Nonsense.

1. Your sniping about the stupidity of the electorate is tiresome. The American people have a better record than do left-leaning hatemongers (or right-leaning hatemongers,, for that matter). The GOP is the majority party largely because people realize that cliches about peace and root causes won't be there to break their falls if they ever have to leap out of a skyscraper.

Plus, your terms are sufficiently vague to support almost any response. For example: Saddam attacks Kuwait so we put troops in Saudi Arabia and that radicalizes bin Laden. That's a link, albeit not a direct one. More importantly, establishing a civil society in Iraq will weaken Islamofascists and bring hope to millions of people who live in various States of oppression.

People liberated as a result of W.'s policies: 40+ million. People liberated as a result of hate-filled sniping and disdain for the actual people in the Middle East: 0.

2. Saddam remained in power for 12 years after the end of the Gulf War (1991-2003 = 12 years, not 8 years).

3. If you don't think 9/11 warranted wholesale changes to our indifferent 1990s approach to terror, you are the misinformed one.

4. If Orwell is cringing, it is because the left still resorts to ugly tactics reminsicent of that famous radical leftist J. Stalin, whose regime inspired 1984. As you might know, Orwell virulently opposed appeasement of rabid ideologues. He had few friends on the left.

Did you actually read 1984? To say that America is looking like 1984 is pretty idiotic (sorry, it is).

5. Is the government inappropriately tapping the phones, etc., of anyone you know? Are they harassing the anti-war crowd? Are they rounding up citizens and putting them in reedcuation camps? Are they stoning them to death?

6. "Bush is losing support, which gives me a little hope in the American people again"

I see. The American people are hopeless if they ever have the nerve to disagree with you. His support, by the way, is still strong.

7. What specific things has Bush done to violate the Constitution? Congress authorized the war. Congress authorized the Patriot Act. No court has ruled anything unconsitutional, have they? If they have, has he failed to comply? Abortion clinics still operate. Gephardt is the one who promised to flout the Constitution. What are you talking about--do you even know?

8. "If anything, the Republican Party would do well to not support Bush’s re-election."

She'll be here all week, folks, dont forget to tip your waitress.

9. Democrats, feminists, leftists, etc. all recently went to the mat to defend a President who perjured himself in a court proceeding while in Office. Now you want to pose as crusaders for truth? Please.

10. Perhaps if Clinton had apprehended bin Laden in 95-96, when Khartoum repeatedly offered to turn him over, or had responded to the 93 WTC, 96 Saudi bombing, the 98 embassies with more than a few missles aimed to frustrate impeachment, or the 00 cole bombing, bin Laden would not have smelled weakness on our part and escalated his campaign.

These people want to kill us. A strong response is the only answer. Bush has twiced risked his presidency to do what he thought was right.

Think of the Afghan girls who can go to school without fear of ending up shot in the head in a soccer stadium before you launch another misplaced bromide at the W.

Cheers.

Actually, on my top ten books that I love, 1984 is number one, followed by The Jungle, then Marabou Stork Nightmares. I own all of these books. All of these books are dog eared because they are well loved.

As far as being a peace loving, feminist, etc...

Hogwash. I fight when here is a reason to fight. I don't if there is no reason to.

You've done no better to give me a reason why your point of view and opinion is any better than mine in your response. I'm pretty open minded, when you can give me some facts that didn't come from FOX, or the Bush administration itself, then I will be happy to discuss and perhaps learn from them.

On a final note, let me tell you something about Power:

Power is not something someone has, but something that is given to someone. If you go into a public square, guns a blazing and declare yourself ruler... you may be be as that people may be afraid of you and therefore let you have power over them. The intelligent person knows that power is a matter of perspective and knows that if you really want to take power or change something, you have to be pro-active and do it on your own.

If there are 40 million Iraqis who are so happy now that they have been "liberated", why didn't the 40 million Iraqis rise up on their own and oust Saddam? I think 40 million stones against 100,000 guns and enough anger and vitriol behind a movement is enough to topple any tyrant. You misunderstand me... I don't give a hoot for the "give peace a chance" line. However, I also don't use my resources for something unless I know you really want it. Going back to my example of the public square, the US came in and did the same thing and replaced one power with themselves. Where were the "Iraqi freedom fighters"? The point is that you cannot "give" someone democracy, "give" someone liberty. To suggest such is silly. You have to want it for yourself before it is given to you.

And spare me the "death camps", torture, etc... At the moment you say that, I'll throw North Korea in your face and ask you why are we not helping them? Why are we not "liberalizing" them.

