Let's Get Down To Business On Bush, Jr.

[Cal]

Even after Kerry totally clarified his position on Iraq and FactCheck.org (Cheney's own source) has shown how the Repubs pushed that position based on out-of-context quotes, Bush STILL keeps pounding away on that mantra (he really must be desperate.) Kerry was misled, just like the rest of the country, by the Bush administration story line. Have we all forgotten Colin Powell's show and tell at the UN. "See this little square, that is a truck moving WMD's. And see this little dot, that is a WMD lab." And we are all sitting there thinking, " Well, I quess the CIA and all its technical expertise can see something the rest of us can't." The problem is the president was in a positon to question the CIA on EXACTLY what was seen there and HOW certain they were that it was WMD's they were seeing. According to Woodward's interviews, the CIA was not at all sure that the little dots and squares were WMD's, they only said they MIGHT be. But Bush, in all his mental sophistication turned "might be" into "are". Again, either Bush is unable to make crucial fine distinctions or he is a liar and deceiver. Either way, we all lose (and some of us--like soldiers--our lives)

As to fine distinctions: It is one thing to agree that Saddam was a threat that had to be dealt with, and quite another to insist that his threat is so imminent that we have to invade NOW, without finding out just HOW imminent. But that is exactly what Bush did. But what is even more outrageous, he and his administration misled the american people into thinking that the threat was seriously more imminent than it actually was. To lead a nation into war on the basis of deliberate misrepresentation when the threat is not imminent is the WORSE kind of betrayal of the american people.

Further, Bush can't get out of his culpability by saying, "You had access to the same intelligence I did". That assertion implies that Kerry would have acted the same as Bush, and he has said clearly that he wouldn't have. Just to say that Kerry voted to give the Bush administration authority to act against Saddam is NOT the same as saying Kerry would have: 1) deliberately misled the public into thinking WMD's existed when even his own intelligence said only that they "probably" existed and that it was "likely" they existed. 2) Gone to war on the same time line--which consisted of failing to build a greater base of support internationally so that the american people are not left holding the financial bag.

Also, think about it. If Saddam were such a threat to us as to require immediate invasion as Bush wants us to think, why did the Russians not join us? He posed just as big a threat to THEM. The truth, as it comes out, and that Bush should have discovered if he had been more thourough and patient, was that there was no imminent threat and that our actions should a been much more throughly planned out. Had Bush even listened to our OWN weapon's inspectors he should have had at least serious doubts about the presence of WMD's. And as much as some people hate to admit it, we can give credit to the Clinton administration for seeing that Saddam was impotent.

Some make the argument that Saddam may not have had WMD's, but that he posed a threat as a haven for terrorists; there is even LESS evidence of that than there was for WMD's.

The justification for invasion of Iraq on the Bush-Cheney timeline is pathetic. And their continued defense of it is pathetic.

Here is what I have to say to Bush when he tries to pass the buck by saying that others had the same information he did and that only he should lead America: First, I seriously question the assertion that everyone else was privy to the same intelligence on Iraq. He had freqent if not daily briefings by every Pentagon, CIA, national security council, national security agency, FBI and state department head. Was Congress really privy to all that information? I think not. If it had been there would have been a lot less support at the outset. Even Colin Powell, was quietly opposed to rushing ahead the way Bush and Cheney wanted. He WAS priviy to most of the information and was opposed to the way Bush was proceeding. He went along at the last minute so as to not lose his job. Even Woodward's book (which is quite kind to Bush most of the time) indicates that Powell's push for more diplomacy was dismissed or ignored by the Bush guys. Third, "Mr. Bush, your presidency was focused on an invasion of Iraq from the moment you got into office. Witnesses to your early Security council meetings confirm that. It is not hard to see why you "rushed to judgement" in the war on Iraq. Fourth, You ignored the advise of your treasury secretary on economic matters, you failed to deal with important domestic issues (pushing a "just for show" educational program--which you proved was just for show when you drastically underfunded it). And you thumbed your nose at the counsel of the majority of the scientific community and the world by trashing the Kyoto accords on global warming. "

