Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[Tigger_Magic]

No, I don't know you at all, I'm simply going by what you said...." that "support" only extends so far".

You really should re-read that post again. You obviously didn't understand it.

I've kept up with the entire thread, so I don't need to read it again. I know that you have said your mother had suffered the same loss as Ms.Sheehan. I don't know what the details are and I don't need to. Your mother has my deepest sympathies regardless and should she ever decide to become politically active in regards to this war you'll never see me try and attack her as you are Ms. Sheehan.

Yet you feel free to "slime" others who may choose to be politically active in regards to this war.

FTR, my mother hates the army and President Bush with the blazing intensity of 1,000 white-hot stars. The difference is she would never -- for a single nanosecond -- consider abusing the memory of her youngest son for any political activity or media attention.

Funny, but that's exactly what you're doing....denigrating Ms. Sheehan and her supporters for the way she chooses to support the troops.

Ms. Sheehan's "support" is reminiscent of Jane Fonda's and it's about as helpful, too. I believe our troops could benefit from a little less "support" from Ms. Sheehan, especially when she equates their efforts to "cancer" and imperialism.

And you don't know who you're talking to either, I simply have chosen not to use my personal circumstances as a shield for my view.

You're right... I don't know you. That's why I have not made absurd assumptions based on ignorance about you regarding your views, beliefs or personal circumstances. I would appreciate some reciprocation, if possible.

 

[peachgirl]

I would appreciate some reciprocation, if possible.

In order to reciprocate, I'd have to call you ignorant just as you have called me ignorant.

Instead, I'll just sit back and watch you continue to trash the mother of a dead soldier because you don't like how she chooses to honor her son.

Go ahead, let's see some more of that compassionate conservatism at work.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the two are indistinguishable. I don't know Mr. Kincaid, so I won't presume to speak for him. You could e-mail him and ask him for clarification.

I watch O'Reilly and he always tosses out quotes similar to the one in question. I'm wondering if some of the masses confuse the term "terrorist" and start believing that Al Qeada has been holed up in Iraq and thats who we are really dealing with? It scares me because these type of scare tactics tend to be directed at the "lowest common denominator" element of the population. I mean the people who hear "terrorist" and lump just about everyone in the middle east into that category.

The term "insurgent" actually has a subtler and less negative connotation than I was originally aware of. I guess it's all semantics anyway. I always get bogged down in details and specifics.

The statement made as much sense to me as someone saying that they voted for Bush so that they could keep the country club full of bleach blondes and anglo-saxons.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

In order to reciprocate, I'd have to call you ignorant just as you have called me ignorant.

Actually, I suppose I shouldn't be confused at your attempts to misconstrue what I wrote. Nice try, but if you do feel that I committed a personal attack, instead of complaining about it, you should report it to a moderator.

Instead, I'll just let you continue to trash the mother of a dead soldier because you don't like how she chooses to honor her son.

Sort of like what you are doing to others.

Go ahead, let's see some more of that compassionate conservatism at work.

While I am warmed by your loving liberalism, it, like so many things in life, is best enjoyed in small doses.

 

[peachgirl]

Nice try, but if you do feel that I committed a personal attack, instead of complaining about it, you should report it to a moderator.

Thanks, but you need not concern yourself with the way I choose to handle things...you've got your hands busy going after moms.

The term "insurgent" actually has a subtler and less negative connotation than I was originally aware of. I guess it's all semantics anyway. I always get bogged down in details and specifics.

The statement made as much sense to me as someone saying that they voted for Bush so that they could keep the country club full of bleach blondes and anglo-saxons.

As they say, the devil is in the details. Point well taken, you're exactly right.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Let me try to analyze the argument if I may. TM is on very shaky ground because she is saying that a mother is just using her sons death to promote her cause. Not too many people are coming to your defense because how can you basically defend a statement like that? Unless you are psychic or are convinced that this mom is a "munchhausen by proxy" case it's almost impossible to prove. No matter what ones political preference is that argument is going to sound nutty no matter what.

