For we are a great and good people, and our cause is just:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003873.php

One thing about you Shark is the comedic relief you provide. But as an Oracle of Doom your in such a minority that you and your adherents that spew the same trash are rendered as useless as mammaries on a mouse.
And to Mike Yes we are. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-marines9may09,0,177477.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Great link, Mark. Haha.
"Marines on a Mission to Win Friends in Iraq
Armed with toys and candy for the children and seeds and farm tools for the adults, U.S. troops reach out to villagers near Fallouja."

How much candy do the gang-raped Iraqi boys in prison get?

If that's the best news you've got, I'm sticking with Sharky all the way.

Quick question:

Why were these guys in prison in the first place? Jaywalking? Too many traffic tickets? Public drunken-ness?

No, they were terrorists.

This does not excuse the abuse. We should be better than that.

But the Arab media, and the American Left, should realize that WE AREN'T THE BAD GUYS HERE! We are punishing those who broke the rules. Those who were humiliated were likely anti-democratic scum. And those who abused them are going to a prison of their own.

What would Saddam have done?

But, hey. Asking for fairness and rationality from the Arabs and the American Left is probably a lil' too much to ask for...

Oh boy! "Marc" -- the semi-literate 'Don Rickles' of Blogcritics -- has decided to leave a comment.

(Marc, doing it once is a mistake; doing it EVERY FRIGGIN' POST is a lack of education. "You're" is a contraction meaning "you are". "Your" is a possessive pronoun. If "your" going to insult me, at least do it using proper English.)

PS: "mammaries on a mouse" is such a flaccid, empty cliche. My advice: try "You Hockeypuck!" That hasn't been used in a while.

PPS: I might 'spew trash', but it's all TRUE, something you don't, won't, or CAN'T deny. Ignore the "Oracle of Doom" at your own risk.

MORE INSANE RATIONALE FROM THE RIGHT:

"Why were these guys in prison in the first place? Jaywalking? Too many traffic tickets? Public drunken-ness? No, they were terrorists. This does not excuse the abuse. We should be better than that. ...WE AREN'T THE BAD GUYS HERE! We are punishing those who broke the rules. Those who were humiliated were likely anti-democratic scum."

("Likely" being the operative word used here by a defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way --- *which apparently longer includes a fair trial or a presumption of innocence.)

* which would make RJ an anti-democratic what, kids?


RJ, I have to say this, though: you're certainly on track for a job as a foreign diplomat in the Second Bush Administration. Way ta go!

We are a civilisation with a short memory. For years we believed to be untouchable and safe from barbarians and their barbarisms. Terrorism has destroyed that belief and no matter how naieve it was to begin with, it may take some time before we are able to get it back.

The scary part is that together with the illusion of safety, we seem to have lost the belief in our own principles of civilization and sanity.

Being a barbarian means that you can be a barbarian even towards the civilised. Being civilised means that you have to be civilised to barbarians.

don't like that notion. Expect to be called terrorist scum yourself by people you consider barbarians. And render them just as civilised as you like to see yourself.

Best. Iraq war. Summation. Evah!
not sure how original it is, but well done Bernard.

Well, you know, for some people you just have to keep repeating the obvious... again and again...

Maybe someday they will get it.

Hope is a beautifull thing

RJ: We were the bad guys here. The test of our character is how we respond to it and what we do to keep it from happening again.

There are rules for war and rules for occupying powers and I find myself seething with rage that we cannot meet the standards of minimum common decency.

I agree with Rumsfeld when he said that the acts in those awful photos are fundamentally un-American. I think those in power who created conditions where it was possible are culpable of at least negligence and dereliction of duty. I'm not convinced that that culpability goes all the way to the secretary, but I'm not convinced otherwise, yet.

I understand the impulse to deny that it happened. That'd be nice, but it's hard to ignore the photographs and the Army's own reports.

While I am afraid that those who said "it was a few bad apples" are being fooled (or are fooling themselves), I understand that impulse, too. I hope they're right, but even if they are, I feel that we must have a thorough investigation to prove it. You can't be sure you're removed all of a cancer if you don't at least look for it in other places.