The bottomline is that Bush is responsible for the mess he has created in Iraq. He is the one that should have known there were no WMD's. IT IS HIS JOB TO KNOW. It wasn't Kerry's job to know, it wasn't even Colin Powell's job to know. It was Bush's job to know. It was Bush's job to CORRECTLY and accurately spell out our reasons for war.And he blew it. He allowed ( or perhaps intentionally) at least negligently, the american people to support a war on the basis of FALSE information. He was in the unique postion to know, and he didn't, and what is worse, he didn't even know the difference! And if he did know the difference, then he is a liar of the worse kind. The kind that gets our young men killed. Bush is one of the biggest dissasters of a president in recent history. He makes his Dad look like a major success story as president. The best thing George, Jr could do for the country is to resign.

[Matt]

I think the "B" team (Bush and Blair) really very badly messed things up. If only they had said: "We believe that Sadam is cocking a snook at the International community. We have to deal with him now."

The French, Germans and Russians marginalised themselves by being caught with their fingers in the till. ("Oh? You mean those International sanctions applied to us, as well as foreigners? )

But instead of building up the case for Sadam to be removed because of what he WAS doing, they built up a case on what he WASNT doing!

Whilst it was true Sadam had used WMD in the past, it seems probable that he no longer had them. Destroyed? Or sold off to foreign powers? We may never know...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 10 2004, 08:14 AM

I think the "B" team (Bush and Blair) really very badly messed things up. If only they had said: "We believe that Sadam is cocking a snook at the International community. We have to deal with him now."

The French, Germans and Russians marginalised themselves by being caught with their fingers in the till. ("Oh? You mean those International sanctions applied to us, as well as foreigners? )

But instead of building up the case for Sadam to be removed because of what he WAS doing, they built up a case on what he WASNT doing!

Whilst it was true Sadam had used WMD in the past, it seems probable that he no longer had them. Destroyed? Or sold off to foreign powers? We may never know...

You make a good point. I think that Bush and his gang could have made at least a credible case that going to get Saddam would be a good thing. But the case they made was the wrong case--based on misrepresentation and the arrogant belief that they could pull something over on the world. The French, Germans and Russians saw it for what it was. A move to try to control the middle east by force and take advantange of an opportunity to exert US power abroad, an opportunity that was based on playing the fear card on the US public--Saddam has WMDs and we have to go get them now, before he uses them on us. Much of the rest of the world knew this was a bogus reason. Not because they knew for sure that Saddam didn't have WMDs but because they knew that the Bush admin. had not done its homework on the subject and therefore had no justification in using the issue as a basis to invade.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 10 2004, 08:14 AM

I think the "B" team (Bush and Blair) really very badly messed things up. If only they had said: "We believe that Sadam is cocking a snook at the International community. We have to deal with him now."

The French, Germans and Russians marginalised themselves by being caught with their fingers in the till. ("Oh? You mean those International sanctions applied to us, as well as foreigners? )

But instead of building up the case for Sadam to be removed because of what he WAS doing, they built up a case on what he WASNT doing!

Whilst it was true Sadam had used WMD in the past, it seems probable that he no longer had them. Destroyed? Or sold off to foreign powers? We may never know...

You make a good point. I think that Bush and his gang could have made at least a credible case that going to get Saddam would be a good thing. But the case they made was the wrong case--based on misrepresentation and the arrogant belief that they could pull something over on the world. The French, Germans and Russians saw it for what it was. A move to try to control the middle east by force and take advantange of an opportunity to exert US power abroad, an opportunity that was based on playing the fear card on the US public--Saddam has WMDs and we have to go get them now, before he uses them on us. Much of the rest of the world knew this was a bogus reason. Not because they knew for sure that Saddam didn't have WMDs but because they knew that the Bush admin. had not done its homework on the subject and therefore had no justification in using the issue as a basis to invade.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

If BUSH LIED!!! about WMD -- that is, he knew all along Saddam didn't have a WMD program, but intentionally misrepresented that he did -- then he would have had some nerve gas planted. (Which, of course, the fever-swamp lefties all said he would.)

It is not credible to believe that even an extraordinarily foolish president would intentionally lie, KNOWING that a successful invasion would reveal its falsity.

My own take was that after 9/11, any country that sponsored, supported, harbored, or even said anything nice about terrorism was properly recognized as waging low-level warfare against the United States, and deserved anything it got.

