To quote the Administration response, as reported on MSNBC -

A senior White House official called the former vice president “irrelevant,” saying that “no one around here is remotely concerned about what he has to say” on the subject of war with Iraq, NBC’s Campbell Brown reported. “He is out of the mainstream with his own party,” the official said.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “The president has unified the nation. People are rallying to the president’s position. And the president will continue to try to unify the nation even if it appears there are splits forming in the Democratic Party.”

More proof (if proof were needed) that if Al was president he'd still be sending autographed copies of "Earth in the Balance" to Osama and Mullah Omar...

You are a clueless dipshit. Gee, Germany grows a spine and you are outraged. Fuck Kyoto its Sadam eh? Gore won, your an idiot and so is Bush. Please kill yourself.

Is it just me, or is it kind of childish for the Dems to feel like they have to oppose W on every single issue, including the war? Can't they differentiate themselves from Republicans on a few key (domestic) issues and reap the benefits of being good soldiers on the rest (including the war)?

I mean, think of the credibility a Dem could garner with the electorate at large if he or she went "maverick" and came out strongly opposed to murderous dictators obtaining WMD, and in favor of a US foreign policy grounded on U.S. interests. Or is it only "maverick" Repubs who gain credibility when they buck the party line?

If I was a Dem with presidential ambitions, I would think seriously about coming out in favor of the war as a way to separate myself from my primary competitors, and set myself up for the general election. Sure, I would be betting that the war would go well, but I couldn't live with myself if I hitched my political career to the war going badly for my own country anyway.

I mean, this ain't rocket science. Do the Dems really want to position themselves to stand around saying to the electorate "see, I told you so" if the war goes bad? Do they really think that will help them? Maybe they have forgotten that the schoolyard dorks who said "I told you so" were the ones getting swirlies in the boy's room, not the ones getting dates with the cheerleaders.

Well, RHB, We see where the civil and intellectual advantage lies.

Is it just me, or is it kind of childish for the GOP to feel like they have to wrap themselves in the flag and denounce everyone as unpatriotic who has the nerve to disagree with them?

The Dems in favor of an unlimited war with Iraq (GWB's blank check request) are unthinking sheep.

We're trying to run a democracy, not dating f-ing cheerleaders.

RHB: it's "you're an idiot," not "your."

Yeah, it must be frustrating to be the smartest person in the trailer park.

Please kill YOURself.

Ladies and gentlemen, the voice of the "intelligent" Left, personified.

Thanks for the idiocy, RHB. Now, go do your homework before your mom gets mad and makes you clean up the trailer.

RHB:

Such vituperation! Should you actually wish to make a point you should omit the profanity. Correct grammer and coherent sentences would actually assist the reader in understanding your point. Those would actually allow some people to overlook the fact that you are ignorant of the Electoral College provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Gore did not win. No wonder you wouldn't sign your name.

I am soooooo glad Gore didn't win.

PS: I voted for him.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Like the administration, I suspect not. This sort of knee-jerk lamb-like reaction is exactly what the administration is counting on.

It's pathetic how some people can just be led so blindly by W, isn't it?

Just a quick not to RHB - your email address of spam@yourmom.com lacks punch. Next time, how about spam@yourmama.com?? Or spam@yomama.com?? I think that has more kick, and sounds less Mommy's-boyish........

To RHB: Funny how "Germany grows a spine" yet when it's the US it's "Unilateralism."

The point is that Gore's view, although popular amonst the peaceniks doesn't resonate with the majority of American's who currently support the President (70% I believe last poll).

Gore et al speak as if we have already committed ground troops in Iraq when last I checked we are still talking UN resolutions.

What needs to be understood is that Iraq is certainly intertwined within the war on terrorism. There are still Czech officials who state that meeting in Prague between September 11th hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi embassy intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani took place.

You can read about it here:

http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm

So continue with your ad hominen attacks and pretend we (The US) are acting unilaterally and without support abroad if it will make you feel better. The truth is Germany will be on board.

Scroeder said: "Schröder said, that Germany won´t take part in an action against Iraq even with UN mandate AS LONG AS THERE IS NO REAL CONCEPT FOR THE TIME AFTER THE WAR.

Guess what? When things are firmed up, he'll come around and say "now that there is a plan...blah blah blah we're there!" Mark my words.

RHB,

I am finding the growing irrelevance of the left so fucking entertaining. Jab at Bush and the right...graze the cheek, uppercut...nip the nose, uh oh watch out for the roundhouse...birds chirping around your head and..."why don't you just die Stephen.

Almost as intelligent as neener, neener, neener.

Welcome to a fate worse than death loser, YOU ARE A NON-ENTITY.

Boy, talk about being lost in 'the fog of peace'!

RHB: Germany will have a spine right until it appears the US is about to score big in Iraq. Then we'll see how strong that spine actually is.

Kyoto was a joke, and you know it, or ought to. When one looks at the actual expected long term benefit (little of none) and the impact it would have yielded against the US economy (a lot), it doesn't take too large a brain to read the message in between the lines. At least give our Congress credit for not being gullible enough to merrily sign that thing.

Look at it this way: at this point, by the criteria for war with Iraq, we should be bombing half a dozen other countries.

Gore is at least giving some resistance to a president who has STOMPED all over our basic consitutional rights and all over the Geneva convention.

Somebody has to spank Bush for that, and if it has to be a democrat, so be it.

It's unfortunate that RHB's easily dismissed stupidity distracted from slightly more salient points by Oliver Willis and "t." Theirs need addressing, not the prime example of the Democrats' voting base.

Oliver,

Nobody said Gore was unpatriotic. Stupid, yes; out of touch, yes; unpatriotic, no. Nice try at a red herring.

t,

At this point, if you haven't seen the evidence for attacking Iraq (especially if you've any connection to the blogosphere), it's because you've made a concerted effort not to look. Poke around a bit and you'll see, at least, that it's entirely presumptuous to assume that we're all just bending to W.'s whim.

Oh, and Lefty Libertarian: which rights, exactly has Bush "stomped all over" for you?

How about the Geneva Convention?

Someone remind me what Al did during his 8 years at the controls. Let's see. . . The WTC was bombed, albeit fortuitously less calamitously (few!, otherwise we mighta had a crisis!) Our embassies were bombed and one of our military ships attacked (oddly enough by the same folks who finished the job on the WTC and others). And Al's thoughtful response was so effective and posse-ful that we ever after lived in a world of peace and mutual admiration. Well, at least the UN wasn't attacked!
It's bad enough when they criticize without any experience. But it's worse when they were the ones who didn't do anything about it in the first place.

