

    She has had them since 1968. So what?

    What other country in the world lives as a slim, slip of a thing in a sea of hate, outnumbered 50 to 1? Has any other country neighbors openly pledged to her extermination, and who periodically try to realize that goal? What other country's survival depend so on its might?

    Yet who has been less boastful and more circumspect about its nuclear arsenal. No one in the Mideast has ever had reason to go to bed worried that an unprovoked Israel might, in the middle of the night, unleash her hundreds of weapons and eradicate her neighbors.

    But once the Middle East has an Islamic arsenal with IRBMs, no one there will again have a peaceful night's sleep. Nor in Europe either. And with good reason.

    For the Palestinians living within Israel it is a police state (hell, the US is a police state).

    There are 300 million Arabs in the Mideast. None of them enjoy both a decent standard of living and full civil and human rights. The only exception are the Arab citizens of Israel.

    They are1.2 million strong and vote for members of Parliament, elect their own local officials, write, criticize, protest. Every aspect of Israeli society is open to them. All schools and hospitals and media. An Arab sits on Israel's Supreme Court. Arabs serve in the diplomatic corps, including as ambassador. They serve on the general staff of the IDF and command brigades. Their rights are protected by the establishment inside the country even as their brethren outside seek to demolish it. That you call a police state?

    But you even call the US a police state. Which country do you not consider a police state?

    Nevermind, it is pointless to talk to you.

    Posted by nacl at 06/04/2005 @ 8:45pm

44. NACL

    I don't know why my post ended up in boldface. It was not my intent. That said, I'll try to answer your questions in shorter sentences. I thought I had addressed them in my post, but perhaps it was too entwined within my personal feelings for you to comprehend.

    My assertion about how the polls were conducted in Iraq was an assumption based on common sense. I assumed that it would be unlikely that someone would go door to door in a neighborhood that wasn't already within a guarded area without the accompaniment of an armed escort. If you want to equate that to saying the poll was conducted at the point of a gun, you have missed the point. I'll agree that one might envision my assumption to mean at the point of a gun, but that person would probably be too mentally deficient to understand anything in these posts. Or, it could be someone who is trying to deflect the reader's attention away from the obvious probability that no one is going door to door in Iraq conducting polls. From what I have read, seen, and heard from the different mediums of communication out of Iraq, there are not enough working telephones to call a representative sample of the common Iraqi. I have heard nothing about there even being a postal service in existence there. So who makes up the sample? How were the questions phrased and framed? Who collected and tabulated the replies?

    As for the country being stampeded into war by the media, I'll have to agree with you that it was not…"stampeded" that is. The media was used in an insidious manner to condition the people of this country to accept the war as being a necessary and inevitable outcome. A preconceived outcome that would only be challenged by those who would be called unpatriotic, ultra left wing radicals that should leave the United States and live in France, or a person whose only purpose in life was to get Bush.

    I'll give you an example. Whenever anyone from the administration was asked about 9-11 and who was responsible, the word Iraq or Saddam was used within the reply. Even though the official asked might not have directly blamed Iraq or Saddam as the sole perpetrator, they associated the country and the man with the deed. That is why so many people even today think that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. That is why no one questioned why we went into Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.

    I don't know what you would accept as proof. Do you want a sworn confession by someone in power that there was a strategy in place to misrepresent the situation? I cannot provide that, but one can find books on public opinion and propaganda to learn about the techniques that were used. Here is another method that Bush used to deflect attention away from a specific point like the validity of the evidence of WMDs or the ties between Al Queda and Iraq. He wouldn't answer the question but would go into a dissertation about American values and the righteousness of freedom for all. Who would argue with those beliefs, but who ever got an answer to the original question?

    I hope this provides some measure of proof to you, but I suspect that you already knew about it and were again trying to distort my view by hyperbolizing my intent with the word stampede. It was more of a cajoled guide to the slaughterhouse rather than a stampede to war.

    The third question that you claim I did not answer was about the difference between helping the Arabs and helping Europe. If it wasn't obvious enough for you before, I'll repeat the glaring difference. The Europeans asked us for help, we were attacked and there was a declaration of war signed against us. As far as I have seen, the only thing that the Arabs have consistently asked of us has been, is, and continues to be; Get Out! They do more than articulate it; they go to their death killing others demonstrating it. I don't know what is more emphatic than that, except maybe your polls.

    Regards

    Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/04/2005 @ 10:59pm

45. I served for eighteen months in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972). I've seen this "peace with honor" horror show before. It will end, as did the Vietnam War, with a whimper, not a bang. Judging from the attrition rate in the US military and the frenzied career ticket punching among the rapidly rotating military-government bureaucrats, I'd say this farce doesn't have all that much longer to run.

    I, too, supported Howard Dean with a $100 contribution -- the only political contribution I ever made in my fifty-seven years of life on this planet. I did it because I thought he might effectively champion my oppostion to the needless war in Iraq as well as the corrupt crony capitalism now sucking the life out of working-class America. Unfortunately, given his credulous capitulation to the mawkish mavens of milquetoast middle-ism, i.e., the Lieberman/Clinton/Kerry quislings of the Democratic Party, I now regret that contribution. Nothing much has changed in American political life since Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. No matter how you vote, you get more of Vietnam.

