Uh oh...someone drank the Kool Aid.

>EVERYONE believed had weapons of mass >destruction.

If by EVERYONE, you mean everyone BUT the UN Inspectors who had actually been there and our own CIA then I guess you might have a point...a hyperbolic one though.

While his entire case would be much more securely supported and his veracity would certainly be less questioned if we had found WMD, my point is that the WMD ARE NOT the central point in any of this. Their existence remains an open question, by the way.

Once again, we're treated to the comic spectacle of Eric patiently trying to reason with the BC inmates. Good luck, big guy!

I do it for my own benefit and for the benefit of those not bound by ideology - I know you're out there. this speech was to the wavering middle and I think it was very effective in that regard.

"Let's forget Bush for a moment."

Would that one could.

Don't forget about those civilian casualties we're committing in Iraq. When you're blinded by prowar ideology, atrocity in the name of democracy is no vice.

How'd that trip to Israel work out for you, mike?

this summer, baby.

Don't forget about those civilian casualties we're committing in Iraq.

Eric, you know I hate the singer, but I also don't agree with the lyrics of the song; in particular:

"Now is the time, and Iraq is the place.."

Now is the time; Afghanistan was the place.

BTW: many recent reports, including a few articles in recent New Yorker, report that almost all experts, authorities, and soldiers warn that Afghanistan is about one click away from being LOST.

Taliban ~ They're baaaaaaaaack.

"...a messianic requirement to convert or kill every human being on earth who does not bend to their will."

You forgot 'enslave'.

Wonderful post, Eric. But, as you can tell from some of the comments, some folks are still in denial.

Bush has the gift of clear vision and purpose that we need in a leader. Any nits I may have to pick with him pale by comparison.

i don't think pres. bush has the 'vision' of anything. it seems like most of his thoughts come from the handlers.

this doesn't change the importance and danger of the current situation...though why people are comforted by having this kind of man in change is fricken beyond me.

i guess i'm still in denial.

"Bush has the gift of clear vision and purpose that we need in a leader."

ROFL. Thanks, I needed that.

"Resolve" is not a plan.

I think Bush was wrong to say blame it on a "fanatical political ideology." Of course it's religious-based terror. Always has been, always will be. When even Bush gives in to the politically correct, "Islam is a religion of peace" malarkey, you know the fight against terror has gone awry.

MEM, As I see it, the problem is a fanatical element within the religion that seeks to turn their version of the religion into a political movement.

I spoke too harshly, Eric. I only need to think of the Afghans' reaction to the smashing of the Taliban to know that not all of Islam is bad. There are, of course, moderates who tie their individuality up with their religion, thus being able to keep it in perspective. What I meant to say, really, is that it is still a religious fight. It is not politically driven. This is a clash of fundamental religious beliefs. Arguing the merits of liberal vs. conservative -- that's political. Fighting this terror goes way above and beyond that.

Excellent post. I think what you said about this speaking to the "wavering middle" America is on the mark.

I was listening to NPR yesterday as they were discussing the 9/11 commission. They had an expert on there discussing the soon to be completed missile defense program.

Imagine if you will, if the terrorists who used our planes against us on 9/11 had ICBM's instead. It's plausible, it's conceivable, and above all it's deeply disturbing. I decided then and there that Bush was getting my vote in 2004.

As much as I disagree with Bush on many of his domestic policies, they are ALL secondary to the West's security and my family's personal safety.

9/11 changed everything, and it may be some time before I (and many Americans) will ever feel truly safe.

Without Bush and his mindset of destroying the infrastucture of terrorism, that day might NEVER come.

We must stay on target, and as you said, not waver. The entire freedom of the world is at stake.

Dawn, you and your firm resolve rock.

"9/11 changed everything"

Including, apparently, your ability to think for yourself.

What's really pretty funny and quite ironic about the whole "party line" "administration mouthpiece" "think for yourself" line of reasoning, is that Dawn, I and a very large number of other people were mor or less liberal and certainly not Republican prior to 9/11. I have still never voted for a Republican presidential candidate - so the path we have followed since 9/11 is about as close a definition of "thinking for oneself" as one could ask for.