Nobody said Gore was unpatriotic.
On this specific story? Not yet. On other Democrats who have dared to go against GOP orthodoxy? From Fleischer and Ashcroft on down...

f you haven't seen the evidence for attacking Iraq
I see oodles of evidence to remove Saddam Hussein. But through an invasion? Not yet. The most I've seen in the blogosphere (a universe I was a member of before the fancy name was created) is reports of a guy who knew Bin Laden meeting Hussein some time. Perhaps there's a closer connection between Bin Laden and Hussein, but I'm not willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Certainly no evidence has been presented to prove this link.

I ask:

Where Is Osama Bin Laden? (and to those who say "he's dead" I say "show me the corpse")

Why Hussein now? (If he was so close to WMD, Bush should have begun rattling the saber immediately after being sworn in, not when poll numbers started dipping and finding Bin Laden wasn't as easy as advertised)

Your homework assignment, before you shoot off your mouth again, is to READ the Geneva Convention. America is not in violation, in any way, shape, form or manner of this convention. PERIOD.
If you differ, quote chapter and verse.

Otherwise, shut up.

I am so sick of this talk about rights being violated. To be honest, I wouldn't piss on the idiotarians if they were on fire.

Was it not a Democrat who interred American citizens during WWII? was it not a Democrat who began and continued the war in Vietnam that the left so dearly hated but longs for?

Whose rights have been violated? John Walker Lindh? He's doing what most weak leftists do when busted, singing like a friggin' canary. The prisoners in Guantanamo? They are POW's who took up arms against the US.

The rights that are being violated include the white elderly man who is forced to endure the once over four times with the security screeners wand. Or, perhaps, the Air Marshall who must defend his every action trying to ensure that your plane arrives safely at its destination.

Please just leave the current issues to people who have prepared and have the heart to handle the situation. you have to ensure that your student aide teaches the class at your college tomorrow according to your doctrine.

Natter at Bush, relive the fantasy of the "stolen" election, spout profanity and eschew a coherent argument. "But what 'proof' do you have against Saddam?" That's it? That's the best they got. Jesus...How do people get so damn pointless? How can one achieve such ignorance? Well, it's been said before and better: It is people like US who make the world safe for boneheads like THEM. Such is the price of our superior intelligence!

Is it just me, or is it kind of childish for the Dems to feel like they have to oppose W on every single issue, including the war?

They have a problem, which may be stated in the form of a trilemma:

- If they come out against war with Iraq, they're going against the mainstream of American opinion. This isn't necessarily fatal, if they can adduce principled arguments and manage to avoid insulting dissenters (difficult to do, judging by the performance of most anti-war bloggers, but some such as Unqualified Offerings are able to do it); but doing it risks peeling off the large gaseous atmosphere of Democratic voters who prefer the Dems on various ground but aren't married to the party. Go against the mainstream on an important issue, and you risk making yourselves a decidedly-minority party. The Demo political leadership hasn't really opposed the war in this fashion, thus far.

- If they come out in favor of war, they will piss off the hardline Democratic faithful. This group isn't a big percentage of Democratic voters, but it's the rocky core of the gas giant that is a major US political party: these are the people who remain solid partisans no matter what, who do community work for the party, etc. A gas giant cannot survive without the core and it can't survive without the atmosphere.

- If they temporize - which is what they've been doing - refraining from taking policy positions, talking about how "concerned" they are, insisting that we can't interrupt the war on terrorism to fight, uh, the war on terrorism, and yammering plaintively that Americans care much more about the details of Medicare prescription coverage than about something so trivial as foreign policy in wartime, but being careful not to get anyone too angry, eventually people will notice. And when they do, the Democratic Party starts looking like a bunch of trimmers. This is especially damaging given that the issue is so important.

I'd feel worse for the party leadership if it weren't clear to me that they put themselves in this position by going for obstructionism and not articulating a principled stance (that they might be held accountable for).

Oliver, the "saber rattling" with Iraq started a few days after September 11th, not just a few weeks ago.

Christ on a cracker, are you even trying to remember or are you just making crap up in order to tell the story you want to tell.

Anyway, Bin Laden is not the sole target of our campaign. He is one of many who wishes to make war with us, kill our civillians, and, more or less, butcher as many westerners as possible. Hussein is another on that list, and it can be argued that he presents a great enough risk that going after Iraq and Al Qaeda at the same time is necessary.

Gore makes it interesting.

Oliver,

My evidence comment was directed at the person who signed as "t." At any rate, although I find it cheesy to self-link on others' blogs, I wrote a series of posts fisking Ritter and collecting info for the case so that I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. Part 2 dealt with al Qaeda and Iraq. Of course, much of it wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but I imagine such intelligence rarely does, especially when it is so thoroughly in the dictator's interest to cover his tracks.

Regarding "why now," I think you're displaying a highly selective memory. Iraq has been part of the war on terror from the Axis of Evil speech. If Bush is getting the "one thing at a time" spiel now, imagine if he had pushed the envelope in the spring! As for attacking before September 11, that's a hugely disingenuous argument you seem about to make. One might ask why Saddam was allowed to fall off the previous administration's map. But more to the point is that Bush was still a new President in a country that was much more inwardly focused — one aspect of which focus was erroneous and counterproductive attacks on his legitimacy.

How about an intellectual honesty test: what would you have said if Bush had announced a plan to oust Saddam in March 2001? I think we all know the answer: the same thing as now, only with more vehemence and less care.

> Is it just me, or is it kind of childish for the
> Dems to feel like they have to oppose W
> on every single issue, including the war?

Nope, it's not just you. Where, oh where is the ghost of Scoop Jackson when we need him?

From T. Hartin, fourth entry way up there:

Let's address this as well. Is it just me, or is it kind of childish for the Dems to feel like they have to oppose W on every single issue, including the war?

Have you been up a !@#$% tree? Has not a large subject of debate been that Dems have been kissing up Bush (and not in the cunning way) too much over something they truly do not believe. Namely that toppling Saddam without assessing what happens afterward or the precedent it sets for actions by other countries is good policy.

Also, kudos to Vodkapundit to post replies from both "sides." I'm new here since Instapundit said there was a "tart reply" to the speech here. It 's just flat out refreshing. A raspberry to Vodkapundit for not putting together any strong points against the subject matter of the speech. More people than you might expect are asking the question Gore addressed - what happens next if Saddam is gone -- but not the people who should be asking.