The impulse I don't understand is the people who say 'yes, it happened, but it's OK." I can't really compromise here. The degree to which someone agrees with that statement is the degree to which they are wrong.

I agree with Bernard and Michael: this is all wrong on every level that counts and perversely we we inflicted the harm upon ourselves while we thought we were doing it to others. My initial impulse was to downplay it as well, but the evidence has shown there is nothing to downplay and I am heartened to hear that the administration is not trying to minimize it and has apologized and vowed transparent investigation and prosecution.

HOWEVER, it is also wrong, I think, to conflate the abuse of prisoners with the military action in general. They are two very separate activities.

M. Croft and Bernard, I agree 100% in both cases.

Bernard makes the point that I was hoping to make implicit in my initial entry: that when one becomes a 'barbarian' in order to fight 'barbarians', one might win the war and lose one's humanity.


Rules from the past:

"We must not worry about committing an offence against the rights of nations nor about violating the laws of humanity. Such feelings today are of secondary importance" -- German Statesman, Sept. 1914

Shark, I demand that you admit that you aren't 100% right. I (as a supporter of the war) have admitted a great many things wrong because, well, they are wrong, but you as probably the most extreme person here claim to be 100% correct. Completely infallible and willing to say that EVERYTHING has played out EXACTLY as you said it would.

Come on now. How can you expect the extremists on the right to cut the shit when you won't do it yourself?

And if you think a lot of people on the right agree with Rush freaking Limbaugh, then you have another thing coming.

A friend of mine described the political landscape as a circle. Draw a line down the center of the circle. The centrists are at the top. The right starts at 12 o'clock and covers the spectrum down to the most extreme at 6 o'clock. The extreme left progresses from 12 to 6 the other way. So, all of a sudden you have the extremists right next to each other at 6 o'clock but they have no idea they are right next to each other.

The left wing hatred of Bush and the war and pretty much everything else the republicans do is the same as the extreme right who listen to Jesus, hate abortion and like to shoot guns while impeaching a president over a blowjob. It's just funny that the two hate each other and have such divergent points when they are sitting right next to each other on the extremism scale.

Eric,

I have my opinion on the war itself. It was started on a non existent threat of WMD's. Failing that rationale it became about liberation and then all available means were used to piss off everybody who is anybody in Iraq, the middle east and the UN. Start a war, win it. If you are the worlds most powerfull nation, that seems easy enough. But the US government did not have a clue what to do when the war was won and lacks any sort of exit strategy.

Going in without a plan to get out, means you're planning to stay on for a very long time.

In my mind this is not entirely unconnected to the abuse of prisoners. Historically, whenever military forces have been confronted with these kinds of situations, these kinds of excesses have occurred. You need a plan to deal with the situation you are faced with and this plan needs to resonate in the minds and actions of both liberators and liberatees. If not, pretty soon the distinction between libaration and oppression is going to wear thin.

I'm not saying that the military action is wrong because of the abuse of prisoners. But the abuse of prisoners is an example of the US military and governments inability to deal effectively and humanely with the problems they are faced with.

Who was it that said that the US shouldn't be building a nation, and who is now trying to do it anyway?

Oh, and I agree with you that the administration seems to be handling the problem with some sense of integrity. I hope it is more than a facade, but I'm just not sure.

While I have stated my objection to the rationale for war before, I think that it's reasonable for everyone to demand that our military conduct our occupation of Iraq with professionalism and without committing human rights abuses.

I agree with Eric that the case for war and the implementation of the occupation are two very different items and would add that the execution of the "major combat operations" section of the war is different from either.

So driving to work and the work itself are unrelated? They are not, I'm sorry.

The reason for war is unrelated to the abuse itself, yes. But the handling of the war, the handling of the occupation and the handling of prisoners during the occupation are not three separate activities.

If only because they are all the responsibility of the same government.

