Redstate

I've tried to have an open mind about this nomination, but this is the final straw.  Bill Kristol, George Will, now Augustine, Erick, the Directors here, and so many others.

The President doesn't know what he's doing, and I'm beginning to wonder whether he ever did.  The overwhelming weight of evidence and opinion against Miers has convinced me:  she's a lightweight, and her nomination should be withdrawn.

I have so much respect for Mr. Will, and he's nailed this issue.

Will has nailed it......She is a lightweight and will totally lack credibility, if confirmed.....this nomination will be withdrawn within 2 weeks

W needs to go back to the Bench...if he wants an affirmative action nominee, then at least select someone with intellectual heft

and the other geniuses (I really do respect your mind!) see the beauty of this inside job gift? This is a secure scalia/thomas follower! harry dufus put the president's lawyer on an approved list!! clueless. Bush knows her...better than harry!

Wouldn't Reagan have taken Meese from Bobby Byrd?

Dear George Will:

Ow.  That HURTS.  Quit it quit it quit it!

-GWB

Who says she doesn't have intellectual heft?  From what I've seen so far there is precious little information out there on her.  That's means not much for her, but then again not much against her either.  It seems from the positions she's held that she's got to be a more than competent lawyer.  Whether or not that translates into being a good SCOTUS judge, I doubt, but it doesn't make her a mental midget.

I can't help but wonder what the president was thinking.

He probably does have a confidence in her that most of us don't, because of his working relationship with her, but I am having a hard time seeing this woman as qualified for the position.  That is a tough sell for me.

who will stand and filibuster against BOTH party's leadership.

come on...

PS: glad to see a limit to the "deference" charge... very glad.

And it is not a gloating gladness either, but a sense of relief... I knew the cronyism angle has been witnessed before, I've seen, if not in many words, the look of shock... and it is good to know these things stir Republicans too, even, eventually, among their own.

I don't know where she stands, but I think we can do better, and I don't really believe that every one of the most qualified people in the US has coincidentally had a long association with the Bush wing of the Republican party.

I agree with him about the McCain_Feingold law, but he wrote a column a few weeks ago and repeated the same theory on This Week labeling the reversal of bad precedent to be juducial activism. Its not. And by doing so he equates us with libs.

The President doesn't know what he's doing, and I'm beginning to wonder whether he ever did...

He absoltutely did on Afghanistan & Iraq, which is the only reason I'm even cutting him even the slightest slack now.

But while Bush 43 I will be looked at fondly in the history books, Bush 43 II is shaping up to be such a disaster that Clinton 42 II and Reagan 40 II will be considered utter triumphs in comparison.

I think Bush is finished as an effective force after this. There have just been too many mistakes on the domestic front (immigration, lack of fiscal discipline, abandoning SS reform after just the slightest bit of blowback, cronyism, etc.) for him to come back.

I hope the House Republicans uses this moment to take the lead of the GOP and focus it back on Contract With America-type principles. On these questions Bush 43 II looks like an utterly spent force...

No filibuster, if she's not cut out for the SC vote her down

who will stand and filibuster against BOTH party's leadership.

I don't support this nomination, but what you are suggesting is ridiculous.

Either defeat her in a straight Up-or-Down vote, or take your lumps and let her through.

There is no justification for a Filibuster, even in this case.

(In fact, I'd support the Const. Option as a tactical matter with Miers, even if I come to conclude she should be voted down.)

...was he correct on the wars, again?

I said the same thing yesterday somewhere (not redstate... some commie blog... um, liberal blog (I joke with my conservatives))...

it takes 10 less to filibuster... but that's not really, in itself, a good reason, but unless you think filibuster is always wrong, it depends on the degree of panic/opposition to here nomination I suppose.

I agree parlimentary procedures are suspect... sometimes nec. and important, but suspect.

SO: how about an accross the aisle arrangement to vote her down.

It take conviction and bravery, assuming leadership on both sides won't support that, as seems to be the case at the moment.

You don't even have to be a lawyer. And I am one, but we need a sure fire cinch vote that will read the words and apply them like Scalia and Thomas and hopefully Roberts. It doesn' take Ivy League (I've beaten them in court!)or a former judge. And I'm a big Bork fan. And for the life of me, I can't understand why so many don't see the beauty of Bush putting his own lawyer on the court. Harry put Bush's lawyer on his approved list. Bush had to take that. he doesn't have to guess about her. Heck, look at all the conservative judges with paper trails that have "evolved." This gal is evolved. And she's more qualified than that Ginsburg fiend! Qualified! She finds abortion in the document.

anyway

the rant is over

to filibuster, then I think she will not have majority support. I don't like the filibuster rule for any appointment, not just the SCOTUS.

consider this:  first the nomination has to get out of the Judiciary Committee.

Methinks if there was a place to vote her down, that would be the place.  It would prevent that ugly "filibuster" word from ever being put on the table.  That would appeal to opponents of this nomination on both sides of the aisle.

Have you been blown up by a terrorist lately?

And while we're at it, how would you solve the root causes of terrorism, Oh Great & Wise One?

( Any answer that starts with "Throw money at the problem..." will be immediately ignored.)

I am waiting until the hearings to make my mind up. I have no reason to oppose nor support her right now, but for now I will trust, and with the hearings I will verify. If she's out of her league, it will be apparent and she won't even make it out of the committee (although I don't support that either, she can be given a full up or down vote on the floor without the recommendation of the committee). And be voted down.

nomination will ever be withdrawn.    It will most likely pass, unless Republicans block it.    Bill Frist is probably trying to figure out the best way to get the '08 Republican nomination.    When all those Senators interested in running figure out how the vote for Miers affects '08-  that's the way the votes will go.

Bush Administration

January 20, 2001 - October 3, 2005

"Elected for 8 years, but only served 5, due to shooting itself in the foot."

Okay...this is off the wall, but...do you think that it's possible that this woman, alternatively described as a "Pit Bull in 6" heels" by the president and "The Wicked Witch of the West Wing" is being sent to SCOTUS to either hurry Stevens and Ginsberg into death or retirement rather than have to deal with her another term?

Is Bush's Pit Bull being sicked on Stevens?

Is the Wicked Witch of the West Wing going to cast an evil spell on Ginsberg?

We can only HOPE that that's the case, right? But the fact that this is the very best angle on this nomination...it says a whole lot of nothing about Bush's nomination, doesn't it? LOL

As Julius said to Brutus, 'You too?'