Politics, Power, is not always about blamming big holes into the ground, a proud swagger, and a lot of shit talk. Diplomacy involves honey with a knife up your sleeve.

Finally, get over the Clinton Crap... every time I hear that, then you lose a discussion with me. Clinton is not president anymore. He will not be president again. Was my life better under Clinton? Yes. Still, Clinton is no different than Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, or etc..., etc... The way politics is run has been ingrained in this society for so long, few know there is another way. What I don't understand is why people start telling everyone to wake up, the status quo boos, hisses, and scratches.

Pick political issues, not political parties. If you want cookie-cutter policies then don't bother thinking.

Who cares who's on the ballot?

Vote Republican!
Vote Democrat!
It all the same!

Screw it... don't even bother voting then!

Labels bore the hell out of me and are really quite limiting.

By the way, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you are sick of reading about how I feel about the voting population of America, please review how this site is laid out. You see, my posts have my name under them. You are more than welcomed not to click, if it disturbs you so much.

Until I am told otherwise... I'll keep posting. You are more than welcomed to keep reading and keep commenting...

or not.

Take care.

"when you can give me some facts that didn't come from FOX, or the Bush administration"

You don't bother analyzing or countering arguments. You prefer to dismiss dissenting voices by demonizing them as puppets for entities that you despise.

"why didn't the 40 million Iraqis rise up on their own and oust Saddam? I think 40 million stones against 100,000 guns and enough anger and vitriol"

First of all, the 40+m number included Afghanistan (although I think it's actually closer to 50+m.) I am surprised that you are unaware of Iraq's population.

Second, your disdain for the Iraqi people is offensive. Overthrowing those types of governments is not easy. Usually, external forces are influential and often are decisive.

"The point is that you cannot "give" someone democracy, "give" someone liberty. To suggest such is silly."

Japan and Germany, for two examples, might suggest otherwise.

"I'll throw North Korea in your face and ask you why are we not helping them? Why are we not "liberalizing" them."

Please, don't throw things. Perhaps NK will be next. Regardless, is your point that we cannot do anything unless we do everything? And as you know, NK might have moved into the nuclear neighborhood and it might be too late for something similar to the Iraqi war.

"If you are sick of reading about how I feel about the voting population of America, please review how this site is laid out."

I haven't objected to your expressing yourself, and the implication is bogus but typical.

"Finally, get over the Clinton Crap... every time I hear that, then you lose a discussion with me."

I'm sorry you are so close minded. Incidentally, by specifically linking problems to the "last three years" you are the one who invited comparisons to the period preceding the last three years. Clinton would fare better in a discussion of the economy, granted, but his national security record is pretty dodgy.

"the status quo boos, hisses, and scratches."

So when people vigorously differ with you, they are booing, hissing, and scratching? I don't patronize bunny rabbits.

"Pick political issues, not political parties. If you want cookie-cutter policies then don't bother thinking."

I understand. I disagree with you on one issue, so that must mean I am a thoughtless robot.

I notice that you avoided almost all of my major contentions, which is rather revealing.

Well, attack away, Admiral Hominem...

"when you can give me some facts that "didn't come from FOX, or the Bush administration"

You don't bother analyzing or countering arguments. You prefer to dismiss dissenting voices by demonizing them as puppets for entities that you despise."

Excuse me, Sir... do you know exactly what I watch or what I read? Where do I ever say or even give the impression that I don't bother analyzing arguments? The little you know about me an my habits. I prefer my news with facts and as little political commentary as possible. The media should report the news: such and such happened here at this time and this many were involved. Unfortunately, most news resources do not do this anymore. In the meantime, most people are starting to confuse commentary with actual reporting. This only confuses the issues. Some broadcasting groups have clear agendas.

As far as North Korea is involved, or anyone else on the "terror list", if I were on that list, I'd probably get nuclear weapons as well since it seems the only deterrent to a US that is hell bent on forcing it's way no matter what.

National security has ALWAYS been a joke. I travel extensively. I always noted before 9/11 the lack of any real security at US airports, yet when you walk through Frankfurt you see sub machine guns all over the place. Still, because you screwed up doesn't mean that you swing to the extreme in the other direction. You want homeland security? Then check your borders and the way things come in and out of your own country before you start imposing your will on others.

Go into Afghanistan after 9/11? Absolutely! No problem with that. Got into Iraq... Um.. why? Did they have anything to do with what was going on after 9/11? Can you prove it? You aren't sure? Well you just don't like what they do there so hey, let's make up a reason? Excuse me? What gives you the right?