I agree that at least a portion of the abuse could be a symptom of lack of preparation and focus and I don't think there is much doubt that we handled the initial invasion vastly better than the subsequent "peace." Bush was far too quick to declare victory when it should have been completely predictable that there would be all kinds of difficulties between the cessation of formal hostilities between the "official" militaries and the normalization of the country under a new government. Bush was foolish to raise expectations.

I do think this is an "opportunity" to refocus, retool and start over again as far as "winning the peace" goes. This scandal is kind of like a mini-9/11 in that it takes something extreme to change an entrenched mindset.

Craig: "Shark, I demand that you admit that you aren't 100% right. ...you as probably the most extreme person here claim to be 100% correct. Completely infallible and willing to say that EVERYTHING has played out EXACTLY as you said it would."

Craig, I'm not 100% right or completely infallible; I was right about "...the non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- to the lack of an 'imminent threat' -- to the quagmire scenarios -- to the possibility that we would CREATE more terrorists than we eliminated -- to the forces we would confront when perceived as an empire-hungry Army of Occupation in Iraq. (Predictions of civil war have yet to be realized, although the day is still young.)"

-- and I was also right about the word games that tried to evade the label of "torture" relative to the Iraqi prisoners.

And unfortunately, I'll be VERY right about the fact that we've lost Iraq and possibly the Middle East for years to come.

You don't agree, then tell me why.

And as for your "demand" --- you've gotta be kidding me.

RJ Elliott: Why were these guys in prison in the first place? Jaywalking? Too many traffic tickets? Public drunken-ness?
No, they were terrorists.

No, they weren't terrorists.

At least not most of them:

According to the International Red Cross report: '...coalition military intelligence officers estimated that "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.' [Saddam's Officials Got Special Abuse 5/10/2004]

RJ Elliott: Why were these guys in prison in the first place? Jaywalking? Too many traffic tickets? Public drunken-ness?
No, they were terrorists.

HP: No, they weren't terrorists.
At least not most of them:

I was wrong, RJ:

NONE of them were terrorists.

I've had the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing running in the background, and Major General Taguba just said so: there were no "terrorists" and no "enemy combatants" in the prison.

felix,

"If that's the best news you've got, I'm sticking with Sharky all the way."

As if this was a surprise....

Shark,

"PPS: I might 'spew trash', but it's all TRUE, something you don't, won't, or CAN'T deny. Ignore the "Oracle of Doom" at your own risk."

In your alternate universe it might be.

"...the non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- to the lack of an 'imminent threat' -- to the quagmire scenarios -- to the possibility that we would CREATE more terrorists than we eliminated -- to the forces we would confront when perceived as an empire-hungry Army of Occupation in Iraq. (Predictions of civil war have yet to be realized, although the day is still young.)"

They existed, there is proof that they existed, we have photos of bodies killed by them. A better question would be where did they go? If there isn't any proof of where they went, then there is an imminent threat. If I pull a gun and put it up to your head, pull back the hammer....your mind and body will react as if it is loaded and you are about to die - even if it isn't loaded. You don't have anyway of knowing if the gun is unloaded, if it is loaded with blanks or with real ammo.

As to the creating 'more terrorist' than we eliminated - kissing their asses didn't work for the last 20 years what makes you think is would work now? If they want to die for their cause - let them.

Michael,

"I agree with Rumsfeld when he said that the acts in those awful photos are fundamentally un-American. I think those in power who created conditions where it was possible are culpable of at least negligence and dereliction of duty. I'm not convinced that that culpability goes all the way to the secretary, but I'm not convinced otherwise, yet."

I don't know if I agree with this, unless you have someone babysit each and every soldier the condition exists. Anytime you have someone with power over someone else the condition exists. There isn't anyway that the condition does not exist unless you kill them all and never take any prisoners and that in itself would be an abuse of power. How would you have prevented the condition from existing?

"While I am afraid that those who said "it was a few bad apples" are being fooled (or are fooling themselves), I understand that impulse, too. I hope they're right, but even if they are, I feel that we must have a thorough investigation to prove it. You can't be sure you're removed all of a cancer if you don't at least look for it in other places."