I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm just searching for a little clarity here.

 

[peachgirl]

TM is on very shaky ground because she is saying that a mother is just using her sons death to promote her cause. Not too many people are coming to your defense because how can you basically defend a statement like that? Unless you are psychic or are convinced that this mom is a "munchhausen by proxy" case it's almost impossible to prove.

That would be my argument, yes. No one knows what her true motivation is, we can only go by what she says. I've even said that I don't agree with some of what she says but considering her position, I think she's earned the right to do what she's doing without being personally attacked and having all kinds of subversive motives attached to her actions.

That's not to say that people can't or shouldn't disagree with her, but the kind of personal attacks she's being subjected to are disgusting, and those doing it are basing it on nothing but the fact that they don't agree with her views. Had she been just as high profile in support of Bu$h's war, the right would have considered her to be another one of their "hero's".

 

[transparant]

Let me try to analyze the argument if I may. TM is on very shaky ground because she is saying that a mother is just using her sons death to promote her cause. Not too many people are coming to your defense because how can you basically defend a statement like that? Unless you are psychic or are convinced that this mom is a "munchhausen by proxy" case it's almost impossible to prove. No matter what ones political preference is that argument is going to sound nutty no matter what.

I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm just searching for a little clarity here.

I'll come to TM defense. She is using her son's death to support her political case. She has changed her story quite a few times from Bush being sincere and sympathetic to Bush acting like he was at a party. I also just heard an interview with her where she says that if Bush met with her now...it would slow her momentum. Well which is it??? She wants him to meet with her or not?? IMO she is using her son's coffin as a soap box. I'm sorry...but when I hear her say things like - “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” Not only is she dishonoring her sons death - but she is dishonoring all that have fought for our freedoms including quite a few of my own family members. I don't care if you tell me I'm trashing or sliming this women - because that last statement of her's that I quoted - she herself is trashing and sliming our brave men and women...her son included.

 

[transparant]

That's not to say that people can't or shouldn't disagree with her, but the kind of personal attacks she's being subjected to are disgusting

And I feel as though by her saying: “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” She has made a personal attack on my own and many other's who have lost loved one's in this war and war's past.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Let me try to analyze the argument if I may. TM is on very shaky ground because she is saying that a mother is just using her sons death to promote her cause. Not too many people are coming to your defense because how can you basically defend a statement like that? Unless you are psychic or are convinced that this mom is a "munchhausen by proxy" case it's almost impossible to prove. No matter what ones political preference is that argument is going to sound nutty no matter what.

I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm just searching for a little clarity here.

To me the evidence is abundantly clear that Ms. Sheehan has been and continues to be a political activist. She also happens to be a mother who lost a son in Iraq.

She gave one story to the press after meeting the President after her son's death and has made an informed decision to change her story for whatever reason. It's her right as an American to change her mind; it's her right to protest or make a vigil or hold a cross or demand whatever she wants.

It is my opinion that she is doing this solely for political purposes based on her own statements and writings. It is my opinion that she is using her son's death for partisan politics. I believe that is an abuse of her son's sacrifice and honor. The fact that she is willing to be "handled" by media advisors and consultants, that she appears to enjoy indulging in the media attention and adulation ("Now I know how it feels to be Mickey in Disneyland!" she says on her blog on Day 9), that she says the "most noble accomplishment" of her life would be to bring down the President... all these indicate to me that this is not a typical grieving mother, but someone who has made a clear decision to use her circumstances for less than noble purposes.

But I suppose that pointing out the facts of what she's said and done is just "trashing" her.

 

[sodaseller]

So because all of the military that I have come in contact with have stated that - it makes it ridiculous? Oh...thats right - they're all brainwashed...I forgot.

Trust me - I know that all of Iraq is not "wild about the good ole USA" Heck...sadly there aren't even American's that are wild about the good ole USA. I'm just pointing out that there is a whole heck of a lot of Iraqi's that ARE wild about the good ole USA - but I know...when you hear those things - I'm sure you put your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA I can't hear you"

I think you are under the impression that all of the Iraqi citizens hate our guts - how terribly wrong you are.