And yes, if we can't help everyone then we sure as hell should prioritize things. Suffering is suffering, no mater where it is, or how it is done. Why are the Iraqis any more deserving than the North Koreans?

As far as the boos, hissing and scratching, look up connotation and denotation in your grammar book. I am not the best speller and when passionate, my grammar is somewhat lacking as well. In your case however, by the *tone* of your postings, they are barely civil and borderline insulting. I don't expect you to agree with me. And I have no issue that you do not. This is fine, I enjoy a good discussion. However, marginalized condescension is still condescending.

"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."

No, you aren't being insulting at all, are you? Who's doing the attacking? You or I? Argue your points, but leave the extraneous crap out, if you please. It's easy to try to pull the personal attacks in order to provoke. Unfortunately, they only weaken your case in the long run.

[me] "I don't patronize bunny rabbits."

"No, you aren't being insulting at all, are you? Who's doing the attacking?"

I can't believe you are so quick to find an insult in a total non-sequitir (from the move "Heathers," incidentally). That was a non-seq--I mean, when something is that nonsensical, you might wonder whether it's nonsense.

[referring to my posts]
"they are barely civil and borderline insulting"

in your column/blog entry/essay, you called 80% of the electorate stupid or ignorant (including me, because i would agree that 9/11-Saddam meets the wholly nebulous "some link" standard (mainly through a causation chain that is admittedly not crystal clear but that is definitely part of the big picture). now you accuse me of incivility because you have inferred insults from comments such as the bunny rabbit non-seq? VERY hypocritical of you.

As for the FOX and Bush administration thing, you blasted me and accused me of exclusively using "facts" presented by those two entities, with the implication that they are not truthful and i lack the brainpower to see beyond alleged propaganda. You tried to demonize me and my arguments on that rather scurrilous basis, rather than address the arugments. If you re-read the post closely, you will see that that item does not refer to what you read.

as you have repeatedly avoided addressing my specific arguments, by the way, i am free to infer that you do avoid difficult arguments by accusing people of "fox" bias, etc.

""terror list", if I were on that list, I'd probably get nuclear weapons as well since it seems the only deterrent to a US "

and we need to stop them. what's your point?

"confuse commentary with actual reporting. This only confuses the issues. Some broadcasting groups have clear agendas."

let me guess: the ones with which you disagree are the ones with agendas.

"However, marginalized condescension is still condescending."

true enough. but i am a pretty marginal guy.

seriously: when you said that i and millions of others are either stupid or ignorant, was that condescending?

"Why are the Iraqis any more deserving than the North Koreans? "

how does this line of argument weaken the jusitification for liberating iraq other than as an argument that we should have attacked pyongyang first?

"Well you just don't like what they do there so hey, let's make up a reason? Excuse me? What gives you the right?"

they violated the 91 cease fire = a right, all by itself.

the government there regularly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity = a reason.

even if we dont intervene everywhere there's crimes against humanity, there would be reason to do so, wouldn't there.

it will be interesting to see which trivial points and changes of subject you use to renew your avoidance of my original arguments.

Avoiding your original arguments? What arguments? I see your opinion, I don't agree with your conclusion. Period. I've not avoided anything that you have stated.

BTW, the Bush administration DID SAY there was no clear link between 9/11 and Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3159672,00.html

And stop trying to turn this personal! I never said that if the news doesn't agree with my views, then it has an agenda. REREAD what I said. News that has a ongoing angle or commentary and is not just reporting the facts, IS NOT NEWS!!!! It becomes and editoral or a commentary! It doesn't matter what camp it comes from, if it has to add more to just the facts, then it is suspect! I have often wished that national and international news were reported more like the local new as that for the most part, I find our local anchors in chicago just relaying what happend as opposed to injecting comments or trying spin an angle.

You and I disagree... You can say all you want but from the facts that I see and what is going on now, everything points to Bush is not good for this country, much less the world. Nothing is black and white, no matter how much anyone wants to believe it is.

The truth is that 9/11 happened and everything went to hell in a hand basket quickly. Is it Bush's fault that 9/11 happen end? No. Is is Bill Clinton's? No. Ronnie? Jimmy? No...

As long as the US is involved in the Middle East to the extent that it is, it will always be, and has always been a problem. My bone to pick is how it has been handled since 9/11 which no, I don't agree with.