There has been an ongoing investigation since January.

"The impulse I don't understand is the people who say 'yes, it happened, but it's OK." I can't really compromise here. The degree to which someone agrees with that statement is the degree to which they are wrong."

I agree, I find the photos to be repulsive and not indicative of the American ideal.

"I have my opinion on the war itself. It was started on a non existent threat of WMD's. Failing that rationale it became about liberation and then all available means were used to piss off everybody who is anybody in Iraq, the middle east and the UN. Start a war, win it. If you are the worlds most powerfull nation, that seems easy enough. But the US government did not have a clue what to do when the war was won and lacks any sort of exit strategy."

Since you were obviously in the war room when the plan was laid out, what exactly are they lacking? I keep hearing that there is no plan for peace? How would you know that? You don't have a clue what plans they may or may not have. Iraq has to have a chance to put an interim government in place, they had to have time to create a constitution and have a plan for their elections. How could you leave any sooner? There wouldn't be any stability.

Hal,

"[As an aside, now that Saddam's Republican Guard is in control of Fallujah, who did win the war there? And wasn't that a great name - the Iraqi Republican Guard?]"

There is no pleasing any of you - you scream for us to turn it over to Iraq and get out, yet when we do start turning over operations to Iraq you use that as pointing to a 'failure'.

It's just another election year in the US....

HP: "[As an aside, now that Saddam's Republican Guard is in control of Fallujah, who did win the war there? And wasn't that a great name - the Iraqi Republican Guard?]"

Debbie: There is no pleasing any of you - you scream for us to turn it over to Iraq and get out, yet when we do start turning over operations to Iraq you use that as pointing to a 'failure'.

Actually, I'm reasonably easily pleased, but I did see some irony in the neocons invading to get rid of Saddam and his Republican Guard, then turning control of Fallujah over to that very same Republican Guard.

As far as "turning operations over to Iraq" goes, I don't recall screaming about it.

But there's not much of it going on, and won't be even on June 30th unless the adminstration changes their current plans.

Here's a bit more background, Debbie:

As Yassir Harhoush sees it, the work he'll be doing for the new U.S.-sanctioned Fallujah Brigade isn't all that different from what he was doing last week. Only then, he says, he was part of the insurgency.

"I was fighting the Americans," Harhoush, a 28-year-old former soldier in Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, said. "I have not stopped. This is just a temporary truce. If the Americans attack, we will defend ourselves again."

The brigade already has more than 1,000 members, and Fallujah men are flocking to sign up for the force. Many of them, it seems, have merely put down their rocket-propelled grenades and picked up the new black Kalashnikovs distributed in the past couple of days by the United States.

The Americans also are giving uniforms to brigade members. But that hardly seemed necessary, because most of them appeared to have kept their old Iraqi army uniforms in mint condition — clean, pressed and ready to wear. [Fallujah insurgents are now defenders 5/10/04]

I think some of you guys might want to look into joining the force in falujah, then you could directly attack the soldiers, rather than doing it with a keyboard from over here.

Get my drift, we are HERE, they are THERE. As bad as the abuses were/are, and I am not excusing them, those responsible should be flayed, we need to understand that this is a war.

Understanding that this is a war means understanding that there might not be a very clear "exit plan." It also means that there will be some ugly things that will happen over the course of the war. No one has a crystal ball. No one can make a war go perfectly or even close to it.

When Bush said we are going into Iraq, I knew this would mean years and many lives. Bush knew this too. Did all of you? Honestly? I don't think so given how often this effort was chalked up to a need for oil (couldn't possibly be worth the effort if even one american dies) or that Bush wanted revenge for his dad (wouldnt getting re-elected be more revenge than removing some third world leader? Obviously).

its time we all got real about this stuff and stopped pointing fingers at each other.

James Golden: I think some of you guys might want to look into joining the force in falujah

That's about your record asininity (so far).

...its time we all got real about this stuff and stopped pointing fingers at each other.