Also, to Neville Crenshaw, Regarding his entry:.
Such vituperation! Should you actually wish to make a point you should omit the profanity. Correct grammer and coherent sentences would actually assist the reader in understanding your point.

It is "grammar" but thanks for playing. You are the Weakes... no that's Bush, sorry. I made this my last point to actually address the real points of others on their merit.

Dimn

Chill before speaking. For all the W'ites out there who squat over steaming piles of Bush-speak trying to make sense of it, please snap out of it. We have a Constitution, checks and balances, and a 215 year tradition of fair play, honor, and good faith. Before we toss our reputation and world stature on the trash heap I wouldn't mind a detailed discussion about Iraq, Saddam, and the new new world order. Nobody sane rules out going after him, but I'm not stupid enough to believe Bush's ever-changing rationales for unilateral war. Let's talk about it as a nation, look at ALL the evidence even at the expense of giving up sources and methods, and THEN decide whether to grant W his request. This rush to war is ludicrous. Where's the evidence of imminent threat as opposed to three or six months from now? In the meantime, build a coalition, keep hunting bin Laden (remember him, George?) and Mullah Omar and Al Qaeda, and keep working with Karzai to build an Afghanistan that will make the Islamic world admire and respect America for our aid to their Muslim brothers and sisters. We fail in our quest for security to the extent we leave enemies behind us. Let's finish with Afghanistan before we start a new, larger war.

what would you have said if Bush had announced a plan to oust Saddam in March 2001?
(how about you give me a chance to answer before you put words in my mouth, kay?) If he had said we should send in Special Forces, or support the opposition forces in Iraq - I would and have been for that 100%. I have always advocated an assassination of Hussein.

Regarding "why now," I think you're displaying a highly selective memory. Iraq has been part of the war on terror from the Axis of Evil speech.
One is political rhetoric, the other is action in an international and domestic legislative body. If Bush had spoken in front of the UN before 9.12 (pitching the new products in "the fall", right) and not right before a close senate election and slipping (though still high) poll numbers - I would be less suspicious of his motives.

Can someone please explain to me what in the world the WTC has to do with Saddam Hussein? You act as if an attack by Japan on us should be punished by our retaliating against China. There is NO evidence, as Colin Powell has admitted, that Hussein had anything to do with the WTC attacks. NONE. ZIP. NADA. So please don't do the flag waving bit about the WTC to justify war against Hussein. Pathetic.

I nailed Gore on this too...

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2002_09_22.PHP#000220

I think this speech means that Gore is running... for German Justice Minister.

"Can someone please explain to me what in the world the WTC has to do with Saddam Hussein?"

Since you asked, here's why we're going to hit Iraq and why Iraq is just next in line, not the end of the road...

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime" - 9/20/01 - GWB

"We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam’s rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force.

As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver."

Al Gore: May 23, 2000

DC, you seem to forget that we declared war on Germany soon after doing so with Japan. *Germany* didn't attack us. Imagine if someone had said, "Can someone please explain to me what in the world Pearl Harbor has to do with Adolph Hitler?" Put in that context, it sounds kinda stupid, doesn't it?

gasp.. please tell me there's not a chance Saddam supported Al Queda against "W" to get even with "H" who kicked his ass in the "Mother of all wars". If this is a family feud it's gotten WAY out of hand. By the way Wind Rider..the president hasn't unified anybody but a bunch of CEO escapees and frothing rich kids. It's true! If you're gonna bitch at least bitch about reality.

Oliver - Bush talked about going after Saddam back during the campaign. It's nothing new, and he's certainly had other things to deal with till now. And how is it that you can directly state that you're unwilling to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and yet you're so obviously prepared to do so for Saddam? To expect to have every last bit of evidence laid out for you by our intelligence services is just ludicrous. You don't have the right to demand such a thing, legally or morally, and shouldn't expect it. That ain't how our system works and it never was. Or do you really believe so strongly that Bush is evil that you just find it easier to impugn his motives than those of someone like Saddam? In other words, are you prepared to say outright that you trust Saddam more than W? If so, I feel sorry for you.

While Oliver pretends to be less obnoxious that RHB, I don't think he succeeds. After decrying Republicans supposedly calling war opponents unpatriotic, he then calls Democrats who support the war sheep and slanders President Bush.

I fail to find any intellectual content in that.

It bugs me when people talk about the cost of the war against Iraq as if we can't afford it. In addition to 3,000 lifes lost on 9/11 the dollar figure for the damage has now gone over $100 BILLION dollars. We can't afford to sit back and wait any longer.

Went to the VP comments section and LGF broke out.....

Oliver,

I imagine if the options that you would have supported in spring 2001 were really possible, we'd be doing them now. Our attack will be as precise and limited as deemed prudent. But, as somebody who's been battling "that's just not who we are" people for weeks now, I gotta tell you that I don't see assassination having gotten much play. The point is that Presidents don't plan the issues that they're willing to force based solely on what Oliver Willis supports.

Back to "why now": C'mon, Oliver. This has got to be a ruse. The rhetoric and signals that the 9/12 speech was coming have been consistently building for months. I thought it was perfectly timed, both internationally and to give Americans a focus — optimism and hope — after the anniversary. And regarding the "right before an election" argument, it seems to me that an election wouldn't be an problem for a Democratic party that was willing to make clear what it believes in, and national defense, with special consideration of terrorism and related regimes, has become the single most important issue facing America without regard to politics. If politicians don't have a coherent position, that's their fault, and their detriment.

Well, there is definite ties between Iraq and terrorism, and the first attack on the WTC. The connection is vaguer with the 2nd attack, but there is some evidence.

Also, Gore lost fair & square, get over it. I guess you missed all those stories about the recounts done by the newspapers that showed that Bush would almost certainly still have won?

Oliver said:

Where Is Osama Bin Laden? (and to those who say "he's dead" I say "show me the corpse")

They didn't recover all the corpses of those who died in the World Trade Center Oliver. Are they dead or did they just come up with a great reason for taking off?

To Oliver & Dave R., you'll see Binny's corpse when the relatives of Flight #93 see their loved ones corpses. Same for those lost in the WTC which were never found.