I am positively tired of the conservative nightmares projected onto the Rorscharch test of this process. Bush has delivered, time and time again.

I really think the subliminal bs from the left has taken hold: bushisdumbbushiseveilbushishitler.

Well wake up.

I trust W a lot more than I trust George Will.

This flies in the face of everything the Right has been saying about nominations for months.

The President is entitled to make his nominations, and absent some gross ethical impropriety, the presumption is that they should be confirmed...

It is simply unconscionable that a nominee be opposed for ideological reasons...

This column could have been written by Chuck Schumer two weeks ago.

Without a paper trail, the second coming of Ronald Reagan would earn no quarter in these parts. The current state of affairs was best predicted by a front page post a few days ago which stated, "Short of John Roberts getting a sworn affidavit from Jesus Christ or personally overturning Roe v. Wade with a baseball bat and machine gun, some very vocal people on the right will not be happy with him."

Which is basically the standard being applied today.

I'm not saying my heart didn't sink when I didn't see Luttig or Estrada in the Oval yesterday. But we're starting to value bow tie legal snobbery at the expense of conservatism and even originalism.

waiting for the hearings that is.

but I didn't want to wait to mention this may be an opportunity to work together.

It's nice to remember that people of different ideologies can find cause together as Americans, I think.

But it is only fair to have the hearings with an open mind... absolutely.

This is all early speculation... but being ready to work across the aisle is also fair.

I'm not ready to say I think she should be voted down.

That's not fair.

I'm 100% of the opinion "it's all about the hearing"... not pre-judging.

We're getting ahead of ourselves with blog speculation... so, really all I would say now is, let's keep in mind accross the aisle cooperation, especially if it's regular members opposed to both leaderships.

yes, we agree he has "delivered"... oh man, nevermind.

But then, I'm not the president, so I don't have to have one. Nor do I need one before I can judge someone else's plan as clumsy.

However, let me ammend my previous statement by saying I can understand going after Afghanistan. Iraq is another question, though. True, I'm no war strategist, but from what it looks like, the Prez has handled it pretty badly. Not to mention that it was a pre-emptive war, which is unusual for us, and that he changed the objective from finding WMD to nation-building and freeing the Iraqi people. But this is getting off onto a whole 'nother topic.

And just because there hasn't been an attack in our country recently, doesn't mean that Bush's policies had anything to do with it. I mean, between '93 and '01, there were no terrorist attacks here (well, from foreign sources)m so does that mean that Clinton's reaching-out strategy was working, but things fell apart when Bush got into office?

Again, though, I know this is going to devolve into a way-off-topic argument, thus littering this thread, so I apologize to everyone for posting my comments in the first place.

Before Roberts was nominated I read here about all he potential picks and yada, yada, yada and how this guy was the guy and then that gal was the guy, and then it Roberts and then it was so who is Roberts yada, yada, yada. Then we have this go round and it was worse. Everyone picked a favorite horse with volumes of text as to why their horse was better than the other horses, yada, yada, yada.  Well, folks, this was always going to be a one horse race and GWB was the one elected to pick the horse. Now, except for those of you here who have one of the Committee votes or one of the 101 available in the Senate, your text is just more yada, yada, yada. I've seen posts about "I ain't ever giving money to the Republicans again." Fine. Give it to Howie.

I don't really care if GWB picked his gardner. He won the right to pick, it's his responsibility and his legacy. You don't have to like it, support or be happy about it. You might want to calm down a bit while it plays itself out. But, he knows how she will vote on Roe and the Dims can't find out. That is a lot better pick than Roberts in my book.

Without a paper trail, the second coming of Ronald Reagan would earn no quarter in these parts.

A person without so much as a law degree would not be qualified, and should never be nominated, for the Supreme Court. (No matter how good a president he was)

A person who has never clerked for, nor argued in, the Supreme Court, nor served on any bench anywhere, probably lacks qualification for the job as well.  

As someone else here said, a friend of the President's ought to have superior credentials compared with others.  There is no indication that such is the case with Harriet Miers.

Might Arlen Specter vote against her in committee?  He said during the Roberts hearings that he would have a hard time recommending someone who he knew would seek to strike down Roe...and she's very clearly pro-life...I don't think anyone's debating this.  Might Arlen lead the charge to end this before it begins?  Has he offered any preliminary comments?

Here are some odds:

That Roberts will be another Kennedy: 30%

That Miers will be another Souter: 20%

That Roberts will be another Scalia: 60%

That Miers will be another Thomas: 60%

Your side needs BOTH to play along in the Scalia/Thomas wing, and the chances of that happening are only 36% if you agree with my numbers.  Anything else happening keeps the court pretty much where it is now. A 100%er like Luttig or JR Brown would have increased the likelihood of your desires to 60%!

My assumption is that if the Miers nomination goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee it will be a done deal and she ultimately will get confirmed. The way to derail the nomination is for enough pressure to be placed such that it is withdrawn prior to the hearings. And the key to that will be for a key Republican senator or two to stand up and take a position in opposition as cover for others. Democrats will be motivated to stand against Miers if there are enough Republicans to form a majority because they simply want to make the President look bad and weak.

So the question is whether and who might step up. Evidently there is a lot of grumbling in the Republican Senate cloakroom. But is the aggravation enough for Republican senators to oppose their President?

Who helped put us in the box by talking Republican Senators out of the Constitutional fix to Filibuster abuse by dems.

George Will may be wel intended, but I severely doubt his judgement in this fight.

It may be due to the imminent nature of Baseball playoffs has him distracted. It may be that his season of punditry is over. Either way, he has not backed this President in the GWOT, he did not back him over filibuster reform, and he is not backing him now.

Will's conservative dredentials are hardly perfect, and in his position regarding fililbuster, he was positively helping democrats.

Whil Will certainly has a keen turn of phrase, it takes more than thundering words to carry the argument.

That Miers is no mere crony is obvious to any fair look at her record. That the courts will benefit by someone with excellent non-judicial, non-academic credentials is also clear - and a strong part of the conservative idea of a citizen led government.

George Will , as well as many other good conservatives, need to remember some of this and think about it carefully.

We need a functional President, we need an effective majority in Congress. We are getting good judges. Why should we imperil all three in an uninformed fight at this time?

the baseball writer thinks? He wandered off in the wilderness years ago.

Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

Will couldnt have said it any better....this pick lacks seriousness and should be rejected.