Ironic coming from a guy who stoops to calling decent patriotic fellow Americans traitors simply because we question the war and it's (bumbled) planning (or lack thereof).

One question, Golden Boy: What reasons do you have for not fighting 'the good fight' over in Iraq?

James Golden: When Bush said we are going into Iraq, I knew this would mean years and many lives.

And that was going to be worth it why, exactly?

Let's say it wasn't for oil and it wasn't Bush trying for revenge. It wasn't for the WMD's because they had been destroyed a decade before. It wasn't because Saddam was an "immediate threat" (as Rumsfeld kept saying back in 2002*) because he had nothing to threaten us with. It wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East, because events have shown (and emphasize every day) that there was no real plan to do so (a puppet regime doesn't count).

So why exactly were you so willing to sacrfice (other) American lives in a reckless nation-building venture?


[* "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02]

"No state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security and the stability of the world than the regime of George W. Bush." --- Shark, 2000

Why am I not in Iraq fighting? Because I never joined the military. I thought about it a great deal, but whether or not I decide to volunteer for our military or work in the private sector, it really has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. It's one of those non-arguments that get thrown about when no other appropriate response can be made. The bottom line is, I support the troops, I am thankful for their courage, and like every sane American, seeing the caskets and some of this footage of hostages makes me very sad.

I did expect this type of thing. Way back when the war started and people were spouting nonsense about this being a war for oil or a war for revenge or a war for votes, I couldn't believe it. War isn't a neat and tidy thing, historically, it rarely delivers votes, and the economics behind our energy consumption simply don't warrant conflict in Iraq. Knowing this, and given Saddam's history, it's obvious that after 911 Iraq became a logical place to go.

Given the tenor of this group, some of you might prefer Saddam in power, but the reality is that he was constantly an issue. For one, our presense in Saudi Arabia was predicated by Saddam's threat to them, and that presence was the MAIN reason OBL gave in his fatwah. And the fact that there was a threat to the Sauds, to the Kuwaitis to the Kurds, to Israel, show that with Saddam in power, it was hard to maneuver diplomatically or otherwise with any of these countries. Finally, the sheer fact that this man was allowed to exist with 12 years of UN defiances under his belt, oppressive regimes and (everyone admits) appetite for WMD's, he was a green light to terrorists in other areas of the middle east that they too could be like him.

Tony Blankely wrote about how Bush has a grand plan for the Middle East. I happen to agree with both Tony as well as with the plan. I believe that a free middle east will ultimately remove the threat of terrorism. Invading Iraq and installing a real diplomatic example, and allowing those people to enjoy the fruits of their land would set an awesome example for the rest of the world. It's unfortunate if the politics here in the US, and the pressure to pull out prematurely or to hand Iraq over to a broken UN, get in the way of that.

I leave you with this great quote taken from Andrew Sullivan's Weekly Dish:

Quote of the week
"A strong culture permits diversity; a strong culture permits freedom of thought, deviation from the framework. When the Abbasid period was at its height, it became a culture of self-confidence. When there is confidence like this, you permit space and freedom. Lack of self-confidence leads to the lowest cultural point, from all aspects -- human rights, women's rights. In the Arab empire, there was more freedom than in the Arab world today." -- Salman Masalha, Israeli Arab intellectual and poet.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040506-085122-3003r.htm

Golden: Invading Iraq and installing a real diplomatic example, and allowing those people to enjoy the fruits of their land would set an awesome example for the rest of the world.

That should be in the past tense. It might have been a great "diplomatic example" at one time but diplomacy was thrown out the window by invading instead.

Invasion to force "freedom" on a populace has never worked in the history of mankind - that's such a far-fetched concept that one suspects the presence of special mushrooms during the planning sessions (f there were any).

Removing Saddam did not require the invasion of Iraq. It's especially bad since it was done instead of working on reducing terrorism in the world, and has had the opposite effect.

I meant democratic, not diplomatic, sorry. However, you should have figured that out given that 12 years of diplomacy in Iraq FAILED and would have continued to fail were it not for our president.