As to what comes next? I just love all these passive people, I wonder if they're that way at work as well? They have the internet at their fingertips, but instead of actively making the case for it in their own minds, they need to be told like a child. What comes next? Iran, cos when Iraq goes, Iran gets jiggy from the inside. What comes next? A lot of hard work, frustration, death and pain. They will be destroyed like Japan and Germany, and rebuilt as well.

Of course, since in their minds W hasn't made the case, does this mean they and their families won't submit to being innoculated against smallpox? After all, there's no proof he developed it or another band of crazies will use it. (I wonder where they'd get it from???) Tell me, boys, do you deny your children, if you have them, their immunizations because there's no proof they'll get any of those diseases?

"Show me the corpse..." er, according to some reports out there, there isn't a corpse left to show. Give me a break. Howzabout "show me bin Laden with a newspaper from the past week?"

Good God! The stupid bastards who say that we shouldn't go after Saddam because we have no proof he has nuclear weapons will be the same stupid bastards who will say we cannot go against him because he DOES have nuclear weapons after he attains them.

For all of you people out there who have posted positions about why we should not attack Saddam Hussein, what would your positions be if we knew, beyond any doubt, that he did indeed have nuclear weapons?

My goodness, can none of us hold two thoughts in our minds at once?

We should do the following:
a. Destroy Al Qaeda
b. Kill Bin Laden
c. Remove Hussein from power either via special forces or supporting the opposition, but not through a full-scale invasion (like the plans that have been leaking to every newspaper)

If Al Qaeda is destroyed, I dont need a Bin Laden corpse - has Al Qaeda been destroyed? Homeland Security terror alert says: No.

Bush talked about going after Saddam back during the campaign
Exactly when did the campaign did Bush say: "We are going to mount a full-scale war on Iraq"?

Presidents don't plan the issues that they're willing to force based solely on what Oliver Willis supports
Ha-ha. Funny. I expect Presidents to do whats in the best interests of American people. All of us. Even the ones who didn't vote for him.

an election wouldn't be an problem for a Democratic party that was willing to make clear what it believes in
ALERT: I don't disagree with you.

Again with the two thoughts in one mind, folks.

To Scott - The U.S. did not declare war on Germany in 1941 - Germany declared war on us, in solidarity with their Japanese allies. Look it up if you don't believe me. If Hitler had not decided to honor his mutual-defense agreement with Japan, it might well have been difficult to convince Congress to get involved in the war in Europe: and the world would be very different today.

What's this got to do with Iraq? Nothing - except to point out that history as it is being made is always a lot murkier than history as it is in the history books.

As a Tennessean, I am glad that Algore has embraced his home state of Washington DC.
He hasn't been a Tenneseean for decades, if ever.

"show me bin Laden with a newspaper from the past week?"

Too easy to fake. Fifteen minutes with Photoshop would do. We need video. It's harder to fake well.

And we probably won't get it, if Al Qaeda learns from their mistakes. Intelligence analysts combed through earlier legit videos and learned all sorts of things Al Qaeda never expected. Some of what they learned was even discussed in the news, so they had to have learned more. If bin Laden IS alive, he'd be a fool to release new video until we relax our guard.

Ok, to the question of what legal rights have we lost since S11.

http://www.word-detective.com/overview_of_changes_to_legal_rig.html

Overview of Changes to Legal Rights

By The Associated Press

September 5, 2002, 11:44 AM EDT

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:

* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

* FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

* RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press

 
Any questions?

As for the Geneva Convention; there's no notion of "enemy combatant" - the six hundred folk in Gitmo bay are being held as-if they were enemy solidiers, but without any of the oversight or proper treatment which the convention would assure.

For chapter and verse, check my blog archives.
http://leftylibertarian.blogspot.com/

Lefty Libertarian, your "list" is bogus. Where it isn't outright false, it describes "rights" that were not rights before 9/11. There has never been a "right" not to have the government "monitor" an association. Freedom of information is not a right, its a statutory priviledge and the power to hold people without charges ( one assumes from this incoherent screed that "material witness" warrants are referred to ) predates 9/11.

Freedom of representation is again a bogus item - jailhouse conversations with attorneys were monitored before 9/11 in some cases - the DOJ just altered the regulations to include terror suspects. Interestingly, the original WTC bombing suspects had been caught using their counsel to smuggle messages out to their cohorts.

Your claims about the Geneva Convention are plainly false from any reading of the convention on prisoners of war and any reading of the history of treatment of combatants captured in violation thereof - example: the German commandos captured in American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge were treated as outside the Convention and shot. All in all, a pretty poor performance.

"If you are going after Jesse James you ought to organize the posse first"

So, uh, I missed the part where Gore said he was going to help Bush gather up this posse.

Oh, he didn't say that? I wonder why?

To Brown Line: "The U.S. did not declare war on Germany in 1941. . . . Look it up if you don't believe me."

In point of fact, the U.S. DID declare war on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941, albeit after Germany declared war on the U.S.

"Can someone please explain to me what in the world the WTC has to do with Saddam Hussein?"

Two words: Laurie Mylroie.

If you haven't read her work on Iraq's connection to the WTC attacks, you're missing more than half the debate.

Oliver,
I pity you.

I don't pity Oliver one whit - he's a very intelligent fellow, although he's coming at this problem from a completely different paradigm than those on the right are. I only wish he could remove the ad hominem from some of his arguments, but then again, those arguing with him haven't been acquitting themselves beautifully in that regard. C'mon folks, he's no Hesiod Theogeny here.

But Oliver, I do take issue with your suggested tactic for taking down Iraq. As someone who's actually worked on this issue before, I have to point out that, sadly, all the organized 'resistance' to Saddam is extrinsic to the region. And even if you want to credit the INC with representative capabilities, they're not particularly well-organized in any event. You may perhaps be thinking of using the Kurds, then, in a scenario analogous to the Northern Alliance, but that's functionally impossible for several reasons, the most salient being the ethnic impossibility of having the Kurds working as a liberating force (you thought ethnic tensions in Afghanistan were bad? You have NO idea...), plus their lack of effective materiel and training for dealing with a REAL army. The Taliban had 1950's equipment and an 1850's mentality; whatever the rot that has no doubt set into the Iraqi army and Republican Guard, they would make short work of any ragtag group.

