and yet when the death toll comes out it is 1000 Americans and ??? thousand Iraqi's or which X are innocent civilians.
Freedom in this country was fought for by us, we deserve freedom because our forefathers thought it was worth dying for. The Iraqi's made marginal efforts for freedom but because Saddam was armed to the teeth.
Which begs the question? How was Saddam armed to the teeth? Due to the balance of power theory in the middle east, we had decided to offset our newfound enemy Iran (whom we had been happily arming up until that point).
Who's genius foreign policy was this, under who's watch? Ah yes! Reagan! and the first Bush in fact part of the reason we were so sure that Saddam had WMD was because we GAVE them to him, Donny Rumsfeld himself orchestrated the deal.
But like most really innovative ideas, this one took on a life all it's own (Frankenstein, Prometheus, Pandora's box pick your myth) the monster was towering through the villages, the fire blazed out of control EVIL was released on the world (again pick your myth).
Perhaps if we admitted some fault in Iraq and by "we" I mean the people that made this happen and took more of a "it's our mess, we need to clean it up approach" we might get more international support. But Republicans are not in the business of admitting fault or really being accountable for their actions.
What's worse is that this is a pattern of behavior from our government, one that has only been reigned in since the end of the cold war.
Korea, Vietnam, Central and South America, Africa have all seen the pattern that the CIA has established, destabilize the economy, cause civic unrest, erode local support for the legitimate government (elected or not) plot a coup (violent or not), found insurgents, overthrow government, install puppet regime, secure their power by arming them to the teeth. Allow mayhem to ensue, let fester for 10 or 20 years. Only in the last 10 years have we started cleaning up the messes we have made around the world (hat's off to Clinton).

I would on conservatives to stop the politics of fear, but it has been so effective for them in the polls (especially in the 50 on up bracket, those that were conditioned to fear anything not American) I can't really expect them to. So I guess saber rattling is what we can expect to hear from conservatives until the masses come to realize that Minnesota drivers are FAR more lethal than ANY terrorist.

Mike,

So many places to start with this:

"and yet when the death toll comes out it is 1000 Americans and ??? thousand Iraqi's or which X are innocent civilians."

So the death toll invalidates the goal, and the result?

Over 1,000 men died in 24 hours on D-Day. 1,000 men died in seconds on the USS Arizona. 1,000 men was a tough *week* in Vietnam.

I was about to write "I don't mean to trivialize any of the dead" in Iraq - but indeed, it's the left that trivializes them, reducing their sacrifice to facile sloganeering. They're killing the terrorists that would be trying to kill us - and they're doing it on *their* turf.

"Freedom in this country was fought for by us, we deserve freedom because our forefathers thought it was worth dying for. The Iraqi's made marginal efforts for freedom but because Saddam was armed to the teeth."

You clearly have very little understanding of how *totalitarian* systems work. It's not about being armed; it's about having absolute control of all facets of society. Resistance is purely suicidal. And even before Hussein, Arabs had very little concept of individual liberty. Many Arabs today are like Europeans from the Middle Ages in that sense; if you put the Bill of Rights in front of them, the concepts would seem foreign, like you were talking a different language. The Arab world never had a Renaissance (either did Russia) - the notion of the place of the individual is not a part of Arab social consciousness, in general. They're importing that notion in dime lots from Arabs that have left for the west - and, hopefully, from Iraq today.

Because it's people who can SEE liberty that learn to appreciate liberty. That's why the Iron Curtain faced inward, and it's why the terrorists are flocking to Iraq today - to forestall liberty.

Now to the strawman:

"Which begs the question? How was Saddam armed to the teeth? Due to the balance of power theory in the middle east, we had decided to offset our newfound enemy Iran (whom we had been happily arming up until that point).
Who's genius foreign policy was this, under who's watch? Ah yes! Reagan!"

Er, yeah. News flash: Iran WAS the enemy back then. They took our hostages. They fought a near-war with us when they tried to close the Straits of Hormuz, driving oil up to $90 a barrel (in '04 money). Iraq was a counterbalance - which does not imply "friend". It happens all the time...

...and, if you object to it, you should welcome Bush, who's chucked the doctrine of stability for the doctrine of freedom.

" and the first Bush in fact part of the reason we were so sure that Saddam had WMD was because we GAVE them to him, Donny Rumsfeld himself orchestrated the deal."

Er, no. Scratch a strawman from the fever swamp.

"Perhaps if we admitted some fault in Iraq and by "we" I mean the people that made this happen and took more of a "it's our mess, we need to clean it up approach" we might get more international support."

a) It's not our mess. Our aid to Hussein was a pittance in the great scheme of things; French arms sales to Hussein outnumbered ours by an order of magnitude; Russian sales, two orders.

b) We HAVE cleaned up the mess; Hussein is gone, Iraq is fighting to achieve democracy against thugs at home and Quislings abroad.