Also, I believe that you are wrong about invasions forcing democracy never worked. Certainly our actions in WW2 ultimately brought freedom to Europe. If we did not get involved, who would have been in control there?

One thing is for sure, invasions forcing totalitarianism certainly have worked many many times in human history, so I see no reason why installing a democracy should be any more far fetched.

To say that an invasion was not necessary to remove saddam is just ignoring the fact that not invading didn't really seem to work, now did it?

We've lost hundreds of soldiers, we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. but I have a feeling that if Uday and his brother were eventually given the reigns (as they surely would have been), many more soldiers would have died fighting that one and plenty more money would have been spent.


I'd also like to take issue with a few comments in this article:

"Defending torture, denying our mistakes, refusing to admit that Bush and the NEO-CONS might have been deadly wrong on their new doctrines,"

Who is defending torture? Bush said that it was abhorrent. Who has denied mistakes? Might have been wrong about Saddam? Yeah, he was actually a good guy! Get real man.

"and see what was said then versus what we know now. The old (2003) arguments about weapons of mass destruction"

Excuse me, but the fact that we didn't find weapons doesn't mean that there were not any. Secondly, Saddam had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight, avoid conflict, and actually get more power over Iraq.

Imagine if he had come clean to the UN, allowed full inspectors, swore never to pursure WMD's. He could have lobbied for the removal of sanctions, he could have fought for the end of the no fly zones. He would have become way more powerful working within the system.

The problem was that he was insane with power and his pursuit of weapons. He refused to cooperate, even blix said in january leading up to the war that saddam was cooperating to the letter but not the spirit of the resolutions. 1441 already promised action by sec counsel members if it was not complied with WITHOUT an additional vote.

And lets not forget that Saddam actually used his WMD's once or twice in his history. Sorry, but 12 years of UN resolutions acknowledging WMD's, his refusal to cooperate, his shady behavior... if you point a toy gun at a cop, what happens?

Golden: To say that an invasion was not necessary to remove saddam is just ignoring the fact that not invading didn't really seem to work, now did it?

That's not quite what I'm saying: It was not necessary to remove Saddam, period.

That was neocon (and hard-liner Israeli) policy, but he was being effectively contained.

It was working - American resources would have been better used in a war on terrorism, working with and on other countries in the region and elsewhere. As for his WMD's, it appears that they had been destroyed in the early 1990's, as Saddam's son-in-law told us when he defected.

WWII is not analogous.

Nobody invaded Germany while Hitler was torturing and killing Jews. After he started invading other countries, democracies leaped to the defense (some more slowly than others) because they could see they would also be a target eventually.

Stop with the labels, my name is James, not Neojames.

Removing Saddam had been the policy of many admins, including Clinton's.

Here are some of my favorite quotes:

We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"[Saddam] will use these weapons of mass destruction again, as he had 10 times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction"
- Sen Ted Kennedy fall 2002



I wrote an article about this, please feel free to give it a read:

Who is the liar?

Containment was NOT working, it cost us over $1 billion dollars a month to maintain the forces necessary for the no fly zones (as opposed to about 4 - 5 billion a month now while we are at war). Did you know that Saddam's forces shot at us daily? The sanctions were rendered pointless by the scheming UN oil for food program. And, lets go back to OBL's fatwah, and the fact that his biggest beef with us is a direct result of our "containment" of Iraq. As Saddam and his sons got stronger, how would we have coped?

No sir, containment was hardly "working."

I guess the difference then, between the two parties, post 9/11, is that Bush saw Saddam as a bigger threat than Osama?

And it's my understanding that Osama's biggest 'beef' was the U.S. endorsement of Israel, not Iraq. Second biggest beef was the U.S./Saudi connection. I've never heard of Osama being concerned about Iraq until the invasion. But just because I didn't know of it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Do you have a source?

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Here is OBL's 1998 fatwah in which he declares war on America. His first stated reason is our presence in SA, his second was our sanctions of Iraq and his third was our support of Israel.