[Matt]

I don't think the B team (Bush and Blair) lied. I think they so badly wanted to go after Saddam that they allowed normal standards to slip at little. Well, slip a lot, really...

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 11 2004, 04:38 PM

I don't think the B team (Bush and Blair) lied. I think they so badly wanted to go after Saddam that they allowed normal standards to slip at little. Well, slip a lot, really...

Maybe Dubya had one of his drunk daughters google the "internets" for WMD and found a site mentioning Saddam by name, ergo, guilty, must invade now!!

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Oct 11 2004, 10:00 AM

If BUSH LIED!!! about WMD -- that is, he knew all along Saddam didn't have a WMD program, but intentionally misrepresented that he did -- then he would have had some nerve gas planted.  (Which, of course, the fever-swamp lefties all said he would.) 

It is not credible to believe that even an extraordinarily foolish president would intentionally lie, KNOWING that a successful invasion would reveal its falsity.

My own take was that after 9/11, any country that sponsored, supported, harbored, or even said anything nice about terrorism was properly recognized as waging low-level warfare against the United States, and deserved anything it got.

My own take was that after 9/11, any country that sponsored, supported, harbored, or even said anything nice about terrorism was properly recognized as waging low-level warfare against the United States, and deserved anything it got.

Many countries qualified, only one got invaded.(besides Afganistan)--and we didn't put all our efforts into getting the prime force behind 911.

Bush had to know that the evidence wasn't as convincing as he and his administration made it out to be. That is a form of misrepresentation (the nice way of saying "lie"). When one knows that the real situation was that there was a chance of WMD's, but nothing definite, and then goes to the American people with a story that they had to know was giving an impression of a certainty that was not justified, I don't think that is too far from a lie.

If Bush didn't understand that the evidence was not as convincing as he made it out to the american people, then he is an idiot (OK, I'll be nice and say "less than competent" as president) , and should be voted out of office on that basis.

If BUSH LIED!!! about WMD -- that is, he knew all along Saddam didn't have a WMD program, but intentionally misrepresented that he did -- then he would have had some nerve gas planted.  (Which, of course, the fever-swamp lefties all said he would.)

Frankly, I am inclined to think that Bush may well not have the brights to recognize the difference between hard evidence and his own assumptions.

Also, you have raised something of a strawman (at least regarding my position)--I don't remember ever suggesting that Bush would plant evidence of WMD's. Where are ALL these fever-swamp lefties? I'm as left as you get on most issues, and I never suggested that. Better make that "all" into some.

Actually, I don't think Bush is clever enough to pull something like that off. Anyway, Bush may have well thought there were WMD's. That is not the point. The point is the evidence didn't justify his decision, and he should have known that. Many of the rest of us did. I even remember saying to myself, "Is that really all they have? If so, we better slow this process down a little?" I even remember saying on this message board that we should not rush to judgment, that we needed more international support and we should let the inspectors do more inspecting, so that we could get the real picture. Turns out I was right. I could just as well have been wrong, but I was just looking at the same stuff that everybody else was--the UN pictures were the only real evidence I saw---and all I could say to myself was "I guess the CIA knows something I can't see in those pictures". So much for CIA expertise.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by Cal@Oct 11 2004, 04:11 PM

Many countries qualified, only one got invaded.(besides Afganistan

and you are NEVER wrong...except that one time.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Setheus+Oct 11 2004, 04:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Setheus @ Oct 11 2004, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Oct 11 2004, 04:11 PM

Many countries qualified, only one got invaded.(besides Afganistan

and you are NEVER wrong...except that one time.

No, I'm wrong a lot, just ask Snow!

I'm just not wrong on this one----but history will be a better judge.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Many countries qualified, only one got invaded.(besides Afganistan

And Syria, Iran, and Sudan can consider themselves lucky. For the moment.

The idea that since we couldn't conquer all terrorist sponsors at once, we shouldn't fight against any of them is like saying that because cops can't stop all speeders, they shouldn't stop any.

(Although I should note that it drives me crazy when people are blazing past me at 90 mph, and little old Saturn-driving me gets pulled over for going 80. "What's the problem, officer? Am I the only one you could catch?" Funny -- that line never seems to get me anywhere.)