Unbelievable. Some people hate Bush so much, they'll elect a president who'll give the terrorists a pass. Hopefully they're in the minority. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

As if the Dems aren't concerned about National Security... oy.

What's really ironic is Dawn's children and grandchildren will be paying for Bush's actions well into the future: re. air, water, environment, deficits, etc etc.

Think for youself, but don't forget the kids.

The future... y'know...

fer kids.

Seperating the message from the messenger. Why not? It worked for Louis Farrakhan...

Yo know Eric, I totally agree that we need to deal with terrorism effectively. and I agree with this precise phrasing:

is Iraq a genuine part of this war? It sure as hell is now.

"Some people hate Bush so much, they'll elect a president who'll give the terrorists a pass"

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

The current president is the one who gave "terrorists a pass" by essentially abandoning their pursuit in Afghanistan, where the Radical Islamists were, and instead invading Iraq, where they weren't.

Steve Martin used to talk about when taking hostages you should always make one demand that will show you are crazy.
His demands: $1,000,00,00, getaway car, and the letter "M" stricken from the English language.
The puchline: "Getaway car ... yeah right"

"Not my war ... yeah right"

When you're all burned, blind and dying in the ashes of the next al Qaeda attack, I'll remember that this was not "your war" and I'll think to myself ... "yeah right".

smug-a-licious!!

Imagine if you will, if the terrorists who used our planes against us on 9/11 had ICBM's instead. It's plausible, it's conceivable, and above all it's deeply disturbing. I decided then and there that Bush was getting my vote in 2004.

Now how in the world are terrorists going to get ICBM's?

...Oh that's right, they're going to get them from North Korea, because Bush is ignoring that looming disaster too.

By the way, the missile defense doesn't work.

...the missile defense doesn't work

and never will.

but we will surely spend billions of dollars on it, all in the name of 'national security'.

it's more like 'government contractor security'.

The "strong leadership" by Bush only appeals to sheeple. He can barely speak good english....
Is that appealling in a leader ? In France, Germany,England Spain etc. a leader is expected to speak the language impeccably. To say nothing about critical thinking....

I hate to undermine your assumptions (okay, I love undermining your assumptions, and like Ashcroft, I'm not sorry, nobody heard me say I'm sorry, you can't prove a thing) but, Iraq wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic state. It was a fascist secular state. One which the USA supported for 8 years while it fought a war against the theocratic state of Iran, which would have likely won if not for US chemical weapons.

If you want to foster democracy, perhaps your Glorious Leader should look to the model of Czechoslovakia rather than Yugoslavia.

Americans dislike intellectuals, or anyone who tries to appear as one. "You think you're better 'n me?!" To the masses, an Ivy League education, for example, tends to imply a person who is out of touch with "The American People," and one who does not care about them. I think that partly explains why there are so many politicians who exaggerate their southern accents -- good ole down home folks. Images of iced tea and a porch swing on a lazy afternoon, as opposed to a BMW driving money grubbing self-important expensive shoes cellphone guy. Of course, in many cases, it's all a put-on for the sake of the voters, to whom that "Daddy was a coal miner" crap is appealing.

i think that doc has it right..."someone drank the kool-aid". at one point last night, bush started making sense to me, so i decided it was time to put the joint out.

i do so enjoy his winks and smirks.

jack e. jett.

It's the smirks which get to me, even if he was heading the Monster Raving Loony Party, I couldn't handle the smirking and giggles. Especially when he is rampaging like Godzilla (at least Godzilla breathed fire and remembered his lines).

I was listening to a Bill Hicks bootleg today, and even ten years after his death, things just haven't gotten better, except that instead of jokes about Bush and how Quayle is an idiot, it's jokes about Chaney and how Bush is an idiot. And the US is still fighting the same fucking war, only worse.