But given the standard Roberts and others have set, what exactly do you think you're going to learn from any hearings?

and if it is so, then I could stand for her to be there, if it gets rid of Stevens and Ginsberg faster-especially if Bush finally decides to keep his promise and nominate a real originalist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

of a lightweight on the issue, a fine article by Randy Barnett can be had at OpinionJournal.  

A taste:

"To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered "judicial philosophy," by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers's professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people. It is not enough simply to have private opinions on these complex matters; a prospective justice needs to have wrestled with them in all their complexity before attaining the sort of judgment that decision-making at the Supreme Court level requires, especially in the face of executive or congressional disagreement."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

nomination in '08.  Now, that is a real joke!  He can't lead 54 so called Republicans and peel off some Dems in the "good ole boys & girls club", how would anyone expect him to lead a nationwide campaign much less win. zzzzzzzzzz goes the Bill Frist, MD.

It's probably a mistake to say that Justice SoandSo will either "be another Scalia" or not.  Rather, the question is how much like Scalia or Thomas will they be?  

Roberts will likely vote with Scalia and Thomas 75% - 85% of the time.  Scalia and Thomas vote with each other more than 90% of the time.  So do Ginsburg and Souter.  

The real question is not whether Roberts or Miers would be a Scalia or Thomas clone.  The real question is, how often would they vote together?

of the Clinton approach to terrorism? Was that the correct approach to tackling the root cause and effect of terrorism?

Are you saying that the president has the legal and constitutional right to make a pick for SCOTUS, therefore, anyone he picks is a good pick?

We all know he has a constitutional right to pick whoever he wants.  NO ONE is disputing his legal rights.  What we are challenging is whether it is a wise pick, a good pick, a qualified pick, a pick in keeping with his promises, etc.

BTW: since you seem to think it is important to note one's legal rights.  Bush has the right to pick, we have the righ to  criticize that pick.  We also have the right to alter our involvement in the political process in light of his pick.

So every one has legal rights here.  So what?  What ARE you saying?

The point is that after 30 years of fighting for the GOP, after winning the Senate and the Presidency, many of us thought we wouldn't have to GUESS whether the nominee is like Scalia and Thomas!  Why work so hard to elect presidents who promise strict contructionists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas if the best we get in retun is a guess, a hope, and a prayer?

Many people voted for Bush based on this particular issue.  Keep your promises Mr. President!

Can see that having experience and intellectual heavyweights on the SC is desireable. However, it's always seemed to me that being a SC Justice would be the easiest (for lack of a better term) task of all courts. Isn't the clarity and basic simplicity of the Constitution it's beauty? Isn't it judicial overreach that has caused so much of the confusion that we are so troubled by?

None if this is meant to demean the profession of law, nor any judges on any court. But simply to point out that the academic and experience needs are mostly to satisfy a need in some that matches their image of what a SC Justice should be.

Would a ruling handed down by the SC on say gun control be any less authoritative if one of the opinions written for the majority simply said in essence "...the citizens are allowed to have guns because right here in the second amendment it says..."

I'm certain someone will accuse me of being simplistic in this reasoning. And they'd be correct. That doesn't eliminate my feeling that we often make things way more complex than they need to be.

My friend, I'll defend you, and I know how

I'm a lawyer. Was a trial lawyer for 13 years until I burnt out on that (chasing grandmas on soc sec check day to pay crack defendant fees!) and now do corporate.

But, yes, Bork speaks of how so mnay court orders should simply say that "the constitution does not authorize me to fix this problem."

Its amazing how many words are needed by libs to lie and say they are following the constitution.

...I don't know. I wasn't defending Clinton's approach, I was just saying that you can't use the absence of a recent terrorist attack in our country as proof that Bush's plan is working.

However, I can say that I think it would be difficult to argue that Bush's plan is successfully ending terrorism or making the country/world safer. To be honest, I'm not sure a military solution can wipe out terrorism, because terrorism is a decentralized, mobile institution.

I believe one of the generals recently compared it to a bunch of McDonald's franchises; take one franchise out, it doesn't really impact the rest of the organization. And if you invade a country full of terrorists, and they can just relocate.

At any rate, an answer to your question would really depend on what you think the "root cause and effect of terrorism" is. Can you expand on that?

at least by the actions we took against the 700+ illegal arab aliens rounded up after 911, the terror cells we have arrested here in the US thru intell we got from al qaida docs in iraq and afghanistan and the al qaida plan that was in the works by the #3? guy we captured.

Terrorism is very decentralized NOW, thanks to the US military. Saddam was a terror-state sponsor and haven for terrorists incl zarqawi who fled to Iraq when we invaded afghanistan. And Bin laden was running a terroor state in afghanistan. all gone now and they are less effective and on the run, many of whom are running to their death against the military in Iraq.

The impact has been huge.

Root cause. The lack of political freedom in the region coupled with a pagan really, wahhabist jihadist ideology bent on world domination and enticedinto thinking they could win when they saw Clinton's weakness. UBL called us a paper tiger after Somalia. Clinton did nothing about the 1993 WYC bomer in Iraq. UBL saw saddam as having won the first gulf war since he remained in power.

I agree with some of your assessment of the root causes. I'm not sure "pagan" applies, of course. I'm not sure about "world domination" either, but wahhabism, at least these days, DOES direct its members to spread the religion to everyone else, I believe -- so maybe you're right, in that case. I don't know. At any rate, I asked only because I was wondering whether RetNAV had an answer to that question, or whether "root causes of terrorism..." was just an empty statement.

I think it's supposition that UBL attacked us because he thought Clinton was weak. I'm not defending Clinton's policies, but that's just opinion on your part.

Also, maybe you know more about it than I do, but from what I know, terrorism has always been decentralized -- organized into independent, mobile cells. That's just how it works.

I know I'll get reamed for this next statement, but there's no consensus that Hussein supported terrorism -- at least, not to the extent that Saudi Arabia has. Either way, the story I was told was that we attacked Hussein because he had WMD, not because he was a terror-state sponsor and Iraq was a terrorist haven. That objective came later, I believe.

I respect your assessment of Bush's impact on terrorism, but again, it's just opinion. Maybe you're right, but I haven't seen evidence of it. Either way, I think many people in Spain, London, Iraq, etc. would disagree with you.

I don't mean any of these statements as an attacks on your beliefs or on America, or as a lack of support for the troops. Rather, I just think Bush has mishandled all this and hasn't been entirely forthcoming about it all -- and so when I see people supporting his actions in a diehard manner, I want to find out what their opinions are based on (e.g., facts vs. hype). You've obviously put some thought and research into the issue; I just happen to disagree with some of your conclusions.