I think the reason Iraq, instead of the other terror-sponsoring countries, got attacked in Round 2 of the war on terror, was (ironically enough) excessive concern for world opinion, the UN, and international law by the Bush administration. Of all the terrorist sponsors, Iraq, conveniently enough, was subject to several Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter 7, which expressly provided for the use of military force by member states if they weren't complied with. In other words, Saddam got clobbered because clobbering him was patently legal, in a way clobbering Iran might not have been.

Where are ALL these fever-swamp lefties? I'm as left as you get on most issues, and I never suggested that. Better make that "all" into some.

I actually didn't mean to include you in the "fever-swamp lefty" category, although if you're volunteering, be my guest. Although you'll have to prove your bona fides by working the word "Halliburton" into every third sentence, ask why no Jews showed up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11, and call everyone to your right a Nazi. Otherwise, your general rationality gives you away. I think you're only an ordinary garden-variety left-liberal. Not that, as Senator Not A Liberal reminds us, labels mean anything anyway.

Trust me on this one: there have been plenty of conspiracy-minded leftists saying that if any gas shells were found in Iraq, Bush must have planted them.

[Cal]

Trust me on this one: there have been plenty of conspiracy-minded leftists saying that if any gas shells were found in Iraq, Bush must have planted them.

Like the other side of the coin, where someone on this board said he was a soldier in Iraq (US) and that his unit found a bit of nerve gas, and his conclusion was that Saddam did, after all, pose a serious threat to the US.

As to legality---when it comes to international politics, the term takes on a different tone. Had Iraq actually posed a serious and imminent threat to the US, legalities would have gone out the window, I suspect. The fact that the UN had some resolutions we could claim were violated, was mostly a conviniece, in my opinion. Better understanding of Saddam might have led us to see that his posturing was mostly for the benefit of the Arab world, and to seem to them like a powerful leader. He had to know that he didn't have WMD's to kill a mouse, but he refused to acknowledge that out of fear of seeming weak. Well, that is different than not acknowldging the WMD's out of a desire to conceal a plan to destroy the world.

I fault the Bush adm. for ignoring the subtle distinctions that should govern global policy.

The bottomline, as I see it, is that war really SHOULD be a last resort; in this case it definitely was not. There is lots of planning and hard thinking that should go into war making, and it wasn't done here, and I'm afraid were going to pay a hefty price, if we haven't already.

This is the first MAJOR conflict in recent history we have entered that WASN'T precipitated by a major agressive move by the other side. This has been our national policy for 100 years. Even with the Soviets we basically said, after WWII, don't encroach on our "world" and we won't encroach on yours. We both tested that out a bit--we shoved them out of Cuba, and we shove them back into N. Korea. We never really encroached on their world.

Now we are living in a different world. We aren't dealing with a basically rational and practical group, like the Soviets. We are dealing with poorly led rouge nations, that just happen to have the capacity, or near capacity, to do the same thing (on a smaller scale) than we THOUGHT the Soviets wanted to do. Destroy us. But, just as clear thinking and patience allowed us to survive a possible nuclear confrontation, dealing with terrorism is going to require restraint and clear thinking so that we don't do more damage than the terrorists themselves.

The radical Islamic extremists are essentially a people without a home. And Iraq WASN'T their home either. Saddam didn't have much inclination to turn over power to anybody--including Al Qaeda or the Taliban. There was no real danger that Iraq was going to become a refuge for terrorists ina ny serious way, because Saddam wasn't incline to share power with anybody. We should have known that, and realized Iraq was not the place to look for terrorists. Unfortunately, it is now......we have made it one. Irony of ironies.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

What would Musab al-Zarqawi be doing if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Runing a used-car dealership in Amman?

See, I don't subscribe to the view that George Bush, by whacking the nastier parts of the Arab world with a stick, is transforming otherwise peaceful Arabs into vicious terrorists. I say that if you've got it in you to get your rocks off from chopping off infidel heads, you're already a terrorist psychopath, and whatever pretext you cite is just that. Ordinary decent Americans didn't turn into Arab-murdering fanatics after September 11. (Although a couple of indecent Americans did.) Good people don't turn to terrorism -- the intentional killing of civilians for political purposes -- no matter the cause.