It's interesting that you thought Israel was the number one reason. It actually had little to do with OBL at the beginning. Since then, he has coopted the palestinian cause, but solely to help his cause.

What is his cause? Well what was charlie manson's cause? Seriously? Some say that OBL really just wants to overthrow the Sauds. Apparently at the outset of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, OBL offered to mobilize his jihadists against Hussein for the Sauds. The Sauds instead went with US support. Since then, OBL has been working for their overthrow.

But really, I think its important for people to STOP looking for a message in Al Qaeda.

The simple fact is, as bad as our foriegn policy might be or might have been in the past, no greater enemy of the arab/muslim community exists than the leaders of the same arab/muslim community. This is a simple fact that just cannot be disputed.

BCB, as an aside, given the interrelation between Saddam, OBL, the Sauds, etc, I don't think Bush saw either as a greater threat. I think he saw the whole situation, including all the actors, as a problem, and it was.

Do I think that Saddam was involved in 911? No. But he clearly supported terror, he made payments to terrorist groups. He was partially the reason (2/3rds the reason) for our beef with al Qaeda. I think Bush decided it was time to clean house over there, and frankly, I don't see a problem with that approach given the history in the region.

boomcrashbaby,

"And it's my understanding that Osama's biggest 'beef' was the U.S. endorsement of Israel, not Iraq. Second biggest beef was the U.S./Saudi connection. I've never heard of Osama being concerned about Iraq until the invasion. But just because I didn't know of it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Do you have a source?"

I believe the means our military presence in Saudi Arabia in order to 'contain' Saddam.

Stop with the labels, my name is James, not Neojames.

What on earth are you talking about, not-Neojames?

Where and when did I label you?

I stated facts: it was a long-term neoconservative policy to remove Saddam using military means. A number of neoconservatives also wrote the policy statement Israeli hard-liner Netanyahu delivered to the U. S. Congress in 1996 (Congress didn't buy it).

The easiest way for you to get up to speed on the neocon issue is to start with the PNAC site and look at the various letters and policy statements they've issued over the years. You might also want to go through a few items I blogged, starting with What the Heck is a "neocon"? - Part I.

Links there lead to Parts II and III, as well as to a variety of sources including the PNAC site.

Are you a neocon supporter? If you are, why be sensitive about it?

Hal, please see the following quotes:

We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"[Saddam] will use these weapons of mass destruction again, as he had 10 times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction"
- Sen Ted Kennedy fall 2002


So clinton, kennedy, berger, and albright, they are all neocons?

I am not a neo con, I am a person with views. Don't try to label me. I agree with Bush on some things, I agree with Kerry on others. Heck, on some rare occassions, I even agree with the likes of Nader or Perot! Does that make me a neo con? I will vote for Bush because I agree with him on the issues that are more important to me. Does that make me a neocon or a neocon supporter? I am not pro-life or anti gay, am I a neo con?

This whole neocon crap is insulting. I am not registered with any party, but I know of two, GOP and Democratic. Maybe Whigg. Which one is the neo con? It's just one of those annoying labels. Lets talk to each other and not the labels we've made for each other!

This whole neocon crap is insulting.

You should direct statements like that to those who label you a neocon, not to me. I don't really care what you think of neocons.

Neoconservatives do exist. They have influenced - and are influencing - U. S. policy. There's no reason not to talk about them and what they have done and are doing.

I guess now OBL should be glad that America invaded Iraq! Sanctions are lifted. We can begin pulling troops out of Saudi territory (no need for containment)........the only thing left is................Support of Israel.

When Al-queda spokesman were asked "What would they do if the American military completely pulled out of the middle east and stopped supporting Israel"? They said.......

"We will follow them to America"!

I don't think Al-queda only wants us to pull out and stop supporting Israel. I believe they want to destroy us or convert us all by force!

Does anyone believe otherwise? No, then know what we are up against.

Boy Shark,

It's an old article and well written, and were it not for someone who spammed your site, I wouldn't write this comment - nor would I have even known to write the comment.