I heard a great talk by a muslim scholar and others on a panel describe UBL's brand of wahabbist islam as more resembling pagan death cults that were common in the middle east 2000-3000 years ago and which the Hebrew people confronted with monotheism which was instrumental in the civilizing process.

I'll try and find an article on it.

UBL and his Talabi inspired ideology does seek a world islamic rule by a reconstituted caliphate.

UBL has been quoted many times that the Somalia retreat convinced him we were a "paper tiger". We did not know at the time, but UBL was in Somalia at the time. Its not my opinion. But, might he have attacked us anyway. maybe. But he thought we would only bomb afghanistan, not invade and remove the regime.

Yes, cells. But organized and funded thru nation-state training and money is the most lethal terrorism.

Saddam was on the terrorist state list for all ten years of clinton's presidency

Saddam openly harboured the 2 abus and the 3rd wtc conspirator. He openly funded suicide bomber families. And allowed zarqawi to operate. And clinton said that the sudan operation by bin laden was funded ny saddam

all before 911

in the books

known by all

clinton gave great speeches about saddam and terror risks and wmd

the  soon after 911 war authorization in congress listed wmd 4th? yes, at the un we did emphasize wmd, beacuse there are so many repressive regimes there that wink at terror that wm dis about all they will al agree on.

And the wmd was somewhere. he defied the inspectors for 11 years

after 911, we couldn't abide that

more paper tiger weakness to invite aggression

yes, some saudi arabian's fund terror and their wahabbist religion mans it, and Iran is the worst terror ally.

But, we can't attcak all at once even if we wanted to. In WWII, we didn't go strait to Berlin and Tokyo. And Saddam was in open defiance by the government.

Iran. We may have to act. We hope for a peopel's revolution, but look whre we are surrounding them

The left would be saying that we should have gove to iraq or iran if we went to saudi first.

dead and imprisoned terrorists caught with plans to attack us here is evidence we stopped attacks. Some cells we arrested here in the uS. That;s evidence.

In year three of the civil war and wwii, there were still attacks. that didn't negate the threat removeed from previous actions killing nazis and destroying their eqpt.

Their is no easy blood less way to defeat this enemy that strikes innocents. But we must fight and fight one day longer than they do, all over the world. Its the lesson of history. Will.

the be.st way is also to gain muslim allies in the fight. witness the 56 million freed from bondage and now bonded to us and the envy of other muslims in the middle east with their free press and sel rule. Its one of our finest hours.

We fight an enemy that we cannot negotiate with and that, unlike the USSR and a civilization they wanted to protect from annialation, cannot be dettered from using wmd when they can.

So we have to err on the side of making sure we stop them.

The Clinton approach failed. The pre911 post cold war end of history post modern illusion is over. Most of history is evil tyranizing the good that grew too weak to fight. To keep this country free, we will have to defeat this threat.

thanks for the dialogue

Read the Resolutions authrorizing the Iraq War. Then do some research regarding what Democrats, including Bill Clinton, including Democrats who have spent years on the Intelligence Committees of Congress; what did they say about Iraq and WMD?

I just find it very difficult to take anybody seriously who takes advantage of hindsight to fault another person who had to make do with the information available before-hand.

and remove him, he'd have the wmd today. leaving him in power was another post wwii limited war mistake. like a little bit pregnant

the msm mantra and the libs that see no evil,hear no evil on wmd and all we knew about saddam and terror and al qaida before 911 makes me uncomfortable with them. Like being around a primitive man and wanting to explain basic manners. Their denial is pathalogical. Or childish, like when a kid puts his hands over his ears so as not to hear daddy's harsh truth about the world.

rome fell for such as those

So does that mean we should go after Iran, too? What about North Korea? Pakistan? All have or are openly planning to build WMD capability. Why focus on Iraq?

I wouldn't really say that my denial of anything is pathological. I'm just questioning. Blind acceptance of something is what should make you uncomfortable.

Regarding paganism, I objected to the term because it refers to a breed of nature worship--something that I don't think applies very well to wahhabism.

> UBL has been quoted many times that the Somalia retreat convinced him we were a "paper tiger".

Good point, if so.

> Saddam was on the terrorist state list for all ten years of clinton's presidency

And he probably would have remained on that list during Bush's reign had he not attacked us. Bush wouldn't have given him any attention otherwise.

> some saudi arabian's fund terror and their wahabbist religion mans it

It's a lot more than some. What can be followed of their money trail all leads to suspicious outfits. Give "Secrets of the Kingdom" a read.

> The left would be saying that we should have gove to iraq or iran if we went to saudi first.

I'm not so sure about that. It's moot, anyway, because a war with the saudis would weaken us too much to take on any other country -- we need their oil.

> dead and imprisoned terrorists caught with plans to attack us here is evidence we stopped attacks.

Who?

> witness the 56 million freed from bondage and now bonded to us and the envy of other muslims in the middle east with their free press and sel rule.

How do you know they're the envy of the muslim world? How do you know they're "bonded" to us? I've heard both pro- and con-America opinions from the Iraqis. (Not in person, obviously.)

> We fight an enemy that we cannot negotiate with and that, unlike the USSR and a civilization they wanted to protect from annialation, cannot be dettered from using wmd when they can. So we have to err on the side of making sure we stop them.

Unfortunately, I think you might be largely right about that. I'm just not exactly sure Bush has handled it well, though, or been entirely upfron about it, which was my point in my original message.

question was posed by IJB that you responded to, which you didn't address and I carried on that line.

I would like to know if anyone has an alternate plan for dealing with terrorism that falls between the Clinton approach and the Bush approach?

I myself prefer the Bush approach. Proactive is better in my opinion.

The root cause of terrorism is radical Islam and the stated goal of establishing the Third Caliphate. And OBL's stated goal of not being happy until he has killed four million Americans.

Just as you can't point to an absence of terrorist attacks on our soil as proof that the Bush approach is working neither can you use that as any indication that it isn't working. You can point to the fact that there was only one attack on our soil under the Clinton watch in '93, but please don't ignore the attacks on our interests outside of our borders (Embassies in Africa, USS Cole). And I do believe that Clinton's approach to terrorism did encourage terrorism. OBL has stated he watched our cut and run from Somalia and decided we were a paper tiger.