In fact, I doubt that the war in Iraq has "created" a single terrorist. I'll grant that it has created a good number of insurgent guerillas, who are being sent packing off to Allah about as fast as they stick their heads up, but as much as I dislike Mookie al Sadr's merry men and the thugs of Fallujah, they're pretty much standard-issue guerilla fighters, not international terrorists. (The latter group does engage in terrorist tactics -- but only against local Iraqis, which has got to be endearing themselves to the locals.) The threat posed by the insurgents to the United States is about the same as the threat posed by Saddam's now-defunct Republican Guard -- a military force with the potential to impede operations against real terrorists in Iraq.

And there were real terrorists in Iraq, starting with Zarqawi (identified by Colin Powell as a known terrorist operating out of Iraq beforethe war) and, by some estimates that I unfortunately haven't reviewed yet, 23 other groups. Harboring terrorist groups has to be universally recognized as an act of war. The Iraq war put some teeth into that idea. Remember the old days of the Cold War, when terrorist camps operated openly in Libya and the Eastern Bloc? That time is over.

I suspect. The fact that the UN had some resolutions we could claim were violated, was mostly a conviniece, in my opinion.

We didn't "claim" those resolutions were violated. Security Council Resolution 1441, to which no member objected, declared Iraq to be in material breach of mandatory Chapter 7 resolutions. You're a trained lawyer, Cal. What does the aggrieved party have the right to do in the case of a material breach of an agreement?

Right. Treat the agreement as rescinded. In this case, the relevant agreement was the armistice Saddam signed to avoid being invaded after he was driven out of Kuwait. By failing to verify his destruction of his WMD (and you accepted that Saddam was actively concealing the fact he'd suspended his WMD programs), he called time in on the '91 war.

Now we are living in a different world. We aren't dealing with a basically rational and practical group, like the Soviets. We are dealing with poorly led rouge nations, that just happen to have the capacity, or near capacity, to do the same thing (on a smaller scale) than we THOUGHT the Soviets wanted to do. Destroy us. But, just as clear thinking and patience allowed us to survive a possible nuclear confrontation, dealing with terrorism is going to require restraint and clear thinking so that we don't do more damage than the terrorists themselves.

Explain to me why, though radical Islamists and the Soviets are so fundamentally different, our approach to defeating these fundamentally different enemies should be the same.

Saddam didn't have much inclination to turn over power to anybody--including Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Distraction. Nobody's talking about turning power over to terrorists. It's about using terrorists as an instrument of policy. When the Soviet Union used leftist terrorist groups like the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction (and PLO) as instruments of policy, they weren't controlled by them in the least, but the latter did the former's dirty work just the same.

I fault the Bush adm. for ignoring the subtle distinctions that should govern global policy.

We did subtle all throughout the '90s, and terrorists perpetrated one attack after the other (WTC '93, the Khobar Towers and African embassy bombings, the USS Cole) and gathered strength. Maybe it's time to try a different approach. Even if the current approach of (purportedly) simplistic, cowboy hammer blows ultimately proves ineffective, it's no worse than "nuance" proved to be.

[Cal]

What would Musab al-Zarqawi be doing if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Runing a used-car dealership in Amman?

Could he be doing anything much worse than he is now?

And there were real terrorists in Iraq, starting with Zarqawi (identified by Colin Powell as a known terrorist operating out of Iraq beforethe war) and, by some estimates that I unfortunately haven't reviewed yet, 23 other groups. Harboring terrorist groups has to be universally recognized as an act of war. The Iraq war put some teeth into that idea.

