Exactly!

a short but emphatic affirmation - thanks Dawn

Excellent post.

Actually, i think the fact that we found no WMD's makes the "example" we made of Iraq even more compelling. That is, we went in and "blew up shit" based on a suspicion that turned out to be mistaken.

This probably means we aren't the best neighbors in the world, but also aren't people you particularly want to fuck with, either. The idea that we don't need definitive proof to take action, means that these dirtbag Islamo-facist states need to remain above suspicion in order to remain in power.

That's why it would be a terrible idea for Bush to admit that we were wrong to invade Iraq, as so much of the media would love him to do. (Kerry, whatever else i think of him, has not done this either). Our position should be that Sadam got what he deserved, and anyone else who forces us to act in a borderline irrational and semi-unprovoked manner will as well.

So Fear and Smear works for you as an election strategy? It's funny that the Republicans try to lean on Reagan's image as Republican's being optimistic and hopeful, yet the Republican's want you scared and fearful. If you really believe that the war against terror is already lost, if you believe that the only way to get freedom is to give up your civil rights. If you believe fighting any war, any where is a "fight against terrorism", well I guess the Republican's have got you right where they want you.

If you believe in America, if you think believing in freedom and fairness as being more powerful than fear and terror, you might reconsider. Are you really safer after the war on Iraq? Are you safer from weapons of mass distruction? (what weapons?) Are you safer from those who harbor terrorism? (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan harbored more terrorists than Iraq) Are you safer from Al Qaeda?(we had to pull forces from the search for bin Laden to attack Iraq) Are you safer at home? (The cost of the war in Iraq would have paid for a lot of shipping container inspectors).

But if you are scared, it's hard to even think about what might be the best way to defend yourself from what you are scared of. Better to rely on authority than to make your own judgements.

When it comes to fear, re-elect George Bush and you will have:

Four More Years!!
Four More Years!!
Four More Years!!

thib, yes, sadly, there are times when being perceived as dangerous and borderline rational is preferable to stable and predictable, and this is most assuredly one of those times.

BTP, I am not sure who you think wants me to be scared and fearful, but I don't believe it is the administration. They want you to be realistic and realize that there is time for offense and time for defense and now is the time for offense. Of course we need to all we can to protect ourselves at home, but it is equally important to keep those who hate us back on their heels.

I addressed WMD, al Qaeda vs. Iraq, etc., in the post and said these are valid points, but they are secondary if you buy into the larger scenario, which I do, that we had to go somewhere (after Afghanistan) and Iraq was by far the most logical and practical place to go.

The specific reasons for why Iraq was not the right place to go pale in comparison to the simple fact that Iraq was the ONLY place to go.

It's ironic that swing voters believe the war on terror and Bush's blind determinism is what will win him the election.

The quickvote on CNN's front page asks people what Bush needs to focus on, to win reelection. The economy is the number one choice, totalling more than the War in Iraq and national security combined.

You say Kerry has a more 'reasonable and measured' outlook at the war on terror than Bush does. Perhaps the majority of Americans do as well? (conceded the inevitable response - at least the majority of CNN viewers).

Reasonable and measurement often wins the race where blind, rash judgement often fails.

(as an aside, this entire page is a link for the equalvision banner ad? is the 'end link' tag missing?)

BCB, it appears the tag is fixed - thanks for the heads up.

By now we both know we aren't going to agree on where the War on Terror stands in the priorities list, who will best lead it, or even what it consists of - I presume you don't see Iraq as a legitimate part of that war.

I think you will find that there are an awful lot of people for whom this is, when push comes to shove, the defining issue, even if they don't say it now, and ultimately it comes down to who will pursue it with more vigor. The question is not has Bush pursued it perfectly because the answer is obviously no, but Bush has shown that he will not be dissuaded from pursuing it, and this is not assured from Kerry: the subtext of all his speaking on the matter is that of reluctance and equivocation.

Maybe it's a macintosh thing?

I do think that where the war on terror stands in the priorities list will be different for different people. It will be of utmost importance for millions, I'm sure.

I presume you don't see Iraq as a legitimate part of that war.