Despite all this, we CAN count on massive homegrown support if we, the United States, send in a large army. Why? Well, this seems paradoxical at first, but actually rather obvious once you've peeled it back: if the Iraqis were finally threatened/assured that the BIG GUYS (who they've fought already, and have terrifying memories of) were coming, and coming to destroy Saddam - i.e. finish the job all the way - they will almost certainly mutiny. In fact, this is why you've read recently stories about Saddam moving his supposedly "highly-loyal" Republican Guard outside the city of Baghdad: because he's afraid that once the shoe drops, they'll simply shoot him dead rather than face certain death from on high or on the ground.

Anyway, none of this can happen unless we really bring a huge invasion/full-scale bombing campaign to bear; unless we demonstrate our utter seriousness about this endeavor. Otherwise there'll be no army revolt, no homegrown resistance, because the Iraqis (who are no fools) will justly fear that if Saddam ISN'T killed, if the Ba'ath regime isn't eradicated, then their lives are forfeit. We can't really afford half-measures, because they can't either.

As for UBL's body, Oliver. Trust me, I can tell you with 99.999% certainty that he's joined the choir invisible, that he's an ex-terrorist. To insist on his body is to insist on the impossible, and I hope you don't stick on this particular thing as a reason for nonaction (or for assuming he's alive and kicking), because we'll NEVER have it, and after a certain point it begins to seem purely obstructionist.

Thanks for commenting Oliver, and although we come at this from very different points of view (I'm a Bush supporter and right-libertarian, and you're...well, pretty much the inverse), I do believe that you can indeed often be "like kryptonite to stupid."

Lefty -

The Geneva Convention? Are you kidding me? Please name A SINGLE nation that has held our fighting men, who actually honored Geneva? The Nazi's? Ever hear of the 'Hanoi Hilton' or the 'Bataan Death March'? Was that Geneva being applied to our boys in Somalia or Iraq in Gulf War I? The 'Geneva Convention' is about as useful as the UN is at solving international issues.

I'm continually stunned by how the Dem. Party has spiraled and fallen from the likes of JFK to Algore. JFK would be disgusted by the total lack of 'leadership' now present in that party. Whatever happened to (In JFK's own words) -
'My fellow citizens: let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can see precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead--months in which our patience and our will will be tested--months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.

The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are--but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high--and Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.'

Ok, y'all who're saying "the geneva convention doesn't matter a damn" need to go and talk to some actual soldiers.

Ones I've talked to, friends of mine, think it's actually pretty bloody important; it's one of the few bits of protection a captured US soldier has, and believe it or not, most of the time people in captivity are held somewhere approximating it's confines. I'm willing to bet that all of the people screaming about how it doesn't matter have never seen combat and don't indend to.

I don't intend to ever see combat either, but I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that breaking geneva convention is unimportant: it matters a lot and strips us of a lot of moral superiority - and given that we're trying not to breed new generations of terrorists, that moral superiority matters.

The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedy, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pail and un-American. And it ought to be stopped.
-- Al Gore

Anybody arguing? Does anybody *really* think that it's OK to be able to imprison an american citizen indefinitely, without trial, on presidential say-so?

What the fuck is wrong with you people? What's a greater threat to our way of life: an idiot with neuclear weapons, or an American Dictatorship?

I'm not saying we *have* an American Dictatorship. But we are, without a doubt, drifting into very dangerous territory very fast indeed.

For all we really know - i.e. for all the evidence presented and verified, Jose Padilla (the US citizen being held without trial) may have been Jeb Bush's daugter's crack dealer. The point is, we don't know.

We've given fair trials to men who shot Presidents. I think we ought to be able to manage the same for these scumbags. That's the american way, not secret courts and indefinite detentions.

Constitutional rights, my friends.

We should first and foremost focus on our top priority? Let me see now: Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Naval forces of the Empire of Japan. I regret to tell you that a great many lives have been lost, but after all, we must focus first and foremost on the top priority. You see, I got you people in Congress to enact the lend-lease act in March, and under its authority I promised the Brits $31 Billion (that's Billion, with a B) to help them defeat that stinking Austrian paper hanger, and so I think we ought to follow through with the war in Europe as our top priority. I know it means giving up the Pacific to the Nips (hey, maybe even California, Oregon, and Washington, not to mention the Alaska territory), but that should be only temporary, along with the suffering and deaths (well, death won't be temporary, but suffering will) of millions of Americans who live there. We can get it all back (I hope). It's just that we can't be expected, even with our unequalled resources, military, human, natural, and intellectual, to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Hilarious, simply hilarious about how the Geneva Convention protects US soldiers. Does the convention separate us from the barbarians? Fine, I agree. I will always concur that the US should give better than we get...it's how we prove our belief in higher principles of civilized man. But anyone who thinks that our opponents give a damn about the GC is willfully ignoring how our troops were treated in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Go look at the PBS Frontline site on the web that describes Iraqi torture of coalition forces the last time around. Dictators don't bow to Geneva, I assure you...

Lefty, you are only demonstrating that you don't understand anything that you are so boldly declaiming on. First, on the Geneva Convention, actually reading the document reveals that it doesn't apply. Wow, actually reading it, what a concept. Second, on the detention of Jose Padilla, if its so unamerican to detain enemy combatants who are also American citizens, why is it that we've done it before and the Supreme Court approved? The whole purpose was well explained in a post below, go read it.

Bush I lied about the kuwaiti incubators, about Iraq buildup on the Saudi border. Bush II lied about Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections, lied about terrorists hiding in Iraq, misrepresented intelligence on Iraq WMD, Lied about pre-911 intelligence, lied about planning for war all summer. I'm curious why the warmongers still believe these guys.

Thanks, Scott, for all the links providing evidence for your claims. Your hard work hasn't gone unnoticed or unappreciated.

"the power to hold people without charges ( one assumes from this incoherent screed that "material witness" warrants are referred to ) predates 9/11"

When was Habeas Corpus eliminated?

"jailhouse conversations with attorneys were monitored before 9/11 in some cases"

not by adminstration fiat. Only by judicial review.

"the DOJ just altered the regulations to include terror suspects." No-the altered the process so that the AG made the decision instead of a judge.

"Your claims about the Geneva Convention are plainly false from any reading of the convention on prisoners of war and any reading of the history of treatment of combatants captured in violation thereof"

How were Taliban soldiers in violation of the Geneva convention?

Saddam has had WMD for decades. Does anyone ever remember his using them without American approval? Does anyone care to prosecute U.S. officials complicit in Saddam's WMD efforts?

One of the first articles in the Geneva Conventions states that only nations who are signatory to it are granted its protections.

Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban ever signed on the the GC.