I agree, Eric. Good post. I'm not a conservative, nor do I support many of Bush's other policies on most other subjects. However, on this one issue, Bush does, indeed, get it, and he has my support.

Laurie K.

Personally, I can't separate the song from the singer. That is like saying Whitney's rendition of "I will always love you" would be just as powerful as if Britney Spears sang it. It's the singer that 'carries' the song.

If the song is terrorism, then the singer becomes even more important.

First it was 'we need to get the WMD', then when they didn't appear, it became 'we need to liberate the Iraqis'. That's called a flip-flop.

First, it was let's go after Al-Queda and Osama. When we didn't find him in Afghanistan, then Saddam became the baddest guy. That's called a flip-flop.

First, it was 'let's protect America and all our freedoms, because terrorists hate freedoms.' Then it became an administration that has trampled on more basic freedoms than any administration in history. That's called a flip-flop.

First, it was 'let's work with the U.N., NATO, and our allies to find a peaceable solution to removing Saddam. War is only a last resort.' Then we find out later, Bush and his cronies had Saddam marked from before he took office, it was just a matter of finding an excuse. That's called a flip-flop.

Separate the song from the singer? Not possible. Let's have N-Sync cover all Bob Dylan classics in that case.

P6, I have many doubts about Bush's judgment in general, but he has proved his A) apprehension that the war on terror is our most important concern, B) that it must be fought from an offensive position. I don't have the sense that Kerry - if that's who you are talking about - has the same level of commitment.

Regarding Iraq in particular: I would prefer to be gloating over those WMD, but we don't have those yet, may never find them, and they may have no longer existed. Embarrassing, complicating, casting doubt upon ours - and in particular the administration's - truthfulness and reliability - "yes" to all of the above.

But the WMD issue doesn't change the fact that Iraq, the Middle East, and the world are all better off without Saddam running things, and a democracy in the Middle East is a critical blow against Islamofascism and Islamic autocracy in general.

That begs the question: but is it better off with Bush running things in this country?

The invasion of Iraq and creation of new radical terrorists as we speak, the loss of faith in America that has increased our energy prices 40%, the restructuring of wealth and power, increased corporate welfare, the loss of the American dream for millions, etc. say the answer is: "No."

Thanks Laurie, people either seem to grasp this whole, even intuitively, or they don't and run off a laundry list of particulars that are just hairs on the dog. What is important is the dog.

Eric, democracy is emergent, it doesn't come from the barrel of a gun, as Mao well knew.

If fighting a pointless bloody war and invasion of a strategic foreign territory promoted democracy, will you please 'splain the Philippines?

One of the most corrupt kleptocracies in the the 20th century, and the result of a war by the USA?

Here's a simple rule for you USAians, if you can't find it on a map, you can't invade it. Okay?

Well, that's sorta stupid, since if you can't find it, you can't invade it, but you know what I mean.

Civilian casualties are just a "laundry list of particulars." I love it.

I agree that democracy cannot be forced at gunpoint, but it can be enabled.

by killing civilians.

I deplore civilian casualties, but also know they are inevitable whenever there is fighting around them. Were they "excessive" in Fallujah? I don't know. I hope not.

Mike, I don't think Eric is going to be packing his bag for any guilt trip. Sometimes, this type of action is neccessary, and if my child were fighting over there and he was faced with a situation where he would be killed if he didn't take the chance of killing civilians first, I'd tell him to fire that damn thing. Right now allready.Harsh, but welcome to the real world.

The only experience I've had with armed troops enabling democracy was during the October Crisis where the government used the War Measures Act to put tanks and troops on the street in Quebec in 1970. Lots of people thrown in jail, not much democracy happening.

Maybe you mean putting troops at Kent State University at about the same time? Hmmm, not a lot of democracy there either.

So, back to the Philippines? How did a US war foment democracy in the Philippines in the entire 20th century? Just curious.

So if Iraq chooses, democratically, and all, to have a government just like Iran, will you be all shiny with that? Because it's democratic and all.