    I think the Congressional Democrats have made a crass calculation. They think that the costs of the war in Iraq (currently runnng at a billion to two billion dollars a week) and the steady loss of blood in the Army, Marine Corps, and Reserve enlisted ranks will probably bankrupt the entire operation in less than two years. The Democrats, I think, have just decided to lay low and let the chickens come home to roost on the Republicans who so very badly wanted to start this "splendid little photo-op war." I consider this unconscionable because it condemns so many of our most vulnerable and young military people to needless death and maiming. It will probably continue for a while longer, though, because -- face it -- Hillary Clinton does not have any more daughters in uniform than George Bush has. Almost no one in America's political class has any personal experience of war nor do they have any fear of having their own family members serve. So, really, what do they care?

    This will go on until the money and blood run out, which I believe the Democrats figure to happen before they get back in office in 2008. It doesn't look pretty, and it may not work, but that does look like the plan to me.

    Posted by mrmurry at 06/05/2005 @ 11:14am

46. Nacl: A family member is suspected of being a "terrorist" and so the Israeli government bulldozes your home. Is that what you call due process? Human rights? Maybe on paper. Arabs occupy positions of authority within the Israeli government, IDF? That's news to me; but even if that is true, what kind of Arabs are we talking about? Are these Arabs that share the values of mainstream Palestinians or are they "Uncle Tom" types?

    Are you familiar with the saying a "liberal is a conservative that has been in prison"? Having rights on paper and actually having them respected by the authorities are two completely different things. Have you ever had an "officer of the law" abuse his/her authority with you? Here in the US the cops can more or less do whatever they want, and unless it is a high profile case (i.e., the press is focused on the proceedings) or you are have the financial ability to use an expensive, influential attorney (that's in the state; with the Feds you're better off saving your money and going with the lackey court appointed attorney), the courts, police, penal system is going to do as it pleases (most judges and a great many politicians were prosecutors). And unless you've been through the wringer you simply have no idea. (The press does not have free access to our prisons--state or federal.)

    Regardless, we were talking about the US invasion of Iraq, the motivations of our government (both Democrats and Republicans), and your rationalizations for the illegal, immoral invasion of another country. And as I said, it smells, smells real bad, reminds me of the Spanish that brought the "saving grace of Christianity" to the native Americans as they robbed them of their riches, land and enslaved them; the English, French, Dutch, Belgian, Americans that accepted the "White Man's Burden" and went out into Africa, Asia to bring the advantages of "civilization" to black, yellow peoples. The US and its "Coalition of the Willing" did not go into Iraq to rid the world of Saddam; the US and its lackeys are not occupying Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East. (How are you going to spread democracy with the bayonet point?) Read a history book--a decent, objective history book and you'll see that the same thing has happened before in Iraq (for something a little more recent, just study up on the US involvement in Vietnam), and there were plenty of people making the same arguments that you are to justify the criminal acts committed.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/05/2005 @ 2:27pm

47. Oh, one more thing, nacl: If there was no unconditional US support for Israel and its policies or Western commericial, cultural imperialism in the region (ala Iran), I seriously doubt the Middle East would be such a breeding ground for radicalism. You must reap what you sow; only a fool sticks his hand in a fire and then curses the flames for his burns...

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/05/2005 @ 2:34pm

48. ALIAS

    no one is going door to door in Iraq conducting polls. From what I have read, seen, and heard from the different mediums of communication out of Iraq, there are not enough working telephones to call a representative sample

    Iraq currently has 3.3 million phones which is four times as many as before the war. That is more than one phone for every 1.5 households. My poll reference is above, in my post to Zero. It is taken from a June 3 NY Times op-ed by Brookings Institute fellows.

    The media was used in an insidious manner to condition the people of this country to accept the war as being a necessary and inevitable outcome. A preconceived outcome that would only be challenged by those who would be called unpatriotic, ultra left wing radicals that should leave the United States and live in France, or a person whose only purpose in life was to get Bush.

    That is your tendentious take. The media in this country is independent. That many thoughtful journalists thought the Saddam danger real, as did the intelligence services of Europe, Israel, Russia and the CIA, and people like Blix, does not prove the press was suckered.

    Whenever anyone from the administration was asked about 9-11 and who was responsible, the word Iraq or Saddam was used within the reply. Even though the official asked might not have directly blamed Iraq or Saddam as the sole perpetrator, they associated the country and the man with the deed.

    Yes, and that was not an illogical or dishonest supposition. It was assumed that the resources required for an operation as complicated as 9/11 needed the help of a nation state. The Czech secret service had come to the CIA on its own initiative with information about Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi operative in Prague. Iraq had had a diplomat in Pakistan's badlands liaisoning with bin Laden. The 1993 attack on the WTC was thought to have involved Iraq. Moreover, Saddam had over the years made himself America's enemy #1. He refused to honor his 1991 disarmament commitment. He brazenly played footsies with the inspectors over a dozen years. He put a picture of Bush 41 on the doormat of the Rashid hotel and did not shrink from trying to assassinate him. He drummed himself up as the Arab Saladin defying the US. Iraq loomed large as the most dangerous and persistent champion of all those seeking to bring the US down. It made sense to suspect Iraq. That presumption was not craftiness. US spokesmen were not slyly putting the blame on someone they knew to be uninvolved.

    Do you want a sworn confession by someone in power that there was a strategy in place to misrepresent the situation?

    Yes, real evidence that the White House did not really consider Saddam dangerous, but only pretended he was, that is what I want. That is what you are required to present if you want to persist in your claim. Books by ideologues asking why we did not invade Saudi Arabia are not sufficient. Nor are screeds mocking President Bush. Everyone knows he could not convincingly relate what he ate for supper yesterday. That he is inarticulate does not make the administration's policy foolish, fake or faulty.

    about the difference between helping the Arabs and helping Europe. . . The Europeans asked us for help . . . the only thing that the Arabs have consistently asked of us has been, is, and continues to be; Get Out! They do more than articulate it; they go to their death killing others demonstrating it.