Other things you might not know from the GC:

Enemy soldiers and officers caught in civilian clothes in a war zone are to be shot on sight.

Enemy soldiers captured wearing your uniforms are to be shot.

Enemies with no formal structure or identifiable chain of command are not granted GC protections.

Enemies caught directing attacks on civilians are not granted GC conventions.

The GC aren't some lefty dream list about how to wage war without hurting anyone's feelings. The Conventions are a hardheaded, practical series of agreements, designed to lend FORCE to keeping war as civilized as possible.

And, unlike criminal law, the GC do not require you to play by rules the bad guys won't adhere to.

So drop the GC complaints already -- you sound like an idiot.

Here's what he said in 1998, when Clinton resumed heavy bombing:

(Vice President interviewed by CNN's Larry King) (390)

Washington -- Vice President, interviewed by CNN's Larry King late
December 16, explained why the United States felt obliged to strike at
Iraq's Saddam Hussein earlier in the day.

Following are excerpts from the Vice President's interview:

(begin excerpts)

"We tried to make this inspection regime work, and Saddam would not
cooperate. In fact, he obstructed the inspectors. And so we are going
to take the other alternative available to us, to use our military to
degrade his ability to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten
his neighbors. We'll make an assessment whenever this military action
is completed. If, at some point in the future he decides to try to
continue to threaten his neighbors and get weapons of mass
destruction, we may have to do it again."

"There are no plans for any kind of ground invasion or ground
activity. There's no thought of anything like that. I will say that we
have supported the Iraq Liberation Act passed by the Congress. We
would like to see a different kind of regime in Iraq. We've said that
plenty of times. But this action is focussed specifically and
precisely on preventing him or degrading his ability to get weapons of
mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors and we're going to
continue it until we achieve that objective."

"We have strong support from around the world. The British are
participating. We have strong support in the region. We're very
pleased with the level of support for this. I think people all over
the world are really fed up with Saddam Hussein."

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons,
ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many
people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already
demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his
own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction
against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots
and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the
stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the
peace and security of the entire world."

No Boronx, your claims are false. Existing DOJ regulations were merely changed to include terror suspects in the list of persons whose conversations were monitored. And material witness warrants survive habeus corpus review. All of these complaints about Ashcroft continue to be nothing but misrepresentations and exaggerations.

The rest of your cheap slanders Stephen has ably dispensed with.

I'll refrain from entering into the general debate--it would probably be pissing into the wind--but let me at least point out that you guys don't seem to know very much about WWII. Contrary to the post above, after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on us, before we declared against him. Very conveniently, too--FDR might have had trouble getting us into the European war otherwise. And contrary to another post above, concentrating our efforts and resources against Germany is exactly what
we did--something which was very politically controversial at the time, and which explains why battles like Midway and Guadalcanal were so tough for us--the Japanese had much more resources available to them to fight those battles, because ours were going to Europe. We won those battles anyway, largely through the raw courage of our soliders and sailors. With an incredible effort, we managed to fight and win a 2-front war, but that doesn't mean that 2-front wars are generally a good idea--it didn't work out too well for Hitler or Napoleon, did it? If you're going to use historical analogies, read a little history please.

Rea, you forgot to mention a tiny little detail or two.

Roosevelt's strategy was "Germany First." Only Germany had the industrial base and, with a conquered Russia, the slave labor, to be a truly global threat. And he was one.

Japan's aims were for a Great EAST ASIA Co-Prosperity Sphere. She neither wanted, nor could attain, an empire much larger than that.

So, FDR set the priority. Germany first.

Today Iraq is the priority -- al-Qaeda, while not gone, is certainly (although perhaps only temporarily) shattered.

Also, don't understate what we sent to the Pacific theater. While FDR knew that Germany had to go first, the situation in the Pacific was so dire at first, that hardly anything at all got sent to the ETO.

Once the emergency was stemmed, we went back to work on Germany.

The same can be said of al Qaeda and Iraq. After 9/11, al Q had to be hurt, and fast. Now they are hurt.

Which means -- it's time for Iraq.

For those warmongers who think they know the Geneva convention:
Link

"One of the first articles in the Geneva Conventions states that only nations who are signatory to it are granted its protections."

Not true. Read chapter 1, article 3.

"Enemy soldiers and officers caught in civilian clothes in a war zone are to be shot on sight.
Enemy soldiers captured wearing your uniforms are to be shot."

Not true, same article as above.

Why are you lying about a document that is easily googled for?
"And, unlike criminal law, the GC do not require you to play by rules the bad guys won't adhere to."

This is true. (Not ture if Taliban had signed the convention) Any evidence that the Taliban violated the convention?

I could spend all day debunking right wing lies such as the one claiming Ashcroft didn't weaken attorney client privilege, but only "added terrorists to the list".
Link You can google for dozens more, if you want.

Why don't you guys do some research before you put your foot in your mouth? Where the hell do you get your information, anyway?

Stephen, I love your reasoning. Al Qaeda has attacked us with brutal effect time and again, and our own intelligence agencies claim they are ready to attack again at any time, despite all our efforts. Iraq is not tied to Al-Qaeda, has never attacked us, or even threatened to attack us, so logically we should get them first.

"And material witness warrants survive habeus corpus review."

That would be grand if everyone held was held as a witness, and Ashcroft weren't arguing that the courts have no right to review, and Ashcroft didn't argue that he doesn't have to show the evidence to the judge.

A judge reviews a case, and the DOJ tells the judge he has no right to review, the judge fumes, the judge asks for evidence, DOJ says it doesn't need to offer evidence (and doesn't), the judge fumes even more. In your book that is fair review.

Re: Boronx, Taliban executed at least one US soldier, as seen by a Predator.

Re: rea, I won't quibble with much of your post, but Midway was tough because Japan was a naval powerhouse, not because of shifting resources to Germany. The problem with taking on Japan at Midway was created long before Dec. 7, rather than after. We had Enterprise, Hornet, and a badly limping Yorktown...against four top of the line Japanese carriers (Hiryu, Kaga, Akagi and Soryu), better fighter planes, a much larger naval force, and an invasion force right behind it. Midway itself had an anemic defense force, including Brewster Buffalos, which were horribly outmatched, and all shot down within minutes of joining the battle. Point is that even if Germany did not declare on us, we were still in deep trouble at Midway.

Which makes the job done by our forces at Midway all the more amazing...

"Taliban executed at least one US soldier, as seen by a Predator"

What's your source on that? I've never heard of it.