The only terrorists that have been doing anything to the United States were under Al Qaeda. What ever terrorists might have been in Iraq we have no basis for attacking--they didn't attack us. Since when do you attack someone for what they MIGHT do to you--talk about twisting the logic of law! Besides, I have yet to see produced any evidence that isn't just inuendo and supposition that any terrorists in Iraq had anything to do with 911. You seem so intent on making our actions legal, what in the legal logic of any offensive action can be found in how we dealt with Iraq. It posed no imminent threat to us--just because some of our misguided leaders thought it did hardly justifies attacking a country that had not attacked us. You seem to be implying that we have some right in self defense in attacking Iraq. Remember, the only purpose of our going to war with Iraq in the first place in 1991 was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait and to make sure it posed no additional threat to the region. Well, it sure didn't when we attacked it this time. You seem to have missed the point I made about Saddam's posturing. It is poor foreign policy to base decisions like going to war on another leader's posturing. We should have known it was just posturing before deciding that Saddam posed a REAL threat to us. Just because we could come up with a legalistic excuse to attack Iraq hardly justifies our doing so. War is much more serious than that.

Explain to me why, though radical Islamists and the Soviets are so fundamentally different, our approach to defeating these fundamentally different enemies should be the same.

What is the same is how you approach any crisis--with deliberation and clear thinking, and getting your facts straight. Before acting we should have known exactly what Saddam had and what threat he posed. That is precisely what was lacking in our approach. The stated reason, by the Bush administration, for invading Iraq was to destroy his WMD's. They didn't exist. Now the Bush supporters are conjuring up all kinds of other IMPORTANT reasons for being there--none of which would justify an invasion of Iraq. The reason for being there has evaporated into thin air and we are standing there with our collective fingers up our nose, trying thing of good reasons. Bush has to resort to lofty sounding cliches like "...bringing freedom to the oppressed Iraqis".....or "stopping the spread of terrorism", which I still submit being made worse, not better. The fact is terrorists were not killing american troops until we invaded Iraq. Now they have killed over 1000 and counting. That is the real fact----it still remains to be seen what, if anything, we have done for the Iraqi's long term.

Distraction. Nobody's talking about turning power over to terrorists. It's about using terrorists as an instrument of policy. When the Soviet Union used leftist terrorist groups like the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction (and PLO) as instruments of policy, they weren't controlled by them in the least, but the latter did the former's dirty work just the same.

What evidence do you have that Saddam was using terrorists in Iraq to do anything to the United States? All I've ever heard is that there MAY have been a few isolated camps in Iraq? This is all just justification after the fact. The fact is, the only terrorism directed at the united states came from Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which had little if any connection to Saddam. The rest is after the fact wishful thinking--to justify a war that should not have happen at the time and manner it did.

We did subtle all throughout the '90s, and terrorists perpetrated one attack after the other (WTC '93, the Khobar Towers and African embassy bombings, the USS Cole) and gathered strength. Maybe it's time to try a different approach. Even if the current approach of (purportedly) simplistic, cowboy hammer blows ultimately proves ineffective, it's no worse than "nuance" proved to be.

I couldn't disagree more. First, nothing we are doing right now addresses these kinds of attacks. Give me any credible evidence that invading Iraq slows down this kind of attack, that you have mentioned above. Attacking Iraq in response to things like the WTC, Khobar and embassy bombings is like kicking the dog to kill a flea.

A complete and total over reaction. What, we trade over 1000 american soldiers to "punishing" the Iraqis for something they didn't have any part in? Ludicris upon ludicris.

Nuance, as you call it, prevented nuclear war for over 60 years. Nuance, as you call it, under Bill Clinton, made us the most respected nation in the world. What was your "cowboy" mentality going to do to prevent 911? The bombing of the type you mention have continued after 911 and after or invasion of Iraq. As far as I am concerned all the macho chest pounding in the world is not going to stop small groups of terrorists from assembling bombs and blowing up buildings and boats or what ever. Basically nothing is going to prevent 911 type of attacks, certainly not invading Iraq. As a matter of fact, though this is not going to sound like a popular thought, I'm not much worried about the bombing of buildings etc. Yes, we need to go after that agressively--but in the RIGHT way--which is not invading countries we have only suspicions about. The more serious threat is that a nuclear weapon could be smuggled into the country through our ports. If Bush, instead to putting over 100 billion into invading Iraq, had used that money to set up an inspection systems for our ports of entry, I would feel a heck of a lot safer. Can you imagine how much port of entry security 100 billion could buy. As it stands now, I don't see that we are one BIT safer because we invaded Iraq. The middle east can generate more terrorists than we can kill. What we need is a combination of port of entry security, and international cooperation in identifying potential terrorists and their plots, along with diplomatic, economic efforts to bring the Arab world into the 20th century. Running loose like a bull in a china shop in the middle east is not going to solve the problem.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

What ever terrorists might have been in Iraq we have no basis for attacking--they didn't attack us. Since when do you attack someone for what they MIGHT do to you--talk about twisting the logic of law!