It irks me that people will defend us attacking Afghanistan but pillory our involvement in Iraq. As though there is a moral distinction between the two. I think it's only because Afghanistan went well and Iraq has proved more problematic. I don't buy the arguements that Afghanistan was more justified because the Taliban and Al Qaeda was there. Afghanistan has been a bit smoother because rebuilding there was a much less daunting task. IMO, had we not gone to Iraq, and focused entirely on Afghanistan, that is where the terrorists would have made their resurgence. And that is where the press and critics would have their attention focused.

As for nation building, in Afghanistan and Iraq, granted that was not a cornerstone of the initial Bush policy. However, I think the decision to do so, at least in these two cases, was the correct and necessary decisions. If these had been nations that had been accustomed to self government with functioning infrastructure, then we could have defeated then left. For instance, if we had attacked and effected regime change in France, then we could have accomplished the mission and left. If we had deposed Saddamn and then left, then we would have had problems far worse than what we knew or what we are facing now.

I personally think the President has been forthcoming in Iraq. I think part of the problem is that the American people have a short attention span and and as a nation we aren't able to take the long view of events. One of the reasons we went to Iraq was over WMD. There were many others, stated by the administration many times. The WMD is the bone the press and the nation latched onto.  If anything, our preemptive attack on Iraq, was in reality a preemptive attack on UN Sanctions. Had we not taken action, the sanctions would have continued to erode until the were in fact completely lifted - even before Saddamn had been forced to comply.

As for the attacks on London and Spain. Well, that is a problem they are going to have to address. The first attacks on Spain garnered the terrorists what they wanted. Just in the past week France arrested a group of terrorists plotting an attack in France. What's that have to do with thier involvement in Iraq?

My last point will be this. What we don't know, and is only what I conjecture from my thinking and bits and pieces of information, is what is going on against the terrorists in the background. There are likely things happening in the GWOT that we will not know of for many years. For instance, there are probably dozens of operations going on in Arab/Muslim nations that we are totally under the radar. They are likely prevented from making these operations public for fear of the PR problems within their own Islamic populations.

Okay, that was my second to last point. From a military man's POV, Somalia was the second most humiliating thing that ever happened to our military. The first was the botched Iranian hostage rescue at Desert One. Both by Presidents who were ditherers and not decisive. Say what anyone may about Bush, at least he's willing to fall on his sword. Clinton didn't even want to remove it from it's scabbard.

Never, ever, ever appease terrorists.

Using hindsight to attack someone's actions is acceptable, I believe, in certain cases: 1) When it reveals that the person/adminstration in question has demonstrated little foresight; 2) when it reveals that the person/adminstration in question has not been entirely upfront in their actions.

defiance of a ceasefire, harboring and funding terrorists in the strategic location, from which, if we have to, go after Iran.

remeber, saddam had nuke plant that israel had to bomb. he had and used wmd. and was hiding it for all we knew. and he was caught in 1995? being w/i 6 mos of a bomb.

Iran so far does not and did not have a bomb. They were not in defiance of a ceasefire and there is much hope that the large pro american population will take power. But i think we will eventually at least bomb suspected sites. They cannot get the bomb. And eventually we may ahve to invade to get terrorists.

BUT WE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING AT ONE TIME. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DO NOTHING FOR FEAR OF A FOCUS GRIPE.

The problem with libs is that 911 has focused them on abu graib.

North Korea. a toughie

but at least not jihadist and distant

we have seized some ships checking for wmd to yemen

pakistan

did you know that within a few weeks of taking office, bush called mushareff, befiore 911

and had an afghan invasion plan drawn up

no more swatting at flies

and made clear to mushaereff that he would cooperate

the real danger in pakistan is preventing a coup by UBL supporters against musharref

then they would have abomb

so that fcat trumos all others for now don';t you think

do you doubt the jihadists would bomb america if they has=d the bomb?

blind acceptance/

911 was visible

pre 911 focus on law enforcement for terrorists wa svisibly a failure

i see success in afghan and iraq

it will be a deacdes long struggle probably against these jihadists

i well remeber clinton;s speeches in 1998-2000 and wondered, with all the threat he outlined, why we weren't doing more.

but it probaly took 911

but why the dems are willing to act the same as before 911 and don't see the necessity of fighting bcak I ...

on e othe r thing, iraq shouldnever have been left in saddam';s hands after the first war. even w/o 911, he had to go for general detterance anyway

no offense meant on pathological

i'm pathological on something i'm sure!

but we are, being honest, unsure of what to think about a denial of the pre 911 history of iraq and terrorism and wmd

IT WAS ON THE STATE SPONSOR LIST!!!

He proudy broadcasted gifts of checks to suicide bomber families

...should have used the word "criticize" rather than "attack" in that last message. Sorry.

> maybe, but iraq was in open defiance of a ceasefire

True. Not sure that necessitated a pre-emptive strike, particularly based on sketchy and possibly fixed intelligence, but true.

> The problem with libs is that 911 has focused them on abu graib.

I don't really care that much about graib. I'd just like the administration to be up-front with the people about what's going on and what we're in for.

> blind acceptance

I wasn't talking about you with that statement, incidentally. I was using it in a generic sense.

> but why the dems are willing to act the same as before 911 and don't see the necessity of fighting bcak I ...

True, again. I'm just not convinced Iraq was necessary -- and if it was, that it was handled correctly. I've heard talk from both sides about a lack of foresight in the planning.

> I would like to know if anyone has an alternate plan for dealing with terrorism that falls between the Clinton approach and the Bush approach? I myself prefer the Bush approach. Proactive is better in my opinion.

I don't, and you may be right about proactivity. I just don't think Bush and his administration were upfront about it. They may have mentioned other reasons for going to war, but honestly, those got washed out by the WMD talk. That may have been the bone the press latched on to, but it was the bone they were fed. Remember Condie and the "mushroom clouds"...?

In addition, I think there's evidence that the adminstration may have fixed the information it gave to us, or ignored other information, or jumped too quickly on some info without giving it proper research. Time may show those allegations to be false, but I just don't trust the Bush has been honest about all this.

If Bush had come right out and said that "Hussein may have weapons, he may be harboring terrorists, we're not sure -- but he's enough of a threat that we're going to go in anyway, and it'll be a long tough road against a new enemy, it won't be easy, but we need to persevere, etc. etc."

A speech like that, I would've felt better about the situation now. That's not how the war was sold, though.

> had we not gone to Iraq, and focused entirely on Afghanistan, that is where the terrorists would have made their resurgence

Possibly. But going into Iraq doesn't seem to have stopped them. Fighting may be necessary, but I'm not sold on the idea that sweeping a country is the solution. The terrorists are too mobile and can just relocate. And we don't have the resources to go country to country. Getting other nations might help, but I'm not sure.