My mistake...executed by "al-Qaida"...

Soldier was executed after falling from helicopter

Camera caught Navy SEAL being executed

Navy SEAL Slain by Al Qaeda After Falling Out of Helicopter

I guess these mo-fo's were wearing al-Qaida uni's instead of Taliban togs.

To Joe: Spot on. There is a story that should get more play than it does.

To Vodka: Why did you ban me? All my posts, while maybe not polite, were to the point and hardly offensive.

Um, Jesse James. Who writes his speeches? Mo Dowd?

That's hilarious, Boronx can't even link to the correct Geneva Convention.

Also amusing was Boronx's use of Epstein to defend his claims on the monitoring of attorney-client communications. In that very article, which evidenty Boronx didn't bother to read we see Epstein making the following aside: "So why not use the so-called FISA court to conform this seeming departure from the privilege - which is far less a departure than most lawyers and laymen believe it to be - to existing law? "

So his own "source" tells us that it is not much of a change. ROFL.

The fact that those opposed to the liberation of Iraq have not offered substantive alternatives - besides simply "waiting" - should not be understressed. The Weekly Standard recently offered a fantastic essay on appeasement and its doom; complete with a succinct critique on those uninterested in finally taking belligerent dictators to task. In a paraphrase, "do we wait for an adult person to switch personalities?"

Moreover, media-saturated sound bytes parroted by those like Oliver, those poll-stamped phrases such as "blank check" or "unlimited war," also deserve a good unravelling. What in goodness' name is "limited war"? Is it using rubber bullets? Two-hours' advance warning before bombing? Is it what happened to us in Vietnam? If so, then thank you, antiwar crowd - you lost the debate. In fact, the check has "Ba'ath Regime" written all over it, which the United States intends to cash quite soon.

I've never understood how the oppression of a populace (China, North Korea, Iraq and all the other tinier, less newsworthy niches) and subsequent conversion to democracy - the safest of all societal complexions - is a transgression against humanity too risky to challenge. Who said "benevolent dictator"? Give him a cold pail of water!

My other point of contention is with those who refuse to connect the dots; now, of course, the motives and methods differ greatly between the Wahabbi-pushers of Saud and the Butcher of Baghdad, but both parties (as with all Mideast oppressors) are inextricably linked to the general Culture of Death consuming the Middle East and culminating in organized terrorism. The infestation has spread so broadly that a multifaceted approach is the only way to demolish it; enter the domino we know as Iraq, targeted simultaneously with Afghanistan and other relevant sites.

And can we finally put to rest this nonsense about finding bin Laden, as if this one man (obviously dead or else he'd be singing hate videos for us into his imported Shure SM58 every other week) were the cause of the Culture of Death rather than a horrifying symptom? There's plenty more where that demon came from.

All political strife aside, I'm confident: Bush and allies will stay the course and implement the critical progression of cleaning house - and in a global sense no less.

You ignore the costs of war. Pentagon planners now talk about a quarter of a million troops as being necessary to invade and hold Iraq.

You ignore the post-war costs. Any government put in place by the US/UK will have to be supported by Ango-American bayonets possible for years.

You imply a connection between the Iraqi dictator and 9-11. None exists. There is no evidence that Saddam supports any terrorist movement.

The fact of the matter is, nobody knows exactly what the Iraqi government is up to. Before going to war, it would be nice to at least try reinstituting inspections before going to war.

There's no doubt Saddam is a bad person who has done bad things and may be developing weapons of mass-destruction.
But that is no reason to go to war, when other means of dealing with Iraq are available.

You'd be better off calling for the destruction of the Saudi monarchy first. Saudi money supports terrorists and Saudi money helped bring down the WTC on 9-11.

This business of Iraq is just a meaningless side-show which will do little to stop terrorism.

A full-scale war against Iraq could lead to an increase in the kind of terrorist activity we see today in Israel.

You imply a connection between the Iraqi dictator and 9-11. None exists. There is no evidence that Saddam supports any terrorist movement.

It baffles me that anyone can make this kind of silly statement when Iraq has publically acknowledged its support of terrorist movements in the form of huge checks given on camera.

what is pathetic is that the GOP will focus on sending soldiers to thier deaths for more oil money and for winning back the Senate (they really don't want us focusing on how inept W has been with the economy and almost everything else including Afghanistan), and the Dems will support them so that they can keep the Senate and win the House. So much for principles on either side.

Carl, there are some inherent difficulties with what the points you've made.

"You ignore the costs of war. You ignore the post-war costs."

Supposition, Carl, and a needlessly clumsy one at that. Anyone with enough mind to discuss serious issues like this knows the significant price of taking up arms. However, the costs of liberating the people who squirm under the thumb of Saddam Hussein - or any dictator, for that matter - far outweigh the penalties. Let's set aside, for a moment, the incredible weight of evidence supporting our interest in self-protection against Saddam's burgeoning arsenal (which if you deny exists, we're at an question-begging impasse): what about the moral responsibility of those who are free to do all they can, civilian or military, to end our definition of freedom as an island on earth? What bargain-basement price must be scoured before the very anethma to war, democratic republics, is pursued?

Back to Saddam's threat, which has never diminished but instead been publicly blanketed or spun: how many aggressive postures must this dictator make before it becomes economically pleasing to dethrone him? Can you offer me a crossover point between clear and present danger and the logistics of war?

"Too costly" is a sorely uncritiqued counter, a tactic for indecision with no concrete terms of reassessment - precisely as it is intended. Conditions to satisfy its bearers never will be satisfied.

"You imply a connection between the Iraqi dictator and 9-11. None exists. There is no evidence that Saddam supports any terrorist movement."

If an anachronistic "smoking gun" is what you need, it can handily be provided. I'm guessing that you are not privy to highly-classified intelligence either, Carl, but if you simply disregard the flight of Ramzi Yousef to Iraq (no extradition, if I recall correctly), the Czech connection in Prague, the accounts told by defectors of numerous clandestine contacts, the death of Abu Nidal in Baghdad, the reports from DOD regarding current al-Qaeda asylum within Iraq's borders, or perhaps Saddam's personal endorsement of terrorism from verbal assails to 25 Large - you are not stating evidence to the contrary but instead ignoring reality.