I was pretty sure that you didn't know about my project either. That's ok...you might not want to - it involves LOTS of positive stories coming out of Iraq from those who are there right now (I know...positive stories = ridiculous right?).

I also understand that there are VETS that oppose the war. But there are plenty...and I mean plenty that do. I have been lucky enough to have met so many local vets at 2 VFW's due to this project that I'm doing - all have stressed their support of our President and our troops in Iraq except for *maybe* 2 and thats being generous. My father is a Navy Chief and all under his command except for one man support our President and our troops.

My uncle is a retired/disabled Vietnam vet and about 3 weeks ago I went on base with him (he still works there) to meet some of the military personal that he works with - to personally thank them - they ended up thanking me for what I'm doing and stressed their support for what is going on in Iraq.

I get emails from mother's of marines (a support group) that thank me for what I've been doing and they have stressed their support for our president and our troops.

Maybe it's just the people that I choose to surround myself with I love our brave servicemen and I feel blessed to know and be friends with so many of them - I hear what they've done first hand over there, and I hear the stories straight from their mouths...and trust me - some are so touching that they have made grown men cry (my husband one of them). They have sat down and have shown me hundreds of pictures of their tours - there are countless pictures of Iraqis old and young hugging them and showing their gratitude. They have said they come across the Iraqi's that are hostile toward them...but the numbers of those that appreciate them are growing larger and larger.

There's nothing more I need to say on this issue...as I know you don't believe it or want to hear it anyway.

Juan Cole responded to the stanadrd "things are better in Iraq- the 'liberal' media is just not reporting it" canard last year in words that still hold true

Link

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

 

[ThAnswr]

I'll come to TM defense. She is using her son's death to support her political case.

So? Lots of people use personal tragedies as the impetus to do something.

She has changed her story quite a few times from Bush being sincere and sympathetic to Bush acting like he was at a party.

Oh this is rich. A Bush supporter is complaining about changing stories. Puhleeeeeze, you're killing me.

Btw, Mrs. Sheehan first met Bush right after her son died and she was more than likely still in shock. Once that shock wore off, she may've been able to see things a bit clearer.

I also just heard an interview with her where she says that if Bush met with her now...it would slow her momentum. Well which is it??? She wants him to meet with her or not??

A moot point as Bush doesn't have the stones to meet face to face with anyone, and I mean anyone, who may offer the least bit of resistance. Unlike the rest of his meetings with the public, he/his handlers can't vett the audience and he/his handlers can't control the proceedings.

IMO she is using her son's coffin as a soap box.

I had to see this again.

And again: "IMO she is using her son's coffin as a soap box."

I'm sorry...but when I hear her say things like - “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”

You're entitled to your opinion and she's entitled to hers. Last I checked this is still America.

Not only is she dishonoring her sons death - but she is dishonoring all that have fought for our freedoms including quite a few of my own family members. I don't care if you tell me I'm trashing or sliming this women - because that last statement of her's that I quoted - she herself is trashing and sliming our brave men and women...her son included.

Now who's on the soapbox?

 

[DisDuck]

I asked this question once or three times before and the only answer I got back was 'death' is the ultimate loss of freedom. The question was and continues to be: What freedoms did Iraq in 2003 threaten here in USA?

If death is the only answer then we should be fighting against any and all things that can cause death not just terrorists. Otherwise in my historical view Iraq threatened nothing. They did not arm/finance AQ. They did not supply personal in the attack. They did not have any weapons or weapon systems that could reach the USA and cause harm, regardless of Saddam's blustering. Calling that bluff by letting Blix finish his job would not have cost a single American life. Saddam's only support of terrorism was his alledged payments to Palestinian families of suicide bombers. And this was such a threat to the region that Israel sent in planes and covert operatives to take Saddam out. Oh, I forget, Israel did not consider Saddam a serious threat to there existence even though his missiles could reach Tel-Aviv.