> Say what anyone may about Bush, at least he's willing to fall on his sword.

True. I just don't want him taking the U.S. with him.

Iran, North Korea, Pakistan...Syria? Ummm, next, next and next...Well, maybe not Pakistan. Seems that we have them pretty much where we want them for the time being. It's that old adage - keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.

North Korea - they don't export terrorism, just weapons. Much better ways to keep them under control. I believe we are on the right track with them for the time being. And I think our regional allies in this effort are going to be much more effective at dealing with NOKor in the short term. China and SoKor have much more at stake in the NoKorean game than we do.

As the President has stated, the GWOT is war that is being fought on many fronts and in many countries. Yes, Iran is one of them. We can't fight them all at once, nor all at the same time with military force. Maybe our EuroStan friends will be able to accomplish what we want in Iran. However, if they don't, then I suppose it's not a leap to think we could roll them up in short order. I personally hold out a hope that sooner rather than later, they will right themselves without our needing to unleash our military might on them.

We have a mighty armed forces, and now it's totally and completely battle hardened. Nations who draw our ire should get cold sweats. This probably makes me sound like a war monger. I just think that it's all part of a sound foreign policy. My paraphrasing of the Teddy Roosevelt saw is: "Walk softly, carry a big stick; take it out and whack someone with it every once in awhile".

when clinton and the world agreed and the burden was on him? After 911 we can't wonder and wait and take chances.

For instance, before 911, with hindsight, you agree that Clinton would have been right to invade afghanistan given the prior attacks and/or based on intell of planned attacks from a nation-state? don't you?

up front? endless 18 months of up front.

Not finding the wmd does not negate the prior 11 years that caused us to hav e to make  sure.

handled correctly?

heck man, wwi and wwii weren't handled correctly in many ways musch worse than iraq. The main thing is that we are fighting an d killing the enemy. Not fighting would be mishandling.

Preemption is the only sane strategy with the wmd possibility and a n enemy that can't be dettered.

UBL had no wmd that he used on 911 but still killed 3000.

Saddam had used wmd and had all those other factors worse than UBL pre 911.

the dems will never regain power until they "get" 911

many dems never really got communism either

history my friend

weakness invites aggression

and he recently wrote columns that wrongly called scalia and thomas activists for wanting to reverse wrongfully decided precedents.

He is wrong to do this. He does not know her. He can't evaluate her properly or Bush's choice. Pure elitism.

This exercise has been a real eye opener for me having been a repub only 4 years and having been a liberal elitist. The libs are worse. But its so sad to hear repubs deny elitism and the speak of the "best minds" if those they know of simply must be.

Will's hero, John Marshall, was never a judge before he was cheif justice.

As for judicial philosophy, she has one and can fill in blanks as  cases come along. Its not that difficult. there are clearly staked out poistions, and for an originalist, its much simpler.

> when clinton and the world agreed and the burden was on him? After 911 we can't wonder and wait and take chances.

I'm not sure Clinton has anything to do with this. The country was in a state of complacency until 911. That includes Bush. Osama wasn't even on his radar until 911; if OSB hadn't attacked us, Bush wouldn't have bothered with him. Clinton maybe should've taken some action, but he did about all, maybe more, that Bush would've done pre-911.

> up front? endless 18 months of up front.

18 months of discussion of WMD and whether we should attack without UN approval. 18 months of doomsday scenarios and predictions of an easy (relatively speaking) time in Iraq. 18 months during which, the suggestion is, the administration paid selective attention to CIA info, exagerrated it, and fed it to us in a manner most likely to simultaneously scare us into agreeing to war and make us think that the war wouldn't be that difficult.

> heck man, wwi and wwii weren't handled correctly in many ways musch worse than iraq.

That's probably true. But I was referring to Bush (although I think it's mostly Rumsfeld, in this case) ignoring tactically sound strategies from folks such as Powell in favor of Rummy's gung-ho, we've-got-all-we-need-there-to-win approach. And that whole exit strategy thing. I have to believe that they're all intelligent people, but honestly, it seems like they never thought about what would happen after Hussein was ousted.

> weakness invites aggression

Perhaps, but aggression doesn't seem to be brokering peace, either...

...really think our country has the resources and the patience for that approach? We're stretched thin as it is, and people are pissed that it's taking so long -- anger which might have been somewhat alleviated had the adminstration been candid about how long this would take (assuming they knew). And we don't even have the country subdued yet.

I'm not sure we have the resources to spend all this effort on Iraq and then move on to another country. It's not like we can move all our troops from country to country, because some will have to stay behind in each country to make sure the terrorists don't just run back once we leave. To fight terrorism physically, I think, you have to have enough resources to spread across several countries at once. Otherwise, the terrorists can just keep relocating. Our forces may be mighty, but I'm not sure we have that kind of manpower.

1. Clinton's 1998 speech justifying his missile war and the congresional resolution for regime change mirrors Bush's justifications. Clinton pulled the UN inspectors out due to Saddam's games and bombed the heck out of him. The wmd intell is really not the main evidence and justification on the wmd issue ironically. Its Saddam's refusal to provide evidence of wmd he admitted to having at he 1991 ceasefire. So itwas really the unknown as opposed to the intell per se. But Clinton cited intell on wmd in 1998.

Did Clinton mislead?

2. UBL was very much on Clinton's radar screen!! Where were you? Clinton bombed his training camp and made a couple of memorable speeches about him. UBL attacked us many times over seas. And Clinton tied saddam to UBL to justify the sidan bombing!! look it up

AND IN 1998-2000 MADE  SPEECHES WARNING THAT SADDAM'S TIES TO TERRORISTS AND HIS WMD CAPABILITY WOUILD PROBABLY REQUIRE WAR TO TAKE HIM OUT TO REMOVE THE THREAT.

Bush ordered the CIa to prepare a war plan to remove the Taliban before 911. And it was ironically deliverd to his desk on 910! It was tenet's plan and it worked great and is why bush admired tenet so much

3. But pre 911, Bush may not have done much more, but i doubt it.
   
4. I remeber Bush's many statements about the possibly decades long war on terror. WE did take down the iraqi regime quickly which is a major victory. the war there now is the war on terror attacking iraq's free government and the baathist deadenders.

5.Look there are strategies galore and downsiees to all. Rummy's strategy in afghanistan stands in stark contrast to the USSR defeat with many more troops.