"But Republicans are not in the business of admitting fault or really being accountable for their actions."

We're too busy calling the left on its strawmen.

"What's worse is that this is a pattern of behavior from our government, one that has only been reigned in since the end of the cold war. "

"I would on conservatives to stop the politics of fear, but it has been so effective for them in the polls (especially in the 50 on up bracket, those that were conditioned to fear anything not American):"

Er, people over 50 are Kerry's best showing in the latest polls. Voters 18-35 are Bush's strongest demographic.

" I can't really expect them to. So I guess saber rattling is what we can expect to hear from conservatives until the masses come to realize that Minnesota drivers are FAR more lethal than ANY terrorist."

You do realize you completely contradict yourself, don't you?

Calling out strawmen? Fever in the swamp? What kind of rhetoric is that? Is that code for, I written something in response and therefore I have won the point? Or is it gibberish? I'm not sure what you meant by it, so I'll reserve judgment.

The death toll or rather the lack thereof, is mere proof that indeed American's are not concerned with Iraqi lives, but we are very aware of the American lives lost there.

Let's get back to the goal of this war, the US has "chucked the doctrine of stability for the doctrine of freedom" and yet you also proclaim that Iraqi's “don't understand freedom” and certainly don't think freedom is worth dying for. So we’re going to destabilize their country and cram freedom down their throats, while using our troops without support from the rest of the world?

So tell me again why we fought this war?
Iraq HASN'T attacked us
Iraq did not have WMD
Iraq were not actively supporting terrorism (but they really didn't like us and we knew it)
Iraqi's didn't need freedom (by your logic)

Did Hussein need to be deposed? Well sure, the whole world should be democratic, it has a great track record of peace and prosperity! But attacking every dictator on the planet is not very practical, nor is it very high on MY list of priorities compared to domestic issues.
We need to stop fooling ourselves about the real goal of any pre-emptive war; to gain strategic advantage. This war is about securing one of the top 5 most sought after finite resource in the world; oil. It’s OK, everybody knows this already, we just need to stop fooling ourselves.

But instead of attacking everyone with oil, let’s focus more on energy conservation (like Nixon did, the patron saint of fuel economy). Pull the rug out from under them, tighten our own belts. Was it a pain in the butt to drive 55 instead of as fast as we wanted, yeah, did we have to give up our muscle cars for fuel efficient autos (which I found particularly painful)? Yes. Did OPEC get the picture? You had better believe it. Did anyone die? Nope, in fact auto fatalities PLUMMETED because of it. That is good policy. The kind that conservatives can be proud of.

If we spent the time and money on the next generation of fuel coupled with good old fashioned belt tightening, we could let the Middle East do as they please. Whereas Nixon responded to the call with lightening quick action, the Bush administration has been very slow to respond. Yes, Bush can now point to a couple some tax breaks for energy conservation ($2,000 for hybrid cars, which don’t even come close to the heavy duty truck tax loophole, and up to $3500 for new windows), a couple of government research programs (but we all know how effect government programs are) do not an effective energy policy make. He has too much skin in the game with regards to energy to do what is right for this country.

For the love of God, send in John McCain or Collin Powell for the next Republican candidate! Someone with scruples and intelligence, I guarantee you will not have a statistical dead heat race, you would have a landslide victory!!!

mike b,

check the polls...landslide victory on it's way.

Bush may eek out a victory. But Reagan and Mondale? Now THAT was a landslide victory.

Mike,

I'm going to start with your last bit; attributing "scruples" and "intelligence" only to Republicans that most frequently pass for Democrats, the likes of Powell, McCain, Chaffee, Arne Carlson. I don't hear Republicans - certainly not mainstream ones - calling Zell Miller "the only smart, intelligent Democrat", for example. It's fairly cheap rhetoric, really - reflexively denying that ones' opponents are intelligent or moral. I don't think Democrats realize how badly that stream of thought debases them.

"Calling out strawmen? Fever in the swamp? ...I'm not sure what you meant by it, so I'll reserve judgment."

I mean that some of what you say is straight out of the Michael Moore conspiracy theory du jour.

"The death toll or rather the lack thereof, is mere proof that indeed American's are not concerned with Iraqi lives, but we are very aware of the American lives lost there."

First: Buncombe.

Second: The fact that you have not yet mentioned that fewer Iraqis have died in the past year of all non-natural causes than WOULD have died in the same time had Saddam remained in power shows, by your logic, that Democrats only care about the lives of brown-skinned foreign people when their death hurts Republicans.

"Let's get back to the goal of this war, the US has "chucked the doctrine of stability for the doctrine of freedom" and yet you also proclaim that Iraqi's “don't understand freedom” and certainly don't think freedom is worth dying for."