    The Europeans did not ask for help. Britain asked the 120,000 poilus evacuated from Dunkirk to stay and fight on. Almost all opted to return home after the armistice to a France that happily collaborated with the Nazis. Many of Europe's establishments were already admiring of the New Order before the fall of France. Half a million volunteered for the Waffen SS. The Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Danes, among others, fought and died for Hitler in larger numbers than they had in defense of their own homelands. The last defenders of Hitler's Berlin bunker was a French Waffen SS battalion from the Charlemagne Division. Not a single French uniform landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944. Leclerc's division only disembarked in August. The Free French were substantially colonial troops from French Equatorial Africa. De Gaulle had to recruit Spaniards in Algeria and Christian Lebanese to whiten his force for the liberation of Paris. Sure the French fought, and hard, inflicting thousands of casualties, against the American and British landing in Tunisia. Even the Resistance did not really get going until the Germans started drafting civilians into their armament factories in the Reich, around the time of D-Day when the writing became clear on the wall. There were brave and decent Europeans of all nationalities, foremost the Serbs, who desperately wanted an Allied victory, but the majority were indifferent or in support of the Nazis.

    As to the Iraqis, 75% support their elected government, which wants American troops to remain. That Islamists and Baathists are trying to intimidate that majority with indiscriminate slaughter is your evidence that we are unwanted and should leave. Go pay your brain bill.

    Posted by nacl at 06/05/2005 @ 2:43pm

49. MTSPENCE05

    Nacl: A family member is suspected of being a "terrorist" and so the Israeli government bulldozes your home.

    You are confusing a people and movement pledged in its constitution, to the extermination of Israel - with Israel's Arab citizens. If you think they are Uncle Toms because they do not share their brethren's desire to liquidate Israel then we don't have a discussion.

    As to the bulldozing of the family homes of malefactors, that is a time honored punishment in that region. The Turks who ran the Middle East for 400 years used it. So did their British and Jordanian successors.

    Have you ever had an "officer of the law" abuse his/her authority with you? Here in the US the cops can more or less do whatever they want, and unless it is a high profile case (i.e., the press is focused on the proceedings) or you are have the financial ability to use an expensive, influential attorney (that's in the state; with the Feds you're better off saving your money and going with the lackey court appointed attorney), the courts, police, penal system is going to do as it pleases

    I live in the USA, America is my country. This is not a police state. It is crazy to suggest it is because there are occasional instances of police abuse.

    If you are concerned about police states look at the 22 Arab nations, every one of which is some kind of autocracy or tyranny. But you sneer at the one Mideast nation making a valiant effort, while fighting for its life, to guarantee its minority civil and human rights. It takes a bigot to confuse the reality in such a grotesque manner.

    we were talking about the US invasion of Iraq, the motivations of our government (both Democrats and Republicans), and your rationalizations for the illegal, immoral invasion of another country.

    Right. Your demonstrated penchant to turn things up-side-down, as when you call the US and Israel police states, testifies to the quality of your judgment. Were you to deem our presence in Iraq justified and worth continuing, I would be worried.

    Posted by nacl at 06/05/2005 @ 3:17pm

50. NACL Iam new to this great exchange and I am a vintage American and I was a teenager during WW11. That said re' Europeans did not ask us to engage in WW11. I beg to differ Winston Churchill was on a repeated mission to the USA to get us involved as the bombs kept dropping on London. A great book for reference would be "No Ordinary Time" I trust all who read this will consider the book. And finally we MUST restore civility to the Congress and move the country back to the vital center.

    Posted by aurora74 at 06/05/2005 @ 4:31pm

51. NACL

    Oh, I'm the close minded bigot, the confused fool, the misguided jingoist, the hypocrite...

    I don't care for despotic regimes, foreign or domestic. Syrian, Iranian, Israeli, British--tyranny is tyranny, regardless of nationality; and to excuse one while decrying another is hypocrisy (kind of like professing to a "culture of life" after initiating an agressive war [or signing off on death sentences for political gain while serving as a governor]).

    Occasional cases of police abuse? It is systemic, institutionalized. Do you understand the dynamics of "power"? If you cannot make a person, institution, government do the right thing, why should he/she/it do it? The Bush administration is making all sorts of lofty claims about spreading democracy, liberating populations, but what happens when these sentiments come into conflict with reality? How can the Iraqi's (or Palestinians in Israel [Oh, by the way, you do understand that many of the founders of present day Israel indulged in terrorist operations against the British inorder to drive the Brits out of Palestine, as it was then called, so that they could take land away from the Palenstinians? Tell me, what would be the reaction of US citizens if a comparable crime was perpetrated against US land? I would like to think I and other Americans would fight the wrong, refuse to collaborate. And I'm not even gonna touch on the issues that Native Americans do or should have with the US government]) force their occupiers to follow the law, live up to their lofty rhetoric? They cannot. And if you had the life experiences that would allow you a similar perspective you would appreciate the true nature of power and how it is used, abused.

    And to get back to the original discussion, we were talking about the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, based on lies. And now the administration and its supports are propigating more lies to justify the ongoing occupation of the nation. If the West had not meddled in the internal affairs of the region (Hell, the British and French carved the Middle East into arbitrary boundaries following the First World War [to the victors go the spoils] simply because oil was there!) the region and the Arabs living on the land could have developed at its own pace, most likely with extremely different results. (I cited the US support of the shah as an example of such interference and the results--which you conveniently ignored.)