This was a political war from the get-go. A means to show how tough Bush II could be and that America should be telling everyone else how to live. We are bigger and stronger so do as we say or else

 

[What the Heck]

This was a political war from the get-go. A means to show how tough Bush II could be and that America should be telling everyone else how to live. We are bigger and stronger so do as we say or else

You may be right. I sometimes wish we had never went in. However, we are there now. What to do about it?

Howard Dean's position is that the President should be the only one to develop a plan for it. August 14th, Face the Nation, page 4:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_81405.pdf

SCHIEFFER: ...I mean, saying we need a plan. I mean, sure, you need a plan, but do you have a plan? Is anybody working on a plan? What would you propose?

Dr. DEAN: Well, Bob, the president of the United States is commander in chief. It is up to him to come up for a plan. You can't expect a congressman and senators who don't have the same access to intelligence as the president does to come up with a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq. We look--the president got us into Iraq 'cause people were willing to trust the president, even some Democrats were willing to trust the president in assuming he knew what he was doing. The problem is now that there's ample evidence to say that they didn't understand what they were getting into and they still don't know what we're doing there. They changed their goals. The troops are still not properly equipped. The constitution looks like it may take away freedom from the Iraq people, at least half of them, instead of added to them. What we need is a plan from the president of the United States. You can't expect a particular senator or particular congressman to have a plan. Only the president can do that.

Wow, what a leader! Let someone else do it, we just get to ***** about it.

 

[sodaseller]

I asked this question once or three times before and the only answer I got back was 'death' is the ultimate loss of freedom. The question was and continues to be: What freedoms did Iraq in 2003 threaten here in USA?

If death is the only answer then we should be fighting against any and all things that can cause death not just terrorists. Otherwise in my historical view Iraq threatened nothing. They did not arm/finance AQ. They did not supply personal in the attack. They did not have any weapons or weapon systems that could reach the USA and cause harm, regardless of Saddam's blustering. Calling that bluff by letting Blix finish his job would not have cost a single American life. Saddam's only support of terrorism was his alledged payments to Palestinian families of suicide bombers. And this was such a threat to the region that Israel sent in planes and covert operatives to take Saddam out. Oh, I forget, Israel did not consider Saddam a serious threat to there existence even though his missiles could reach Tel-Aviv.

This was a political war from the get-go. A means to show how tough Bush II could be and that America should be telling everyone else how to live. We are bigger and stronger so do as we say or else

I'll take a stab at it, because I think I know the motivations. I think the Iraq was justified at three levels as threats to our freedoms. As Paul Wolfowitz confessed in his famous interview, a lot bounced around, but WMDs was the consensus justification and the only one that could see it to the public (which is why the claims were so cooked), but it wasn't the only one.

One is what you mention - a show of intimidating force. Not sure that's a valid justification of war given that we had just made an impressive display in Afghanistan and could have saber rattled and even taken some small slices elsewhere, but even assuming it was, it has backfired and had the opposite effect. Though we deposed Sadaam and destroyed his military in impressively short order, the post war has demonstrated to other dictators that the cost in unacceptably high to presume we would repeat the exercise for anything less than a direct threat to us. The tactics we faced here have no doubt been studied - never face US firepower militarily, but cache arms and melt in and use IEDs, mortars, etc. No doubt that our generals are learning countermeasures as we go and will also be better prepared to face these tactics, but it will still be a challenge. With a new Administration, we may get some competent leaders that are actually open to facts not consistent with their ideology. Therefore, though we could continue with Revolution in Military Affairs retooling, we could also resuscitate the peacekeeping training and armor many more transports, understanding that there is no longer any such thing as "behind the lines", especially if we are bypassing the enemy.

The second justification was the looney claim that Iraq and Sadaam was truly the locus of all things evil in the world. There are those that believed it (and still believe it) in positions of power, which is scary. They think Iraq was the behind WTC 1993, 9/11, and almost all global terrorism. What caused Sadaam to assume the shape of a white whale to this group can't really be understood now, other than some form of demented mass hysteria, but they exerted a surprisingly strong influence of US policy for years through AEI and PNAC. Thus, there was no greater threat to US Freedom than the one man that was causing every anti-American sentiment in the world. They truly believed that. Rumsfeld and Bush wanted to attack Iraq before Afghanistan, the nation that really harbored the attackers. They were/are that looney.