Or will you go all El Salvador on their ass (wait, if you trade arms with El Salvador to get out of the Iraq quagmire will there be a black hole which will destroy the world?)

I thought the last question of the conference, asked by an NPR reporter was the best. He asked Bush if he failed as a communicator to the American people since he was so low in the polls.

Bush's response was that the people will decide that in November. He said they will decide who is best qualified to rebuild Iraq come November and apparently this is what he is going to base his reelection on. And I'm just wondering...how about a President who is willing to "rebuild" America??

Facts, as Anatol Lieven has said, are not an impediment to U.S. "messianic nationalism dressed up in the supposedly benevolent clothing of democratization."

The prowars are a fanatical quasi-religious cult, of whom the neoconservatives are only the most rabid vanguard. It's no accident that democracy is dying at home at the same time is being "spread" abroad. The two processes reinforce each other.

I thought we saw a pretty good demonstration of democracy at home last night: the sitting leader of the nation taking on 45 minutes worth of hostile questions at face value. Democracy at home is as vibrant as ever.

And no, theocracy in Iraq is not acceptable. theocracy is inherently undemocratic, even if the majority votes for it. Liberty, rule of law, individual rights are all more vital needs than "democracy," and "democracy" without them is a hollow shell.

"I thought we saw a pretty good demonstration of democracy at home last night: the sitting leader of the nation taking on 45 minutes worth of hostile questions at face value. Democracy at home is as vibrant as ever."

Like I said.

So, it's quantity, not quality which count's? In that case Fidel Castro going on teevee for four hours beats Bush like Jesus.

When did the Glorious Leader going on teevee and not answering questions count as an exercise in democracy?

I thought it was electing representation by the majority of the popular vote (what? oh, nevermind).

I thought we saw a pretty good demonstration of democracy at home last night: the sitting leader of the nation taking on 45 minutes worth of hostile questions at face value.

The few people I've talked with, both liberal and conservative, thought he didn't really answer a single question but evaded them.

And again we cycle back to my original point: Bush and his preformance is not the issue, the message is. And I believe it is the right message. Apparently there is some dispute on this.

And I believe it is the right message.

Please correct me if you disagree, but the message seems to be from Orgazmo : "Go in the front, come out the back and fuck their shit up".

I don't see any coherent policy other than to do whatever the cabal wants to do. Trying to impose democracy in the Middle East is like trying to bomb Cambodia into peace and good order (so who is going to be the Pol Pot of Iraq?).

The US war to "liberate" the Philippines created one of the worst kleptocracies of the 20th century. Will Iraq be the same in the 21st? I think so. I didn't watch the Glorious Leader on the televisor last night since I don't live there, and I would react like Elvis and Robert Goulet on the tube. However, that doesn't mean that I can't say that I think if you swallow that bunk, then you've got a lot more problems than a multi-front war in the Middle East.

Well, I think there is a lot in that message that is right, but I'd have to dispute some of it, I'd also have to dispute the feasibility of him pulling it off. I'd be interested in knowing America's reaction to last night. How does one find that out accurately? Take a CNN poll and a Foxnews poll and combine them?

My biggest 'uh-oh' I muttered last night was when he actually said he was banking his reelection on the rebuilding of Iraq. I was just picturing all the terrorists everywhere who were leaning closer to their tv's and saying 'oh...really??'

Eric: "And no, theocracy in Iraq is not acceptable."

Funny, you don't look Iraqi.

I think for myself, but it seems many of those commenting have lefty blinders on and can't see the forest for the trees.

Seriously, when did this site become a haven for such across the board looney left noodniks?

It's really disgusting and makes me feel kind of squeamish about coming over here and commenting.

Give me ONE good, well thought out and argued reason why we shouldn't finish the job in Iraq, or why we shouldn't fight the war on terrorism.

although I do like this: "Go in the front, come out the back and fuck their shit up".

Give me ONE good, well thought out and argued reason why we shouldn't finish the job in Iraq, or why we shouldn't fight the war on terrorism.