    And the hypocrisy of US policies in relation to Israel? They can have and do whatever they want with the unconditional support of our government. UN sanctions do not apply; international laws do not apply; the non-poliferation of nuclear arms do not apply. How do you think that looks in the eyes of the Arabs, Iranians? Do you not appreciate how a repressive government can take advantage of such a situation, to use that US support and hypocrisy, to manipulate its population and foment hate? And I hate to burst your bubble, but the unconditional support of Israel has nothing to do wtih the supposed democratic, humanitarian nature of its government--huge amounts of money flow from the pockets of US tax payers to the Israeli government which then flows back to the US corporations producing arms, and Israel serves as a strategic partner for the US in the region.

    I don't care how many bows you put on your argument, it still smells like bullshit.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/05/2005 @ 5:28pm

52. MTSPENCE05

    Oh, I'm the close minded bigot, the confused fool, the misguided jingoist, the hypocrite...

    I don't care for despotic regimes, foreign or domestic. Syrian, Iranian, Israeli, British--tyranny is tyranny, regardless of nationality

    Of course you care for despotic regimes. You sided with a tyranny that tore out tongues and killed not just political opponents but their families. You tore your hair out, and are still in a sweat over the US ejecting those fascists. What the hell do you think that makes you?

    If you are capable of lumping the Syrian and Iranians regimes with the govts of Israel, Britain and America, then you are certainly the unreasonable and loathsome creature you describe.

    Do you understand the dynamics of "power"?

    You understand the jargon of sidewalk revolutionaries who don't know their ass from their elbow. You are filled to the gills with rubbish such as:

    Oh, by the way, you do understand that many of the founders of present day Israel indulged in terrorist operations against the British in order to drive the Brits out of Palestine

    The Palestinian Jews fought their colonial masters, the first to do so in the Middle East. They assassinated the High Commissioner, Lord Moyne. They blew up Britain's military HQ in the King David Hotel (after leaving a telephone warning). They hanged three British sergeants to stop the British practice of hanging Jewish captives. You want to confuse that with the indiscriminate targeting of civilians in crowded auto-buses, skyscrapers and kindergartens?

    It is worth remembering that the British called the Sons of Liberty, terrorists. GB Shaw's play, The Devil's Disciple is all about hanging a Yankee as a terrorist for possessing a seditious pamphlet. Will you now rank the Founding Fathers with Arafat and bin Laden?

    so that they (the Jews) could take land away from the Palenstinians? Tell me, what would be the reaction of US citizens if a comparable crime was perpetrated against US land? I would like to think I and other Americans would fight the wrong, refuse to collaborate. And I'm not even gonna touch on the issues that Native Americans do or should have with the US government

    The UN voted to divide the land in November 1947. The Jewish leadership accepted. The Arab's UN delegate vowed that the "partition line will be nothing but a line of fire and blood." The Arab League's Azzam Pasha, promised "a war of annihilation and unprecedented slaughter that will be remembered like the Crusades and the slaughters of the Mongols." The Palestinian's leader, the Arafat of that day, the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, called on the Arab states to invade with the words, " I declare a jihad. Come my Arab brothers, murder the Jews, murder them all."

    You think Americans would not fight like the devil against such genocidal neighbors and push them as far away as possible?

    And the hypocrisy of US policies in relation to Israel?

    It is America's honor and distinction that she alone supports a valiant nation, outnumbered 50 to 1 against corrupt and murderous regimes, with openly genocidal ambition.

    You are typical of the radical Left's moralists and lovers of justice, who when all is said and done, side with mass murders and despise Jews.

    Posted by nacl at 06/05/2005 @ 8:23pm

53. AURORA74

    re' Europeans did not ask us to engage in WW11. I beg to differ Winston Churchill was on a repeated mission to the USA to get us involved as the bombs kept dropping on London.

    By Europe I of course meant Festung Europa, not the British Isles.

    Posted by nacl at 06/05/2005 @ 8:26pm

54. Gee, NACL, your are so erudite, so impressive...

    It's funny, when "your" side does something reprehensible there are always rationalizations to justify actions (It's funny: Jewish terrorists are "freedom fighters" for you, but Arabs are terrorists. Is the US and Britain terrorist states? Both nations have bombarded civilian targets [including kindergartens, skyscrapers, hospitals, nursing homes] indiscriminantly, killing far more civilians than any other nation in history!) Ever heard of the word hypocrite? I haven't taken a side. My objections to the US invasion, occupation of Iraq are based on the manner in which it was sold to the American taxpayers--the men and women that are bankrolling this expedition and providing the "boots on the ground"; the consequences of this illegal war, occupation.

    The argument that you have conveniently ignored--the past actions of Western governments in the region, with the US reigning supreme since we took over from the British--is that the mess is our own making. People such as yourself have been rationalizing the realpolitik for decades, making excuses. Do you recall our support of Saddam in the past--even while he was gassing Kurds, pulling out tongues, raping virgins...? Can you remember the ham handed actions in Iran, the reckless, insensitive policies that led to the revolution in '79? Oh, allow me a guess: You also believe US involvement in Vietnam was a noble effort and that no atrocities were committed by US forces (and that the press lost the war for the US).

    Back to the original argument. The administration lied, the Democrats--some concerned with the polls, others just complicit in the crime--went along; the press--the vaunted "liberal" press--did not do its job. And now the Bush administration, with the complicity of the "opposition party" and the "liberal" press is occupying Iraq--and not with the goal of establishing a truly democratic, equitable nation! We are installing a puppet regime and opening the land up to unmitigated economic penetration.