Now we're sharpening the focus of our disagreement. Your approach to the war on terror is essentially that it's a war of vengeance: Al Qaeda hit us; therefore, we will take revenge on Al Qaeda, and it alone.

I take a broader view. "Since when do you attack someone for what they MIGHT do to you"? In an ordinary criminal context, it's when the criminal has gone so far in preparing to commit a crime that his act can be deemed "overt." Attempt and conspiracy are two classes of crimes that don't actually wait for the crime to be completed. Training men to take over airliners and issuing clear statements that you intend to destroy the Great Satan are plenty overt enough.

And that's under John Kerry's limited, law-enforcement-based approach to terrorism. I think that approach is suicidal, because terrorism is ultimately political: an attempt to compel a foreign enemy to do one's will, as Clausewitz would have put it. To the extent that a state is complicit in a terrorist's attempts, it is also committing an act of war. State sponsors of anti-American terrorism are committing acts of war against the United States, whether or not their agents get lucky enough to blow a few infidel pigs to Iblis.

We didn't invent terrorism. Time was, if a state wanted to blow something in another state up, it sent in uniformed armies, taking effective responsibility for the consequences. After World War II and especially the atomic bomb raised the stakes for losers so high, the natural consequence for states and groups that still wanted to be aggressive was that they looked for ways to inflict violence abroad, but be able to maintain enough deniability that they wouldn't invite conventional military retaliation.

It seems to me that we have two options: (1) play the terrorists' game, and allow free-lancing Americans to romp and play with bombs and guns in the Muslim world; or (2) update the rules of conventional warfare so they no longer shield people who break them by using terrorism as a tactic. In other words, the advantage of state-sponsored terrorism -- the ability to cause the infliction of violence upon one's enemies without inviting retaliation -- needs to be eliminated.

And truly state-sponsored terrorism does seem to be going out of fashion. Whether that is a natural evolution, or the result of American actions in Afghanistan and Iraq -- showing that not only a blatant sponsor of terrorism, but even a ruler who harbored only some terrorists was subject to being chased out of his palaces and fished out of a spider hole, can be debated. It seems unlikely that terrorists would voluntarily forego the advantages of relationships with states; some fascinating recents studies on social networks have suggested that without state sponsorship, the size of a terrorist cell must be dramatically smaller if it wants to stay covert, which hampers its ability to operate effectively.

These are serious considerations of strategy, utterly appropriate for the unbelievably complex world of modern geopolitics. In contrast, the opposition insists simplistically that "Iraq didn't attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us" and leaves it at that. This is why I just shake my head at left-liberal pretensions that they are the "nuanced" ones. The height of their strategic wisdom is basically to respond to attacks as they come -- figuratively sending a shell or two back down the return bearing of the incoming -- and then go back to normal, until the next time.

UPDATE: Clinton administration pollster and renowned toe-nibbler ###### Morris agrees with me -- http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolu...nists/31668.htm

[Guest TheProudDuck]

What we need is a combination of port of entry security, and international cooperation in identifying potential terrorists and their plots, along with diplomatic, economic efforts to bring the Arab world into the 20th century.

If Bush, instead to putting over 100 billion into invading Iraq, had used that money to set up an inspection systems for our ports of entry, I would feel a heck of a lot safer. Can you imagine how much port of entry security 100 billion could buy.

I agree that port and entry security needs to be beefed up. We already are engaging in a great deal of international cooperation in identifying potential terrorists and their plots. In fact, most countries are completely cooperative in this. Whether some of them, like Pakistan, would have been quite as cooperative if they weren't worried the US would get medieval on them is an open question. Somebody once said that diplomacy without the threat of force in the background is like dancing without music. My firm just settled a huge case, with millions of dollars on the line. It wouldn't have settled if the threat of force -- a trial -- hadn't loomed in the background. Diplomacy is all about getting the right mix of carrots and sticks. John Kerry's problem is that every message he sends suggests that all he's got in his bag is carrots.