Dawn, when did you stop beating your children?

No excuses, Answer Me!

The answer is that you shouldn't have begun the "job" in Iraq, and the "war on terrorism" is as valid as the "war on drugs" (as this week's testimony by Ashcroft reveals).

It wouldn't be so bad if the USA had said "we're going to invade this country, and there's nothing you can do about it, so there".

But you didn't. You lied. And did it anyway, like China in Tibet.

Nobody likes a bully, but everybody hates a hypocrite. As I've said, it's probably going to wind up like the US invasion and occupation of the Philippines, a corrupt, despotic, kleptocracy. But you broke it, you bought it.

And don't come whining to the rest of us when it all goes to baby shit (the worst kind).

Dawn, I think the left and the right are in agreement that we need to fight terrorism. The debate comes from how.

Why are you squeamish about differences of opinion? What's disgusting? That we all don't put our 'righty' blinders on and agree?

On a different note, referring to my comment that Bush is waging his reelection on the successful rebuilding of Iraq: here we are almost 24 hours later and I've read from news sites that the Phillipines are probably going to withdraw their troops and Japan, France and Russia are telling their contractors to go home.

"Seriously, when did this site become a haven for such across the board looney left noodniks?"

They do seem to rule the roost here, big-time.

Some of the people here are so wound up in their lefty extremism, they'll attack fellow liberals like Laurie K., Dawn and Eric ... and I know I have a reputation for being very tough on liberals, but there is a certain species of Liberalis americanus, like the editors of The Nation, who actually understand what is at stake in Iraq and the war on terror. OK, so they disagree with Bush, the Republicans and conservatives on domestic policy. What's happening internationally should be the primary concern, and instead of whining about civilian casualities (hey, that's war for you!), they are determined that something shall be done about the fanatics trying to kill us.

Thank God for the pro-W.o.T liberals.

Eric, if you've seen Orgazmo you will realize they didn't accomplish any of those goals, even with dildos on their heads.

Which is why I quoted it. G-Fresh.

Mark Edward Manning: Thank God for the pro-W.o.T liberals.


Don't try to disappear up your own arsehole, that could create a rift in the space-time contiuum, which would, y'know be really nasty for the rest of the world outside the USA.

Hey, why don't you all band together as the Tenacious Warriors Against Terrorism?

Think what a great big bunch of TWAT's could do!

Thank God for the pro-W.o.T liberals

i'm an atheist so i suppose i shouldn't comment, but back when i was a catholic boy i seem to remember there being a commandment that said something like "thou shalt not kill".

so seriously, what do the christians out there think about this?

is there some other chunk of the bible that makes it ok?

they are determined that something shall be done about the fanatics trying to kill us.

It's possible to be against what Bush is doing and for doing something about the fanatics trying to kill us.

If one is opposed to what Bush is doing means one is against fighting terrorism, well....talk about blinders.

is there some other chunk of the bible that makes it ok?

Mark, there's always a chunk of the bible that makes it okay. It's a regular 24 hour justification stand. It's not about morality, it's about justification.

"Don't try to disappear up your own arsehole, that could create a rift in the space-time contiuum ..."

Way to go, Jim. You must be taking lessons from Shark on how to sound intelligent.

Dawn: "... seems many of those commenting have lefty blinders on and can't see the forest for the trees. Seriously, when did this site become a haven for such across the board looney left noodniks? It's really disgusting and makes me feel kind of squeamish about coming over here and commenting."Do you really think the classic extreme right tactic of name-calling actually adds anything to a discussion? Or the power of your argument? Or your credibility?

Be that as it may, I'm not a "lefty" (not even a Democrat) and I haven't heard anyone of any political stripe even suggesting "...we shouldn't fight the war on terrorism."

Like many in this country, including an increasing number of rational Republicans, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea that actually took resources from the "war on terrorism." In fact, there seems to be a growing sense that the occupation of Iraq is counter-productive, creating far more Radical Islamists than ever existed before the unilateral invasion. I agree with that, too.