6 By any historical standard, the war in iraq is impresive. But too mnay people don't know history. There is no perfect plan. WE have one plan at atime.

7 At this stage of WWII, we had not acheived total victory and there were more iraqi deaths per year under saddam. There was no peace or stability. peace only comes after victory.

so onward

posts on the war have been just so well thought out, comlete and impressive. Very informative and helpful for peopel that need to understand war again.

(I'm compiling responses to a couple of posts in this response and trying to move it over away from the edge of the page...)

But then, I'm not the president, so I don't have to have one. Nor do I need one before I can judge someone else's plan as clumsy.

And neither am I the President, but we re-elected this one based on what his ongoing response was and what we anticipated his continuing response would be.

Gamecock: [...]maybe, but iraq was in open defiance of a ceasefire[...]

True. Not sure that necessitated a pre-emptive strike, particularly based on sketchy and possibly fixed intelligence, but true.

I'm just not convinced Iraq was necessary -- and if it was, that it was handled correctly. I've heard talk from both sides about a lack of foresight in the planning.

I don't know why you think it was fixed intel. Faulty? Possibly. But I'd say the preponderance of that intel from ours and other nations, and the UN, gave it some weight and credibility. As for pre-emption - I think it was either that or completely abandon enforcement of sanctions against Iraq. We had a very large military presence in the region primarily in support of UN sanctions and the no fly zones. IMO, Iraq was a problem that needed to be cleaned up. Abandoning the sanction enforcement would have allowed Saddamn to re-establish whatever kernels of weapons productions he had sheltered. It was incumbent upon Iraq to prove that it had eliminated it's WMD programs - not ours to prove that he hadn't. Slow motion sanctions removal were de facto in effect. Between the UN and our EuroStan allies and yes, the Clinton administration, Desert Storm and years of sancions enforcement would have been for naught.

During the Cold War, we could fairly reliably measure and anticipate our enemies' intentions and abilities. In this era of rogue terrorists and nation sponsored terrorism, those intentions and abilities, and defending against them are more nettlesome. I think that alone argues for the policy of pre-emption. Looking at the whole picture with Iraq supports that policy of pre-emption.

No war has ever been planned properly. Some battles have been so, some operations, but not a war. That doesn't mean there wasn't good planning. Were some things not anticipated? Certainly. And we can compile libraries on both sides of this arguement. Those who said, oh we thought of that but it was not implemented...yeah. And such is war. I think the typical American who gets their views of the war thru the prism of the MSM, gets a very distorted view of what is going on in Iraq. Like the Army Lt. said to Matt Lauer a couple of months ago, "if I only got my news from the MSM, I'd think things are pretty bad too." Or something to that affect.

Using hindsight to attack someone's actions is acceptable, I believe, in certain cases: 1) When it reveals that the person/adminstration in question has demonstrated little foresight; 2) when it reveals that the person/adminstration in question has not been entirely upfront in their actions.

Well, since you brought it up first. IMO, we can't even have the discussion of why and when we got into the necessity of Afghanistan and Iraq and pre-emption without scrutinizing the Clinton administrations handling (or not) of the whole terrorism issue. Nor his abetting and complicity in the laxness of the UN sanctions.

IMHO, all of this is why we can never again allow demos to be anywhere near the controls of this country's national security.

...there's any need to bring Clinton into this, really. I'm not holding him up as an example of how to do things right. I am criticizing Bush, though, because this happened on his watch.

> Clinton pulled the UN inspectors out due to Saddam's games and bombed the heck out of him.

Yes, but he didn't put $200 billion into a war on Iraq.

> Its Saddam's refusal to provide evidence of wmd he admitted to having at he 1991 ceasefire.

Yes, but that's not how it was sold. Bush did what he had to with the evidence to sell it to the public. Do you have thoughts on the Downing Street Memo?

> Bush ordered the CIa to prepare a war plan to remove the Taliban before 911. And it was ironically deliverd to his desk on 910!

Is that the document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"? (That was delivered to him by Harriet Miers, BTW, in an interesting side note.)

> Did Clinton mislead?

I don't know. Did he tamper with the evidence? Did he deliberately exaggerate and skew information in order to sell his agenda to the public? He might have, I don't know.

> But pre 911, Bush may not have done much more, but i doubt it.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If 911 had not happened, would Bush have still attacked Afghan. and Iraq? Or Osama? Or would he have done nothing?

> I remeber Bush's many statements about the possibly decades long war on terror.

On terror, yes. In Iraq, no.

> WE did take down the iraqi regime quickly which is a major victory. the war there now is the war on terror attacking iraq's free government and the baathist deadenders.

It's still the same war, though.

> Rummy's strategy in afghanistan stands in stark contrast to the USSR defeat with many more troops.

I'm not sure past successes make up for subsequent failures -- at least, not when we're dealing with something on this scale.

> WE have one plan at atime.

That could be considered a lack of foresight, though.

OpenYourMinds, your rebuttals come too fast and so varied I can barely keep up with the responses. Such is the advantage of being on the offensive. Let me see if I can boil down your points of contention -

# Not convinced our response to terrorism threats should be military force against nations

   I suppose this could be argued. Just don't see many alternatives in response to nations that pose realistic threats to our economic and physical well being. Especially when that nation is a known aggressor, is a known harborer and sponsor of terrorists, is a known manufacturer and utilizer of WMD, when it is in direct and specific violations of UN Security Council sanctions.

# Not convinced our invasion of Iraq was necessary

   I'm sure we could have abandoned the enforcement of UN sanctions and focused our efforts elsewhere. And likely have dealt with Saddamn again down the road. But that approach hadn't worked very well in the past. If the UN wants to be vital, and wants the U.S. to be involved, than at some point it's sanctions need to have teeth. It's an arguement of leaving, staying and allowing Saddamn to continue his stealth re-constitution of weapons while we look on dumbly or invade and clean it up once and for all.

# Not convinced that the Bush administration was forthcoming and honest with the reasons for going to war in Iraq; believe the WMD threat was over sold

   I still believe that the administration very clearly put forth it's case for this. And yes, the WMD was an important part of it. But, again, the evidence even pre-Bush, was overwhelming. And there was no evidence that Saddamn was being forthcoming in proving that he had rid himself of these WMD and abilities. Despite the fact that we haven't found WMD, doesn't convince me that they weren't there. If he had rid Iraq of those capabilities, then it was still incumbent on him to prove so. Hussein didn't do that. I think that while we and the UN diddled around with just one more chance for UNSCOM to verify the WMD issue, those weapons were spirited out of Iraq and the rest destroyed. I believe one of theses days it will come out that we know where those WMD's went and have dealt with them in a different manner. Wheels within wheels.