    You may believe the US presence in Iraq is a good, productive thing, but (as I suggested) if you would bother to read an objective record of the US occupation of South Vietnam you may come to a different conclusion. An occupation force in a foreign land (language, culture and virtually everything else is in Iraq is alien to an American), fighting a guerilla war alienates the population and ends up making more enemies than friends.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 1:18pm

55. NACL:

    Of course you care for despotic regimes. You sided with a tyranny that tore out tongues and killed not just political opponents but their families. You tore your hair out, and are still in a sweat over the US ejecting those fascists. What the hell do you think that makes you?

    So we get no farther off track of the orginal argument: I'm disturbed not by toppling a murderous despot like Saddam (a despot the US government once supported); what concerns me is the manner, the motives, the rationalizations involved. Bush did not invade Iraq for any sort of altruistic reasons. The US government is there for the selfish, myopic goals of its corporate sponsors.

    Saddam tortured innocent men and women, and we all agree that was heinous, right? Is torture by the US government and its surrogates some how different, noble, necessary, or anything other than cruel, wicked?

    Wrong is wrong, no matter what the nationality, religion, political orientation of the perpetrator. Sometimes terrible things must be done (such as eliminating Hitler and his regime), but don't try to rationalize it. If you take a dump on a plate--for whatever reason--don't try to call it baked Alaska.

    Oh, before I forget: I've got some magical beans I need to sell fast. I'll give you a great deal if you'll take them all off my hands. And please say hello to the Easter Bunny hello for me, too.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 4:03pm

56. MTSPENCE05

    I haven't taken a side. My objections to the US invasion, occupation of Iraq are based on the manner in which it was sold to the American taxpayers

    You haven't taken sides, eh? Your idea of consistency is to denounce all "despotic regimes, foreign or domestic. Syrian, Iranian, Israeli, British--tyranny is tyranny." You are a straight shooter for whom, "the US is a police state." Then you ask: "Ever heard of the word hypocrite?"

    You are sure,

    "the mess is our own making... Do you recall our support of Saddam in the past--even while he was gassing Kurds, pulling out tongues, raping virgins...?"

    You have a gift for remembering what never happened.

    The US detested Iraq and did not so much as have diplomatic relations with her from 1967 to November 1984. The Baath, a socialist and pan-Arab party anathema to the US, only came to power in the 70s when the US was out of the country. Saddam seized the helm in 1979 not as our protege but that of KGB station chief, Primakov. That alignment lasted into the 1990s. Russia, China, France, Germany, etc., sold Iraq everything from fighter bombers to nuclear reactors and cutting edge c/b weapon labs. Only America refused Saddam even a bullet. We had a law making such sales to Iraq a crime. Violated once it triggered a sensational trial. We reestablished relations in Nov 1984, after Iraq and Iran had been using poison gas on one another since 1980. Our hand was forced by the threatening breakthough into the Gulf of Iran's army and the danger of the Ayatollah's hand on our economic jugular. Then we attempted but failed, to moderate Saddam with economic incentives in the way we were successfully converting the Pacific rim police states. US initiatives in Iraq ever put the promotion of human rights up front. Even by 1990 only 1% of Iraq's arsenal had a US provenance.

    Can you remember the ham handed actions in Iran, the reckless, insensitive policies that led to the revolution in '79?

    No I can't. What led to the Ayatollah's revolution was Iran's economic dynamism and the Shah's relative moderation, not his severity. Hafaz el Assad understood that when he artilleried the fundamentalist center, Hama to rubble in '83. The Syrian regime (a tyranny just like Britain's?) killed 20,000 of its own people within three weeks. That was ham handed and insensitive, but it worked.

    You want to tar the conflict in Iraq with VN, but there is no connection. VN was foremost a strategic error. It forced our real enemies, the USSR and China to cooperate against us, sidetracking their corrosive mutual hostility.

    Iraq however is strategically sound. It offers a chance off a domino effect throughout the Middle East. That is not a sure thing, but it is a possibility that merits a try. That fascists left and right, and Islamists, suspect it might work out, is why they are so stirred up. They fear Iraq as a decent and healthy society, inspiring the rest of the Middle East. That would be a signal US victory. To your side that is unacceptable even if it did turn around the lives and mind sets of hundreds of millions of Arabs now living in darkness. You humanitarians.

    Posted by nacl at 06/06/2005 @ 4:16pm

57. My question, for all those who are supporting this war, is this: Are you or your children willing to enlist and fight this war? If this war is important enough to America so that someone's child should go off to Iraq and die, then it is important enough to America that all our children should face the risk of this war.

    Posted by jk13008 at 06/06/2005 @ 4:34pm

58. You call Vietnam a "strategic error" while attempting to suggest I'm not humane?

    Once again, you've impressed me mightily with your knowledge and complete lack of objectivity.

    Iraq however is strategically sound. It offers a chance off a domino effect throughout the Middle East. That is not a sure thing, but it is a possibility that merits a try. That fascists left and right, and Islamists, suspect it might work out, is why they are so stirred up. They fear Iraq as a decent and healthy society, inspiring the rest of the Middle East. That would be a signal US victory. To your side that is unacceptable even if it did turn around the lives and mind sets of hundreds of millions of Arabs now living in darkness.

    Nice fairy tale. Why don't you call it "Democracy's Burden"?

    Now why would a socialist, pan-Arab party be anathema to the US? Was it the cruel, one party nature of the system or was it the socialist, pan-Arab aspect that Washington objected to? Because, after all, the shah's regime was not exactly enlightened, democratic, and yet the CIA overthrew a government, installed the shah, and supported that regime. And after that backfired the US began to support Saddam in opposition to the Iranians. Why? Was it because Saddam wanted to overthrow the fundamentalists running Iran and replace it with a democratic government? No, not at all. It was nothing but realpolitik, and people like you rationalized it then.