The third is the neo claim (pipe dream) that Iraq would trigger more openness in Arab society and thus serve as catalyst for structural long term change that would cause Arab society to integrate into the dominant Western motif and no longer be hostile to US interests. The shining beacon. There is some internal logic to this, and the perfect is the enemy of the good, but it is hard to think this has much traction when Iraq itself cannot solve sectarian differences and we cannot get out. Plus, having another Shiite dominated power may literally result in a starker Sunni/Shiite - East/West spilt in the Islamic world. Plus, it's such a long term strategy, and one that would require the risky abrogation of the Carter Doctrine as to the defense of oil lanes, thereby risking economic failure and upheaval. Plus, even if you think it's a great idea, and I admit I find aspects of it appealing, you can't trust this incompetent crew to run it - they've screwed up everything so far, trusting the Chalabis of the world as Arab liberal democrats. They have shown no instinct or judgment for such leadership - every presumption to date has proven wildly wrong, and they are incapable of learning from mistakes.

 

[What the Heck]

Sodaseller, never thought I would say this, but well said.

 

[sodaseller]

Thanks

 

[ThAnswr]

You may be right. I sometimes wish we had never went in. However, we are there now. What to do about it?

Howard Dean's position is that the President should be the only one to develop a plan for it. August 14th, Face the Nation, page 4:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_81405.pdf

SCHIEFFER: ...I mean, saying we need a plan. I mean, sure, you need a plan, but do you have a plan? Is anybody working on a plan? What would you propose?

Dr. DEAN: Well, Bob, the president of the United States is commander in chief. It is up to him to come up for a plan. You can't expect a congressman and senators who don't have the same access to intelligence as the president does to come up with a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq. We look--the president got us into Iraq 'cause people were willing to trust the president, even some Democrats were willing to trust the president in assuming he knew what he was doing. The problem is now that there's ample evidence to say that they didn't understand what they were getting into and they still don't know what we're doing there. They changed their goals. The troops are still not properly equipped. The constitution looks like it may take away freedom from the Iraq people, at least half of them, instead of added to them. What we need is a plan from the president of the United States. You can't expect a particular senator or particular congressman to have a plan. Only the president can do that.

Wow, what a leader! Let someone else do it, we just get to ***** about it.

Could you tell me how someone is supposed to come up with the plan, when you can't even get a straight answer from this administration as to who/what is behind the insurgency?

You are looking to someone else to come up with a plan to pull Bush's chestnuts out of the fire and then condemn them when they don't.

However, instead of looking to blame someone else for the lack of a plan, the one you should demand answers from is Bush. What's his plan? Why do our troops till not have the proper equipment? How can the insurgency be in it's death throes (according to Cheney) and yet there are more bombings, more death, and more maimings?

You're asking the right questions to the wrong people and then get pissy when they don't give you the answers you want to hear. Such as, what's the plan?

In addition to the 3 or 4 other points discussed for a plan, here's the most important one of all. If you want to see a plan, get rid of Bush and his administration. While Bush is still in office, all this talk about a "plan" is nothing more than cocktail party conversation.

 

[peachgirl]

Wow, what a leader! Let someone else do it, we just get to ***** about it.

You think it's unreasonable that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, be asked to come up with a decent exit strategy? If you'd like for him to step aside and let someone else take over his job I'm sure that would suit many of us just fine. Until then, it's his job and he should have had a plan for leaving before he went in.

Howard Dean is not the leader of the United States, Bu$h is. It's a nice trick if you can pull it off...Conservatives were high behind to get to war and now that we're there they want the responsibility of figuring how the hell to get out of the mess Bu$h put us in to go to the liberals....won't work.