One problem with port security is that no matter how much money you spend, you'll never be able to go through every single container without bringing international trade to a grinding halt. A really determined terrorist trying to smuggle something into the country could always find a way through a hole in the system, either by shielding contraband from X-ray examination and sealing it to avoid chemical detection, or including a shielded nuclear bomb in a container of naturally radioactive material like granite construction stone. Playing defense only is hopeless.

As to whether the money spent in Iraq could have better been spent on port security -- the same could be asked of every item in the federal budget. Is port security more important than the billions of dollars in increased federal funding to schools under No Child Left Behind, or the multibillions that the new prescription drug benefit is going to cost?

[Cal]

Now we're sharpening the focus of our disagreement. Your approach to the war on terror is essentially that it's a war of vengeance: Al Qaeda hit us; therefore, we will take revenge on Al Qaeda, and it alone.

First, I think you have characterized my position in an over-simplistic fashion. I am suggesting that we take focus on those we KNOW are threats over those we simply SUPPOSE are threats. Second, are you suggesting we go around jumping into conflicts because we "guess" they pose a threat? That is hardly analogous to the crime of "attempt" or "conspiracy", in both you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt "intent" as well as, in the case of attempt that the perpetrator has completed every act necessary except some final and crucial act, like actually pulling the trigger, which he probably had to try to do, and was prevented. Likewise, in conspiracy, you have to show ACTS in furtherance. All of this requires more than supposition and inuendo. I requires hard evidence. This was lacking in our invasion of Iraq. That is why I opposed it, not because I have some soft spot for terrorists, as the Repub like to spin it.

I see Kerry's position as one that simply requires adequate evidence before proceeding--the kind of evidence that would be required, say, to actually convict someone of "attempt" or "conspiracy". Otherwise, we are likely to turn the world into a "wild west show", with other nations acting as irresponsibly as we are.

One problem with port security is that no matter how much money you spend, you'll never be able to go through every single container without bringing international trade to a grinding halt. A really determined terrorist trying to smuggle something into the country could always find a way through a hole in the system, either by shielding contraband from X-ray examination and sealing it to avoid chemical detection, or including a shielded nuclear bomb in a container of naturally radioactive material like granite construction stone. Playing defense only is hopeless.

As to whether the money spent in Iraq could have better been spent on port security -- the same could be asked of every item in the federal budget. Is port security more important than the billions of dollars in increased federal funding to schools under No Child Left Behind, or the multibillions that the new prescription drug benefit is going to cost?

I completely disagree, well maybe not completely, but substantially.

By your logic, there is little reason to play prevent defense at all, huh? They are going to get through anyway? I disagree. Prevent defense is a crucial element. I think what we actually have is a difference in emphasis. Mine includes a well calculated offense, with a more substantial defense, and please don't add your characterization as "liberal". It has nothing to do with labels. It's about a common goal: to debilitate terrorism or minimize it. As you have correctly pointed out, we're not likely to eliminate it altogether defensively. But we are not going to eliminate it any better by creating MORE terror while we implement half baked, poorly thought out "cowboy" attacks on SUPPOSED terrorist harboring countrys. I have yet to see any evidence that attacking Iraq has done ENOUGH against the possiblity of terrorism to JUSTIFY the cost, and likelihood of creating more chaos than we have eliminated in the middle east. It is a balance of harms.

I understand your frustration with terrorism. Nobody likes it. Everybody wants to stop it. We differ on method, not on ultimate goals. It doesn't really help to characterize one approach as liberal and other as "right wing cowboy" even though we are tempted to do it. We need to take a hard look at the whole picture---how do we accomplish the most good, with the least amount of collateral damage looking at the long range wellbeing of the world.

By the way, comparing NCLB spending to spending in Iraq leaves one glaring problem: One makes SOME sense, the other very little. I'm not really a fan of NCLB, but spending on it pales in comparison in magnitude of spending. In fact, one of the drawbacks to NCLB is that it has been woefully underfunded. Same is true of the prescription drug program. Also, we wouldn't need as much prescription drug relief if we lifted the ban on Canadian sales (but that is way off the topic, and you don't need to respond to that if you don't want to.)