    "Domino effect"? This mess is going to spread democracy throughout the region? To Saudi and Egypt? Just like Vietnam spread "communism" to the rest of Southeast Asia?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 4:53pm

59. Amen.

    When do you leave for boot, NACL?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 4:54pm

60. Three Republican Senators--McCain, John Sununu and Lindsay Graham--recently traveled to Uzbekistan and returned home deeply disturbed by what they saw. "If the government continues to refuse an investigation and does not cease its repressive policies, the US has no choice but to re-evaluate all aspects of our relationship with Uzbekistan," McCain said. "I would not be comfortable making a long-term commitment," Sununu added. An amendment passed by Leahy in 1997 prohibits the US from providing military assistance to foreign troops who've committed human rights abuses; one human rights group says there was "very credible evidence" that at least one senior Uzbek commander involved in the crackdown received training in the US.

    Thus far, Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov has rejected calls by the EU, UN and NATO for an outside review. But in recent days, he's heard encouraging words from the Pentagon. "When you look at the totality of what Uzbekistan has been doing, they've been a very valuable partner in the global war on terror," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told the Post.

    After granting the US an air base to use for the war in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration began funneling $79 million in aid to the Uzbek security forces in 2002 at the same time the State Department was condemning "torture as a routine investigation technique." When Colin Powell tried to cut off $18 million in additional aid for the security forces, General Richard Myers intervened to restore the funds, and added $3 million more. Last month, Condi Rice waived a State Department human rights requirement for military aid on national security grounds.

    "The US will claim that they are teaching the Uzbeks less repressive interrogation techniques, but that is basically not true," says Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. "They help fund the budget of the Uzbek security services and give tens of millions of dollars in military support. It is a sweetener in the agreement over which they get their air base." (Holding Tashkent's Hand, Ari Berman's latest post)

    Do you even bother to read the information on this site, NACL? Tyrants, despots, murderers, torturors are okay, as long as they are the on the side of the US government. Are you familiar with "rendition" and what it entails?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 6:48pm

61. Arianna for President, and I am serious. She is one of only a few who says it like it really is. A Stateswoman. We sorely need this in America today.

    Posted by kessie at 06/06/2005 @ 7:11pm

62. MTSPENCE05

    When do you leave for boot, NACL?

    That of course is the inevitable non sequitur and cheap shot. As if a chest full of medals would affect the argument and persuade you. Or should.

    I don't have a chest full of medals.

    Still, some time back, on a foolish day in February, when the Marines had a recruiting office in Manhattan's Clockwork Building on Broadway and Leonard Street, I took a pretty long test, got a peremptory medical, the Navy corpsman mainly counted my scars, was interviewed by a major (we somehow got to talking about Gustav Le Bon's, The Crowd), and was signed up.

    Posted by nacl at 06/06/2005 @ 7:38pm

63. A Marine? That explains it. (I'm an ex-squid; I spent 5 months in the Persian Gulf back in '88, making sure the Iraq-Iran war did not interfer with the flow of oil.) Have fun making the world save for democracy. After you're finished in Iraq, maybe you can go to Uzbekistan and get them straightened out.

    Are you familiar with rendition? I'd love to read you rationalize that practise. Maybe you can spin the the whole Guatanamo thing for me, too.

    Oh yeah, reading a book doesn't necessarily mean you understand it.

    Semper Fi.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 7:47pm

64. Oh, it meant nothing more than go fight if you're so gung-ho, supportive of the venture. It's good to know you walk your talk. So how many tours have you pulled in Iraq so far? (What's you MOS?)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 7:50pm

65. I've gotta go for the day, NACL.

    You're so well read, informed. Have you read anything about how the Marines have been used in Central America in support of United Fruit and other concerns? Do you know where the Sandinistas got their name?

    (How do you feel about the US government's role in attempting to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela?)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/06/2005 @ 8:18pm

66. Have you guys experienced utter memory loss in the passion of your anger at Gov. Dean? He said about seventy zillion times in 2004 primary debates that, unlike Rep. Kucinich, he opposed immediate pullout from Iraq because of the danger that (unlike its status prior to the U.S.-led invasion) it could become a functioning terrorist haven and base of operations, such as Afghanistan had been prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. You may disagree with this argument, in whole or in part, but do not rewrite history and say Dean has "betrayed" you or gone "spineless" for now saying we can't just up and leave. What he says now, he said then.

    Posted by donagre4 at 06/06/2005 @ 10:33pm

67. NACL

    You stated:

    " Yes, and that was not an illogical or dishonest supposition. It was assumed that the resources required for an operation as complicated as 9/11 needed the help of a nation state. The Czech secret service had come to the CIA on its own initiative with information about Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi operative in Prague. Iraq had had a diplomat in Pakistan's badlands liaisoning with bin Laden. The 1993 attack on the WTC was thought to have involved Iraq. Moreover, Saddam had over the years made himself America's enemy #1. He refused to honor his 1991 disarmament commitment. He brazenly played footsies with the inspectors over a dozen years. He put a picture of Bush 41 on the doormat of the Rashid hotel and did not shrink from trying to assassinate him. He drummed himself up as the Arab Saladin defying the US. Iraq loomed large as the most dangerous and persistent champion of all those seeking to bring the US down. It made sense to suspect Iraq. That presumption was not craftiness. US spokesmen were not slyly putting the blame on someone they knew to be uninvolved."