As the man who lost a brother in this war stated in a letter I posted on the liberal thread.....

What serious people are asking of the administration is a set of yardsticks by which the situation in Iraq can be realistically measured -- and accountability established for a strategy to reach those goals....

You cannot morally and legally leave soldiers in another country indefinitely with no clear mission and with no timetable to complete that non-existent mission--that is, if you claim to support our troops, you can't.

 

[bsnyder]

I'll take a stab at it, because I think I know the motivations. I think the Iraq was justified at three levels as threats to our freedoms. As Paul Wolfowitz confessed in his famous interview, a lot bounced around, but WMDs was the consensus justification and the only one that could see it to the public (which is why the claims were so cooked), but it wasn't the only one.

One is what you mention - a show of intimidating force. Not sure that's a valid justification of war given that we had just made an impressive display in Afghanistan and could have saber rattled and even taken some small slices elsewhere, but even assuming it was, it has backfired and had the opposite effect. Though we deposed Sadaam and destroyed his military in impressively short order, the post war has demonstrated to other dictators that the cost in unacceptably high to presume we would repeat the exercise for anything less than a direct threat to us. The tactics we faced here have no doubt been studied - never face US firepower militarily, but cache arms and melt in and use IEDs, mortars, etc. No doubt that our generals are learning countermeasures as we go and will also be better prepared to face these tactics, but it will still be a challenge. With a new Administration, we may get some competent leaders that are actually open to facts not consistent with their ideology. Therefore, though we could continue with Revolution in Military Affairs retooling, we could also resuscitate the peacekeeping training and armor many more transports, understanding that there is no longer any such thing as "behind the lines", especially if we are bypassing the enemy.

The second justification was the looney claim that Iraq and Sadaam was truly the locus of all things evil in the world. There are those that believed it (and still believe it) in positions of power, which is scary. They think Iraq was the behind WTC 1993, 9/11, and almost all global terrorism. What caused Sadaam to assume the shape of a white whale to this group can't really be understood now, other than some form of demented mass hysteria, but they exerted a surprisingly strong influence of US policy for years through AEI and PNAC. Thus, there was no greater threat to US Freedom than the one man that was causing every anti-American sentiment in the world. They truly believed that. Rumsfeld and Bush wanted to attack Iraq before Afghanistan, the nation that really harbored the attackers. They were/are that looney.

The third is the neo claim (pipe dream) that Iraq would trigger more openness in Arab society and thus serve as catalyst for structural long term change that would cause Arab society to integrate into the dominant Western motif and no longer be hostile to US interests. The shining beacon. There is some internal logic to this, and the perfect is the enemy of the good, but it is hard to think this has much traction when Iraq itself cannot solve sectarian differences and we cannot get out. Plus, having another Shiite dominated power may literally result in a starker Sunni/Shiite - East/West spilt in the Islamic world. Plus, it's such a long term strategy, and one that would require the risky abrogation of the Carter Doctrine as to the defense of oil lanes, thereby risking economic failure and upheaval. Plus, even if you think it's a great idea, and I admit I find aspects of it appealing, you can't trust this incompetent crew to run it - they've screwed up everything so far, trusting the Chalabis of the world as Arab liberal democrats. They have shown no instinct or judgment for such leadership - every presumption to date has proven wildly wrong, and they are incapable of learning from mistakes.

A pretty reasonable analysis. Not that I agree with every point made and I'd certainly reverse the order you listed the reasons in, with the last one being the most important, and the one that ties directly into the "spreading democracy" theme that so many liberals love to deride.

I'd also take exception to the second justification being "looney". Wrong, perhaps, but by making it sound like Saddam was just a mild-mannered ole' dictator that everyone (except the neos) thought was completely harmless is just plain history-rewritten fantasy. The major players in the debate (including Blix) thought Saddam was dangerous. The disagreement was over what to do about him and how to do it.

As for the "incomepentence" of this Administration, you'll have a hard time making that charge stick if the results turn out positive. And I think you could make the case that any Democrat administration would have an even tougher time with the execution.