Personally, I'd like to see the war against Radical Islamists in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia getting the emphasis it requires.

Note that none of the above has anything to do with any particular political label - it's simply a position on security and foreign policy that is not the same as yours.

And for W, I'll leave with a quote from Heinlein: "Never frighten a little man. He'll kill you."

Jim, what you mean to ask is "WHEN DO I EVER NOT BEAT MY CHILDREN?"

The answer is: when they are asleep.

As for the TWAT thing, if it weren't so funny, I would be offended.

You Canucks, always good for a laugh.

Iraq never was, is not and probably will never be the forefront of the war on terror. There was a toothless tiger there. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money was. We should invade countries where the terrorists are, and they were not there, and the WMD intel was a mistake, but we never admit mistakes (see last night's press conf). Bush is dumb too.

Okay, let's finish the job in Iraq.

What is it?


Understand that we are looking at the current situation and seeing a major problem. The Iraqis are looking at the same situation and seeing a major problem.

But because of our different perspectives, we see different problems. So whose problems are we going to solve?

How about the problems caused by the USA regieme invading and occupying a sovereign country?

Y'know, you could have done the same thing in Haiti, but they don't have, like, oil.
And they're closer, not that the reserves you are sending to Iraq would know the difference or where they are.

Dawn: "You Canucks, always good for a laugh."

LOL! I'm not sure whether Mr. Carruthers is a Canuck or a Limey - but either way, he surely hates Americans and is only here to antagonize us. I am used to his type on my other blogsite. I agree with him 100 percent that the War on Drugs is a farce and a disgrace, and fills our prisons with unnecessary prisoners, but that would be the extent of what I agree with him on ... in other affairs, I believe we have liberated Iraq not only in terms of the moderate Muslim population who suffered under Saddam, but also the radical Islamofascist elements that Saddam also repressed. Just because a man like Sadr was silenced under Saddam's Ba'athist regime didn't make it right. Now that Saddam is gone, we are unearthing all the other elements that we need to forcibly rid the Middle East of. In that sense, the war in Iraq was very much worth it. Now it remains in our best interest to silence them.

Now it remains in our best interest to silence them.

Ashcroft couldn't have said it better. So we give Iraq a democracy but strike out freedom of speech? We give them a free country as long as they don't speak ill of America? As an American who wants to fight terrorism, who wants to find a middle ground with different cultures who currently hate us, who wants to keep our country safe and who wants to maintain the freedoms our forefathers fought for...What IS the point of this philosophy?

Exactly. It is time to sing a new song: "Let There Be Peace on Earth."

DAWN: They had an expert on there discussing the soon to be completed missile defense program. Imagine if you will, if the terrorists who used our planes against us on 9/11 had ICBM's instead. It's plausible, it's conceivable, and above all it's deeply disturbing."

What's really disturbing is that we'll spend billions on that system and it can't take down CROP DUSTERS.

Maybe not, but it will be designed to take out zeppelins and other large slow-moving objects. Yeah. Take 'em out good. Real good.

Well, the upside of that missile defense is that it will create jobs for what few science and engineering majors we produce in this country (although for most of the work we'll have to hire foreign students). It's actually kind of a neat socialist scam for techies: the government creates make-work jobs building a system that will never be used and never work anyway, and the libertarians cough up the money because they think their taxdollars are going to national defense.

Hey, I'm starting to like this idea!

Ah, a world of guided missiles and misguided men... I wonder if Dr. King is rolling proverbially in his grave.

Yeah, God knows that missiles have never helped us in the past. We don't need no stinking missiles.

C'mon, wasn't the missile defense system crucial in "North by North West"? Jebus Jumped up Christ on a Pogo Stick, where would that Cary Grant be without a missile defense system covering his sweet, sweet ass?

You think he would have got his ashes hauled in a train going into a tunnel if it wasn't for a continental missile defense system? Hell No!