One (intentional?) misstatement of my point, one very dubious assertion.

Bush43 has shunted *realpolitik* - the pragmatic, frequently cynical balancing of negative forces against each other - aside for direct imposition of American force and the concomitant imposition of democracy. That is a departure from the Cold War "stability" policies of everyone from Truman through Clinton.

And if you read any of the better milbloggers and Iraqi bloggers, *many* Iraqis are willing to risk their lives for their freedom. Recruitment for the benighted Iraqi police and national guard remains brisk, even as dangerous as it is. Naturally, the liberal media and the lefty blogs won't recognize this; it doesn't fit their preordained conclusion.

"So we’re going to destabilize their country and cram freedom down their throats, while using our troops without support from the rest of the world?"

Jeeez - and you ragged on ME for regurgitating talking points?

You prefer the stability of dictatorship over the chaos of freedom? Really? You buy Michael Moore's Orwellian picture of pre-war Iraq as an idyllic little state that only wanted to be left alone?

And we have support from *every nation that matters*. Shall i list them?

"So tell me again why we fought this war?
Iraq HASN'T attacked us"

1) On December 5, 1941, either had Japan.

2) Yes, they had. Iraq has been tied to the 1993 WTC bombing, and quite possibly to the Oklahoma City bombing, the attempt on George HW Bush, and hundreds of attacks on US/Coalition aircraft over the no-fly zone.

"Iraq did not have WMD"

Didn't you admit in a previous post they DID have them? In any case, as shown this past week, Iraq DID have a nuke program - they were holding it in storage until the international heat was off. Once you have the equipment, material and expertise, building a nuke is really just a matter of craftsmanship. Is that a chance you want to take?

"Iraq were not actively supporting terrorism (but they really didn't like us and we knew it)"

Trying to qualify your statement with "actively supporting" is rhetorically weaselly. How "active" does support need to be before we pay attention? They actively bankrolled the PLO, HAMAS, Chechen rebels, Jamiyat-e-Islamiya, and others. Oil for Food money has been traced to companies with links to terrorists. And Zarquawi is a known Al Quaeda associate.

"Iraqi's didn't need freedom (by your logic)"

Then you don't understand my logic. Everyone needs freedom; that is the biggest principle of all.

"Did Hussein need to be deposed? Well sure, the whole world should be democratic, it has a great track record of peace and prosperity! But attacking every dictator on the planet is not very practical, nor is it very high on MY list of priorities compared to domestic issues. "

There IS only one issue; winning the war on terror.

If someone sets off a nuke in downtown Minneapolis, really, nothing on anyone's domestic agenda means diddly. Nothing.

Obviously they did possess WMD at one time, heck we even let them use them a couple of times, but there was no evidence that they still possessed them. In fact, it appears that Iraq had bent to international pressure to get rid of them, without a war. Nuclear program?!? What a joke! They couldn't afford to keep their conventional weapons maintained!

Winning the war on terror is only goal in the country? Iraq quite possibly tied to the Oklahoma City bombings? Dropping a nuke on Downtown Minneapolis? Wow, this is fear mongering taken to a whole new level!

The only country I suspect might use a nuclear weapon is North Korea, but we are too bogged down with the middle east to deal with them properly. Not only do they have a program, they have REAL BOMBS! If that weren’t enough, they can hit San Francisco with them! To top it off, they have threatened to use them. So the only clear action that we can take is attack, IRAQ!

Placing higher importance on places halfway around the world than our domestic issues (of which terrorism IS a domestic issue) is at best misplaced priorities. But to claim there is no other issue but terrorism and to use that as an excuse to attack Iraq is ill-conceived.

BTW if the Iraqi police recruitment is so brisk, then why has the US dropped the official number of recruits from 250,000 to 200,000 to just under 100,000? I find that puzzling. Was it just because they counted everyone twice? I guess that's the simplest explaination.

PS Found your views on education refreshing, I think you've done a lot of soul searching on the issue and have struck out on a path less taken. Keep up the good work!

It was Colin Powell's realpolitik approach that largely contributed to our shameful abandonment of the Kurd/Shia uprising we encouraged in 1991 -- for fear of losing our 'multilateral' coalition. Bush is to be commended for truly acting on our ideals -- and, as he did in his speech at the UN, admitting that we have not always done so (of course we are still light years ahead of anyone else).
We don't need to review who did the lion's share of arming Iraq (hint: it wasn't us).
Winning the war against Islamofacism is the single most important issue facing the country. All others pale to irrelevance unless this is done successfully.
It's not fearmongering to say 50,000 people could easily have died on 9/11. It's not fearmongering to say that Iraq was the most likely potential supplier of a nuke or chemical weapons for the next attack.
It's simplistic (and not very nuanced) to say we are too bogged down in the Middle East to deal with N Korea. It's not either/or. Bush is doing a hell of lot better job with L'il Kim than Clinton did. His secretary of state isn't sharing drinks and jokes with the guy. Jimmy Carter exchanges Christmas cards with the loathsome little creature.
The two things that drove me from the left are:
1) The belief that some people can't handle/don't deserve freedom. It's nonsense, it's demeaning, and it's often racist.
2) The belief that the U.S. has done more harm than good on the world stage. As of July 3, 1776 every single human being on the planet lived under tyranny of one kind or another. Today billions of people live fuller, freer lives because of U.S. resolve and engagement. It hasn't been perfect, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.