That said, the "9-11 link" is another denial of what nurtured that atrocity or the thousands like it over the past decades. Let me be succinct: the absence of freedom is a foothold for evil. Either dictators personally galvanize their resources for the consumption of others (Iraq, Iran), or they redirect and stoke the anger of their oppressed, miseducated populace into murderous activity (Saudi Arabia, Arabs living near Israel). Short summation: dictators must go. Saddam's the loudest one and the best entrance through which to crack the Middle East nut. Ergo, he's toast.

Before going to war, it would be nice to at least try reinstituting inspections before going to war.

If this statement were made in the mid-Nineties - before the years that Saddam's regime categorically denied inspections their (impractical) route to progress shortly throughout the Nineties, to ultimately end in the inspectors' expulsion - it could claim a shred of reason or credibility.

A full-scale war against Iraq could lead to an increase in the kind of terrorist activity we see today in Israel.

How abominably self-defeating. That the defense of Man's inalienable rights should frustrate those who would forcibly consume freedom and thus subjugate him, I am proud. But it never will increase their hatred and greed, already pushed to indefinite reaches; does the lock on your house spurn the robber or goad him? Or have you sworn off locks?

Re: post-Saddam Iraq and the need for peacekeepers...boy oh boy, that would be a great role for the UN and EU...of course, Daubler-Gmelin's Postulate would come into play...as you recall, D-G's postulate says that the more determined the US is to act, the less that the Euros/Int'l Bureaucrats will participate. The postulate also allows for a backlash against US action, including naked plays to hysteria and claims of neo-fascism.

Yes, the postulate is named after Herta Daubler-Gmelin, (former) justice minister of the Federal Republic of Germany.

also... what happens when China, India, Russia, Nigeria, or any other country for that matter, decide that they need to attack another country citing the Bush Doctrine (gasp he has one named after him) for justification? That will be a pretty world. Millions dead. Everywhere. Thanks W for the lovely precedent.

Uh, Monty, I guess you haven't noticed that almost all of those countries have already conducted wars under pretenses even less sophisticated. Some with each other. You should learn more history.

On the Iraq-terrorist connection, Shin Bet captured a Palestinian cell recently that had been trained in Iraq with Al Queda. And the Karine-A - the ship transporting arms to the PA was owned by a company based in Iraq.

I voted for Clinton/Gore twice and the only good thing I have to say about those votes is that now we all know what Gore is about, having observed him these many years. When he speaks, he is merely a parody of himself. He is irrelevant; he should take his party his party with him.

Dear Robin-

The Karine A. was on its way from Iran, nor Iraq, and the country of ownership is almost irrelavant-- how many cruise ships are registered in Liberia???

Secondly, yes, countries have attacked each other with 'less sophisticated' justifications in the past. But why give them more even more reasons that they can maintain are sophisticated? Consider that the reason US diplomacy was effective with India/Pakistan 2002 while we were in Afghanistan was because we actually had been attacked. If the US is to attack Iraq, and there is an India/Pakistan 2003, then on what basis can we try and push them back from the brink. They can always say, 'you attacked Saddam because he has some q-tips with stomach bile, and these guys have their 'nucular' (bushism) weapons pointed at us. Go away!'

Monty, I didn't refer to the country of origin nor the country of registration of the ship. So your comment was evidently nothing more than a non sequitur. As for your attempt to rehabilitate your comment on our actions somehow forming a justification for other countries to commit aggression, you continue to miss the point or to dance away from it. But Stephen already slaughtered your point even more above.

Seriously, will someone please tell me who the fuck is Al Gore?

Robin, I am so sorry. I didn't mean to have an opinion. You mince words in a most clintonian manner. I will keep my lip buttoned like the new 'patriot' Bush and Ashcroft want us to become. If the 'Bush' doctrine seems to you to be an example of evolution in international relations, then I hope your influence ends at the edge of the blogoshpere. Oh pooh, there I go again with an opinion. Sorry.

p.s. look for the number of wars to escalate rapidly over the coming years, look for the international standing of the US to plummet. Oh, there I go again...

And Robin, since you have cited Stephen's infantile arguments above as 'slaughtering' mine, I will have to respond.

- Goodwill from any nation does not equal blindly following an intellectual monkey, bent on unnecessary warfare;

- What neighbors is Iraq currently bullying?

- How has Iraq prevented us over the past 12 years from buying oil?

- Stphen says the Iraqi war 2.0 will be 'quicker, cleaner, and easier than the others lying before us'. I assume the two of you are volunteering for such a quick, clean and easy endeavor...

Lastly, because a stupid idea is easier than a bunch of other stupid ideas, that does not make it a good idea.

And Robin, I am most certainly not a Gore or Nader or Daschle or Gephardt supporter.

Upon witnessing the spectacle of a leftist losing an argument, one must particularly enjoy their regrettable descent into rabid ad hominem attacks.

For Monty's benefit: As a serviceman, I volunteered for just such a conflict. I continue to volunteer for just such a conflict.

It is with great glee that I watch so many vocal lefties try to win points by noting the "chicken-hawks" out there. Let me assure you that no one in the military wants to die, but, then again, we don't want our families to die. We don't want our friends and neighbors to die. We don't want our countrymen to die. We don't want our allies to die. So, we train to fight and prepare to die so that the above will not.

The photos of the dead in New York and at the Pentagon show that yes, indeed, some of our countrymen died. Enough evidence exists to convince me that Hussein (Saddam) had something to do with it and that he will continue to support such efforts. Thus, we in the service will fight.

Additionally, servicemen in general support the President because we know he supports us. He won't send us in to die without seeing to it that we have what we need to win (unlike the previous CinC.) We know that the President values our lives highly and respects us. That's all a soldier/sailor/airman needs.

So, please stop arguing in my name as if you know me or care about me. I don't care if Stephen is ready to fight -- I am.

check out www.SpankBush.com
send the president a spanking. it's the only way he'll learn

vodka is good :)

Please explain how Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11. I know this is an old post, but you should be held accountable for your words.

This war didn't have anything to do with WMD. The Bush administration didn't bring in inspectors and secure Iraq's only nuclear power plant to after CNN showed kid's getting sick from the radio active water from the plant. Now if there were really worried about WMDs then they would of secure the power plant ASAP.

I find it hard to believe that the law professors that right this blog are really that stupid. I dare the writers of this blog to repost this entry.

This all seems so funny now. How smart is Vodka? His comments on Gore's speech are about as stupid as stupid is. Since everything he highlighted as reasons for going to war are totally and utterly debunked it proves that all should point there browser elsewhere and not listen to a word of this Vodka crap. Have a nice day.