    This paragraph sounds like part of the Apostle's Creed of the Neocons that history later proved to be a litany of lunacy along with all the other nuclear et al WMD hype. All that you now refer to as assumptions were proselytized before the Iraq invasion as being the word of God. Even now, those faithful to the cause still won't admit it was all hyped up bull manure.

    The Czech secret service? Now there's an organization's information I would want to influence my decision for invading a sovereign country. "Iraq had had a diplomat in Pakistan's badlands liaisoning with bin Laden." Wow, and so what? So did the United States, and not only with bin Laden but also with the Taliban leaders to get oil right-of-ways out of the Caspian Sea.

    There were many who told of Iraq's diminished, if not totally defunct, military capacity to inflict damage outside of Iraq. Scott Ritter, for one, comes to mind. But what did he know? He only spent how many years as a weapons inspector after the first Gulf War. He, like the military generals who said we didn't have enough troops to do the job right, were derided, demeaned, and dismissed by the administration.

    It was the same tactic used by those in charge of the Fox news network. They handed down orders from above that no opposition to a war in Iraq would be aired from anyone who wanted to keep their job. So much for your "independent" news media in this country. Although it might not be government owned media; it is big business controlled media that has the government eating out of the palm of its hand, and the corporate aligned government officials getting the benefit of selective leaks and biased news stories that lead to unquestioned re-elections. How's that for modern-day log rolling?

    It doesn't matter how incontrovertible the proof, smoking guns, eye witnesses, or even the laws of physics; you and the war-mongering elite will call it idealogue, unpatriotic, or when all else fails, blame someone else for giving the now obvious wrong information. How remarkably arrogant, convenient, but undeniably wrong and stupid. The only history books that will write of any American righteousness in this Iraq debacle of greed will be the textbooks from American "independent" publishing companies who have the same board members that run the "independent" press, news media, oil companies, and weapons technology industries. Like many of the true patriots in this country, the rest of the world is seeing the truth behind this crusade for oil and power, and getting more and more disgusted with it.

    History is turning the once smug know-it-all faces from Texas into western omelets. And believe me, there are a lot more faces who will have egg on them the longer they remain blinded by the right. Colin Powell, for example, went from the most chosen person that people would want to follow to the newest version of Uncle Tom. He, like so many others, couldn't get down low enough on all fours to lick the boots of the Republican version of the boys from Brazil. From his SNL spoof that he performed for the UN about WMDs to keeping his mouth shut when he knew that there were not enough troops for the job of waging war and occupying the area afterwards, he sold his soul to the Christian fundamentalists and corporate elite. There is only so far one can take the "good soldier following his leader". Powell went way beyond and paid the price.

    Speaking of paying the price, I paid my brain bill and learned about reading outside the box to find logical answers between the lines of conservative fundamentalist lies. While you and the other "what's good for big business is good for America" neocons were buying into the newest version of world domination according to Bush, you should have been reading about how to fix eggs and digest your own words.

    Regards,

    Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/06/2005 @ 10:39pm

68. Hi all, I was enjoying this conversation for quite awhile. It looked like a discussion around truths and differences where we might all get smarter and figure out some solutions. But, what is it about conversing online that so many conversations descend in to jerry springer shouting matches and name calling? C'mon. We don't have time for bullshitslinging. There are real chances here or maybe you all have time to whack off, but let's try a little love, eh. We might be surprised at how smart we get.

    Posted by eliz77 at 06/07/2005 @ 12:11am

69. ALIAS

    Fox news network. They handed down orders from above that no opposition to a war in Iraq would be aired from anyone who wanted to keep their job. So much for your "independent" news media in this country. Although it might not be government owned media; it is big business controlled media that has the government eating out of the palm of its hand

    I don't have a TV, or your access to Fox's internal memos, but I am certain Rupert Murdoch is not stupid. He knows, if he is foxy with the news he won't keep his audience. Did Dan Rather's shenanigans help ratings at CBS? Did Michael Isikoff help Newsweek's reputation? Opinion pieces are another matter. If Fox editorializes for the war, that is as legitimate as The Nation's essays in opposition.

    The news media is not the handmaiden of big business or of the govt. Your claim that it is, is Marxist dogma. The current Deep Throat redux reminds us that the Washington Post brought down a sitting president. The NY Times called VN a quagmire and published the Pentagon Papers; with Tet, CBS's Conkrite convinced the nation that the war in VN was unwinnable. The news coverage of The Wall Street Journal, the bible of business, is famously professional. The media, if anything, is anti-big business. Today's NY Times lead story describes the defeat of a $2.2 billion business project it editorialized against. The Washington Post has a scandal at Citigroup and neglect in the Alaskan oil business on page one. The LA Times features the battle against Tobacco.

    Like many of the true patriots in this country, the rest of the world is seeing the truth behind this crusade for oil and power, and getting more and more disgusted with it. History is turning the once smug know-it-all faces from Texas into western omelets.

    You believe, the rest of the world shares the interests of America's true patriots? Think about it.

    You do however nudge the right question: what will history say?

    I think it will say, after WWII the US was unable to keep a totalitarian dictatorship from acquiring nuclear weapons. A dangerous and costly 40 year Cold War was the consequence. The world escaped unscathed only by a miracle.

    Fifty years later an even more dangerous situation loomed. Many small dictatorships were itching and groping for nuclear weapons. This time the US had both the muscle and freedom of action to put a lid on things. The future of the world depended on her ability to find the will.