At the risk of sounding thoroughly patronizing, debating with Mike B. is like having an argument with my younger self! :-)

I stand by that comment, as I do not think George Bush is either intelligent or scrupled. I strongly believe he is profiting handsomely from this war both from an oil rights perspective and from Haliburton. How can you stand by and say that neither Bush nor Cheney are going to make HUGE gains from this endeavor? How do you justify an oil man from an oil family making a feeble case to attack a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world? Despite all evidence that it was a BAD idea and that there are better way to spend our energies?
Then in Cheney's case (whom I respect for his intellect) was the CEO of Haliburton, who had been trading with Iraq behind the scenes up until the war, got the exclusive contract for all of their logistics WITHOUT proper oversight or standard vendor management practices? AND they have been over billing us into the millions! How is this fiscally conservative? How is this a transparent government process?
These are the questions I would like answered above all else from conservatives.

Bush has a laundry list of questionable deeds personal, business and politically that points to a clear pattern of being above the law. That is why I say that.

McCain and Powell have fought for this country and were willing to die for it. They have outstanding personal and political conduct and they both are SMART. I would be proud to have these "moderates" (the next thing to liberals, I know) be the president of my country.

BTW, I NEVER said Arne Carlson was scrupled; he has a laundry list of his own.

Mike B. -- Two quick questions: What garden spots of peace and democracy did the CIA screw up? And why is your hat off to Clinton; what problems did he solve?

It takes one large attack to make your Minnesota driver/terrorist comment ridiculous. Actually, it already is ridiculous; we shouldn't fight terrorism until there are no more highway deaths? It takes one attack -- the kind of attack the enemy is planning and training for every day in places like Germany, Pakistan, Sudan, France, Eden Prairie and yes, until recently, Iraq -- to grotesquely skew your stats.

You're probably more likely to get hit by lightening than killed by a terrorist. I say we stop the fight against terrorism and concentrate on ending the skurge of lightening.
OK, I'm done now, sorry to monopolize.

No, I'm not done. Please explain exactly how Bush and Cheney stand to personally profit, and if you truly believe personal profit is their driving motivation. Also, who had more profitable and potentially profitable oil dealings with Iraq: France/Russia/UN vs. the U.S.A.?

Answer my question first. How do you think they AREN'T.

Apparently, non-conservatives are not allowed to speak tongue in cheek on this blog. I personally fear Minnesota drivers more than I do terrorists. Having almost been killed numerous times by negligent drivers and never once have been threatened by a terrorist. I would have to check the numbers but I'm reasonable certain that traffic deaths far outnumber terrorist deaths. Calm down Chris, this is not a call to action against bad drivers.

Mike, I understand that you were speaking tongue in cheek... that was what I was objected to: understating and taking lightly the risk of terrorist attack. It takes very little in the way of a terrorist attack to make Minnesota drivers seem like a very trivial concern. Perhaps conservatives are fear mongering. Perhaps some people aren't scared enough.
I'll get back to you on the Bush Cheney oil thing... work beckons!

A few quick point re: Bush/Cheney/oil profits.
Cheney donates all of his deferred Halliburton compensation to charity. He does have stock options. Halliburton's stock over the last five years has essentially mirrored the S&P 500. The contract work in Iraq is among their least profitable operations. Iraqi oil is controlled by Iraqis. The pipeline which so many on the left thought was the reason for invading Afghanistan (with 9/11 giving Bushitler a convenient excuse to do so -- how lucky!) never was built. If there is any gross malfeasance on the part of Bush or Cheney it will be discovered and they will be raked over the coals of history. Not so the UN, under whose guidance the Oil For Food program lined the pockets of Saddam and technocrats around the world with no accountability whatsoever. Not so France and Russia, who had sweetheart deals in place with Saddam. Not so Chirac who is completely in the pocket of TotalFinaElf (oh yes, and who sold Saddam a pair of nuclear reactors and frequently referred to Saddam as "my dear friend").
Was the run up to the battle of Iraq all about the OIL!!!!! Yes, yes it was. For France and Russia and the UN.