# Believe the war was poorly planned and subsequent events not anticipated, the current terrorists in Iraq being a direct result of that

   In retrospect, this can be argued. Should we have had 400,00 troops instead? Maybe. The force we used to win the main war seem to have been perfectly adequate. Would more troops after the war during the reconstruction helped to have stabilized the country faster, probably. But then what would we have dealt with? Even with the troop level we have we are accused of being occupiers. Imagine the uproar with a much higher level. Should we commit a huge bulk of our Army at the outset, and possibly leave ourselves vulnerable in another area? Should we have aniticipated a resurgent terrorist threat in Iraq? Maybe. Or is Iraq where the terrorists have decided to make a stand because Iraq will be removed from their playing field once the country is under self determination? Blaming Rummy is easy. Unwarranted IMO. This is a different era, with different objectives, while still requiring a military to address old world threats (China, NoKor). I think Rummy has done a good job. You mentioned the cost of this war. Pay me now or pay me later. What did 9-11 cost us? What would the next terrorist attack cost us?

# Unconvinced that the attempt at nation building in Iraq is worth the effort and cost. Was not a Bush policy tenet

   Nation building was not in Bush's foreign policy portfolio when he was elected. 9-11 happened, things change. I feel comfortable in saying that had we overthrown Saddamn and then left, the problem we would have in Iraq and that region would make the problems we have now look like kids play.

# Believe that we cannot go nation hopping cleaning up terrorists

   If that is what we need to do, then that is what we will do. However, I don't think that's going to be necessary. And yes, we might have to leave a cadre behind in some countries. But, for instance in Iraq, the goal is not to leave until they can defend themselves. Now, would they be able to counter an attack from another determined country, say Iran or Syria? Well, that would solve one of our problems for us, wouldn't it. And if we are already rolling one of those aggressor nations up, then they'd hardly be in a position to bother Iraq. I think the mistake is believing the war in Iraq is occurring in a vacuum. There are many other things and events that are going on involving the GWOT that will make a moot point of the need for us to maintain a large security force in Iraq. And even if we do then that force will be readily available for any other actions we need to launch in that region.

#Point to the fact that agression has not seemed to broker any peace

   Appeasement and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue didn't prevent an attack from occurring on our own soil. Peace is not the absence of war; peace is the absence of realistic threat.

It seems to me that you are four square against our involvement in Iraq and no amount of debate is going to change your mind. And even if you are more or less neutral, I think you would more easily go to the anti-war side easier than you would to the pro-war camp.

You mentioned in one reply to Gamecock about the PDB that has been so ballyhooed by the opposition. I think that's just disengenuous on everyone's part. That PDB said nothing more than what many PDB's probably say. OBL wants to hijack airplanes - no kidding. OBL wanted to blow up buildings, attack our warships, unleash a cloud of chemicals over a major city, kill Americans.

The next extension of the cost in treasure argument is the cost in lives, especially of our troops. I'll point out here that the 1900 lives lost fighting doesn't even come close yet to the number Al Qaeda killed on 9-11. And those were civilians. Nations have armies to fight wars. Soldiers in armies fight in those wars and sometimes die. They know that. The people in the WTC's didn't sign up to die in a terrorist war against America. As the great Navy Admiral Ernie King once said at the advent of WW2 when he was being interviewed by a magazine, after explaining the plan to commit the Navy we had remaining to take the fight to the Japanese in the Solomons; the plan was risky, and losses were expected to be high, the reporter asked him, "But isn't that risky, we could lose everything!" Admiral King replied, "That's what they are for." (that's a paraphrase, I couldn't find the exact quote)

   

I wouldn't say that I'm four-square against it, but yes, in a black-and-white environment, I would be anti-war. I just think there had to have been a better way to handle Iraq. Afghanistan, I don't have much problem with; I don't think many people do.

Iraq, though, did not attack us. Maybe the country was home to some terrorists. Maybe Hussein was in league with those. But even if that's true (and I don't think the evidence is conclusive), Iraq wasn't as big a threat as other nations -- namely, Saudi Arabia. So much money and ideology is funneled from that country to terrorists and to anti-Western efforts. And yet, the Saudis get a pass, and we go after Iraq. Why?

Well, the Saudis have us by the balls in terms of oil, of course, and they also invest fairly heavily in our industry and give us a lot of business, so many in the corporate and political world would find it disagreeable to confront them; it'd be like cutting our own throats. So Bush needed to find another nation on whom to continue the war on terror, so that he could continue to show our country that he was strong and show the world that he was determined.

So he picked Iraq, probably because Hussein's stubborness and idiocy regarding the inspectors and other issues offered the Bush administration a way to legalize a pre-emptive strike there; without the imminent threat of WMD, congress wouldn't have given him the go-ahead. Personally, I think Bush also had it in for Iraq, an idea supported in part by the Downing Street Memo. Why Iraq? I don't know. Possibly because Hussein tried to kill his dad. At any rate, I don't have a lot of concrete evidence to support that conclusion, besides the memo--it's just a theory.

Either way, to summarize, my main beefs with the war are:

1. I don't think the adminstration was honest about it. Admittedly, though, I don't really trust anything Bush and friends say, so I'm biased. (I feel that way about most politicians, incidentally, both left and right; however, I think the Bush administration is more beholden to corporate interests than others, which colors my interpretation of what they say.)
   
2. I think Bush and company rushed into it without a good idea of what to do once we removed Hussein.
   
3. Although I don't have the solution, I think there has to be a way to appear strong without invading an entire country. Idealistic, perhaps, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. I wonder sometimes how JFK would've handled it. Or even Reagan.
   
4. I think the invasion policy sets us on a path that we can't follow to its end. I don't think we have the manpower to invade every country that harbors terrorists -- it's just too much area to cover. We could get other nations to help, of course, but the effectiveness of that strategy is uncertain. Those other nations also need not to hate us.

We've already debated most or all of those points, and I don't think we're going to sway the other's opinion. It's good to know that you've thought the issue through, though, and are not just giving blind support.

Wow, sorry for the long post.

RetNAV or me? If me, thanks. I was thinking the same about you both. I may disagree with your views, but as I just mentioned in a reply to RetNAV, I'm glad to see that at least you have given a lot of thought and analysis to the situation and aren't just giving blind support.