    An obstacle were power centers, particularly Russia, China and Europe, for whom America was a principal rival. They were not interested in her success. Furthermore, the US was opposed by a bilious Left in despair since the fall of the Soviet Union. And there was the world of Islamists for whom America was the Big Satan promoting a Western tide that threatened traditional Muslim societies. Those fanatics constituted a violent spearhead.

    Their jabbing and thrusting finally went beyond attacking embassies, ships, the Khobar Towers. They were shattering skyscrapers in US cities. September 11 brought home that a tit for that policy was folly. It was necessary to demonstrate, assailing the US was a bad idea.

    Thus the Taliban were replaced by pro US Afghans. Bin Laden was turned into a hunted creature, living in caves, afraid to make a phone call. Many of his supporters were sent to paradise or to Guantanamo. And Islamists found that far from having forced an American retreat they had pulled a huge infidel army into the Arabian heartland.

    The US had gone on the offensive, not just against the immediate perpetrator of 9/11 but against the most contumacious, most persist and dangerous of the little tyrants angling for WMDs. Saddam was the Arab's modern Saladin. He was living proof that it was possible to defy and break promises to the US. He had already been within one year of realizing a nuclear arsenal in 1980, and then again ten years later. Hans Blix admitted in 1995, "he had us fooled." In short, the US chose to break the neck of the most wicked and dangerous of the tyrants. She demonstrated the consequences of persistent noncooperation on WMDs.

    It was done while France, Russia and China, and the entire Left, were beside themselves with grief and indignation. It revealed them as fools and phonies when they were not being mischievous and irresponsible. That display of US will and might was a crucial success. (Achieving a decent Iraqi state is nothing to sneeze at. If attained it will be wonderful. But it will only be gravy beside the original meat and potatoes.)

    Posted by nacl at 06/07/2005 @ 09:23am

70. NaCl

    Are you related to Baghdad Bob? You remember him, don't you? He was the guy on Iraqi T.V. who was saying the U.S. invasion was a hoax and that the Iraqi army would fight them off and drive them back. While he was repoting the Iraqi army's success at holding off the invaders on one half of a TV screen, the other half of the split screen was showing American troops taking over the Baghdad airport.

    You're take on the way history will define this era is as legitimate as anyone else's fantasy. Only time will tell. However, the predictions that many from your end of the spectrum were extolling before the Iraq ivasion aren't enjoying a good batting average so far.

    No WMDs. no ties to Al Queda, no open arms and rose covered streets for arriving occupiers, no unified Iraq, no coalition of the willing that had the capacity or staying power to provide security at a soccer game let alone an entire country, no oil to pay for the invasion and the occupation, no accountability from govt. contractors responsible for losing millions of dollars, the list goes on and on.

    How many billions more above the initial estimate, how many lives and wounds above the initial "mission accomplished," how many other countries pulling out support instead of new ones joining in, how many more uncovered "bad intelligence" reports, how many more liars elevated to positions of power like Chalabi, like Cheney, like Bush?

    Your take on the media and how it is controlled by big business is naive. That's about the kindest term I can use for your total denial of who controls what. If you think that information gathered from polls is an exact science, then you should appreciate the use of framing news stories and the carefully timed taking and selective reporting of poll results to manipulate the herd. What Goebbels started to form in the 1930's, Rove has polished to perfection in the new millenium.

    There are many aspects of the media that have died under the watchful eye of the powers-that-be. Investigative journalism like that of Woodward and Bernstein is dead. The liberal press that many claim exists is only allowed to throw a few carefully timed and censored verbal pebbles at elected officials and aligned corporations. How many stories that start as an expose' of corruption get lost in the paper blizzard before anyone follows up on the who and how much. (Where is Ken Lay, anyway?) And, the same people who are making billions on the workings of war are the same ones working the media controls. It's is more than merely making a few billion more dollars for those that play in that arena, it's the old money of the world playing for that slight upper hand in controlling more than the other player. The members of the Carlysle group come to mind as likely assistants to the bigger game.

    But we are in the same boat, NACl. We really don't have access to the real information about what's going on, so we sit here and electronically snipe at each other as if we know more than the other poor suckers who either embrace or protest that which we feel is the right thing. All we provide is some entertainment for others, a laugh for those that really know, and irritation for those that side against our views. In the end, it's all just a brain game with no winners except for the ones who hide and keep us in the dark, and the losers who are giving their lives for those who hide.

    Regards

    Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/07/2005 @ 3:42pm

71. I agree with ELIZ77. Life is far too short for the likes of Jumbo and NACL. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (and you can do even less with a jackass).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2005 @ 1:02pm

72. I for one don't want to see Iraq devolve from the chaos, murder, relative instability it faces now into a situation where there is an all-out civil war between warring religious factions inside the country. The June 3 Brookings Institute poll reflecting that 65% of Iraqis support American presence there now is, I believe, a reflection of the fact that the Iraqi people agree. It is easy enough to point to the nonsensical reason Bush decided to venture into Iraq as justification for pulling out immediately, but like NACL I think this would be tantamount to our own personal genocide. We would effectively have destroyed the previous government and left Iraq a order-free battlegrounds for continuing wars. Now I am all for the minimization of American casualties, but at what costs? Maybe our current leaders don't represent my viewpoint, but I think both Democrats and Republicans can now be united in agreeing that a unilateral pull out would be disastrous for the people on the ground in Iraq. After all, if there were no American army there, who would defend against the attacks of the insurgents? No "Iraqi Army" can now take that role... Zero, MTSPENCE, your isolationist policies are only effective when the reason for war is political. When a war is an effort to stop a genocide, then I am all for it. I believe that America's continuing presence in Iraq will stop genocide.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/20/2005 @ 2:54pm