The fact remains that the Bush administration has admitted that there is no clear link between Saddam and 9/11. They have not found weapons of mass destruction, and there were never legions of Iraqi men just waiting to terrorize the US and the world. For as bad as Saddam was, he still was a petty tyrant, more concerned with golden toilets and the conquest of the middle east. He's been more concerned with money and with glory. Osama, on the other hand IS a threat because anytime you get fanatic religious belief involved all bets are off. For the Bush administration to directly play upon the fears of the American public and lead many to believe that attacking Saddam had anything to 9/11 is just plain wrong and irresponsible. For Americans to ever have believed that there was a direct link between 9/11 and Saddam in my opinion shows stupidity and laziness on their part.

We had a right because Iraq violated the cease fire? They've been doing since it was in place! Big whoopty do! What makes Tuesday a more acceptable day than Monday?

Finally, as much as I am against nuclear weapons (I think they are stupid and lack any nobility at all.. I would go back to swords and fighting in a field if I had my way, it's more romantic... but I digress) I still don't think the US has a right to say what others can and cannot do... Not until they sign treaties on chemical and germ warfare and sticky by them as well.

And now that I think about it... if we spent all the money that we spent on Iraq and will spend on Iraq in addtion to the funds being used to go after Osama bin Laden, I think we would have him by now, and could have had the iraq situation handled. That is why we have a CIA and special forces.

I am not going to argue this with you anymore. I stand by my opinion. You are not going to change my mind at this point because a) you've not shown me any evidence to convince me otherwise b)you've admitted yourself that you are a "marginal guy" and I don't deal with tongue in cheek pop shots. When I have something to say, I say it. If you don't agree, that's fine... but stay civil. My original post was MY OPINION, not professional journalism and was never intended to be. It was a civil post.

Rant on... rant on.

Saddam Hussein may have been hoisted on his own petard. Although he publicly stated that he had no weapons of mass destruction, that those he had had been destroyed, and that he was not starting up the programs for WMD that he had dismantled lo, these many years ago, his need to appear strong to his arab neighbors and to Israel may have led him to establish a program of misinformation, of "leaks" and "documents", which may, if they fell into the hands of the right people make their governments believe Saddam was not telling the truth, that he did indeed have WMD and programs to develop and produce WMD. Who's to say that the famous yellow cake uranium letter which was later proved to be false may not have been of Hussein's manufacture?

If the President of the United States had been anyone other than George Bush and if the events of 9/11 had never occurred, Saddam's misinformation program, if it existed, may have worked to give his arab neighbors a chance to see him as a man who was conning the Americans without much in the way of response (a la Clinton). But 9/11 did happen and, with that event, the need to show the world, especially the arab world, that America was not the paper tiger of the nineties, that we would not wait for the homicide fanatics to bring the war to our soil again but to take the war to theirs. We could not take the chance that Saddam Hussein would develop WMD and then sell them to the highest bidder or use them on his neighbors. And we had to send a message to all those other nations who might be thinking along those lines as well. George Bush takes his role as President seriously. He swore to defend our country to the best of his ability. With the events of 9/11 and with the possibility of it happening again, his administration has done its best to reduce the threat at home and to send a message abroad as effectively and efficiently as possible that we do, indeed, carry a big stick. In this environment, Saddam's misinformation would be viewed in a much more serious light not only by the administration but by the United Nations as well. And it was.

So if Saddam Hussein had been completely open, had provided documentation and proof of the destruction of Iraq's WMD and WMD labs, had given open access to his scientists and bureaucracies, then maybe the second Gulf war may not have happened. But given the type of regime Saddam and his sons was running, it would be like asking a leopard to change its spots or a scorpion not to sting and forget its nature. And that nature led to the destruction of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Victoria,

I am sorry that I challenged you to defend your opinions. What was I thinking? I am also sorry that you have largely sidestepped that challenge.

In your opening, you called 80% of the people stupid or ignorant because they disagree with you. You say that this was civil, but you have the temerity to say that a bit of linguistic flair on my part is is not civil. Is your hypocrisy deliberate?

The 9/11 link business is largely an exercise in semantics. Any proactive approach was going to require a move against Saddam. See Dalgor's post above for more detail.

By the way, using my self-deprecation to belittle me is kind of self-defeating. It's also the kind of personal attack that you pretend to abhor. Not to mention humorless though sadly chracteristic.

If debating offends your sensibilities and you don't wish to bear even a fraction of what you dispensed, well, perhaps be a bit more judicious in calling people stupid and ignorant.