I don't know if legitimate is the word I would use. Yes, Saddam was a threat. Yes, there were terror camps in Iraq. But I remember clearly our troops marching on Baghdad unimpeded. I remember Saddam cowering in a hole. I remember no WMD were found. So my perspective is that we turned from attacking the queen or the king, and devoted a hell of a lot of resources to taking down the rook. Yeah, sure, taking down the rook helps us, but where we will disagree I guess is if Saddam was the rook (my perception) or the queen (sounds like your perception?)

this is not assured from Kerry: the subtext of all his speaking on the matter is that of reluctance and equivocation.

Kerry has a very detailed plan, broken down into steps as to how to handle National Security, Homeland Security and the Global War on Terror on his website. It is far more detailed and matter-of-fact than anything I have heard from Bush. It goes way beyond the entire Bush concept of 'take the fighting to them'. Kerry talks about what he plans to do to our airline industry, our ports, our alliances with other nations, etc. It's very detailed and very proactive. I don't see how America isn't getting his message?

"None of the specific reasons for why Iraq was not the right place to go pale in comparison to the simple fact that Iraq was the ONLY place to go"

Huh? Could you elaborate on that? Did I miss something or weren't the majority of terrorists from Saudi Arabia? Didn't the administration have to blank out several pages of financial ties between Saudi Arabia and the terrorists?

Wouldn't Saudi Arabia be the number one target if we were going after Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? Or do you think that people who attacked on 9-11 were just generic Arabs (not even to mention that they might be Persians and not Arabs at all)? So fighting any generic Arab back is good?

Part of fighting an enemy is to at least recognize who you enemy is. Our enemy is NOT every country not name Israel between Spain and the Congo?

First, that was a really crappy sentence, should have read: "The specific reasons for why Iraq was not the right place to go pale in comparison to the simple fact that Iraq was the ONLY place to go."

The point is it was not remotely possible to invade Saudi Arabia, whose government is ostensibly our ally, who keep order in the petro-world, the home of fucking Mecca, etc - might be a very satisfying thing to do but just not possible on many levels. They suck, we know it, but they don't suck visibly enough to justify blowing them up.

To move over to BCB's question for a moment about Saddam: yes he appears to have been a rook, but a really stinking bad rook who puffed himself up to queenly appearance and publicly defied the will of the rest of the earth.

And so, back to BTP, yes, generic Arabs were exactly who we needed to blow up, and due to his ongoing belligerence, the vileness of his regime, his record of aggression, the geography of Iraq, and the country's status as a world pariah, the rat bastard won the lottery and got to be the generic Arab we blew up and chased down a hole.

Eric, I think you are being remarkably flippant about the death we are dealing to innocent people. What you call "blowing people up" makes these people dead.
Kids and women too.
The idea that we went into Iraq because "it was the only place to go" is sickening to me. As if killing was not only the point of the exercise, but that not killing isn't even a possibility worth considering.

Maybe now we've killed enough Afghanis and Iraqis to satisfy everyone.

Perhaps so, there is no question I am speaking abstractly and in a flippant tone, but I am trying to force a recognition that what the War on Terror is really about is changing an entire mindset that has led directly and repeatedly to the death of Americans and many many others, and military action is a 100% necessary component of changing that mindset.

I do not wish to see innocents, women and children least of all, harmed. I believe within the violent and often arbitrary arena of armed conflict, we have done our very best to avoid harming innocents.

But the military action has been necessary: we were attacked by a way of thinking and that way of thinking must be attacked physically, mentally, emotionally, politically, diplomatically, and culturally.

War is hell, and we didn't start it.

Look Cancer, pinkos keep carefully missing the point with the really BOGUS complaints about US killing innocents in Iraq.

Eric, I think you are being remarkably flippant about the death we are dealing to innocent people. What you call "blowing people up" makes these people dead.

Yes, it's unfortunate that ANY innocent people get killed, but their blood is on the hands of the gang of thugs that we had to go in after.

Moreover, you must know that we have STOPPED a bunch of killing. We've accidentally killed a few people in the process of stopping Hussein from killing more hundreds of thousands.

If you're going to try to hold US responsible for killing innocents, then give us the credit for saving tens of thousands from the rape rooms, kiddie prisons, and mass graves.

There might be some partly reasonable argument against the war based on saying that there was not sufficient US defensive purpose to justify the money and American lives lost.

You're completely running without any reasonable basis, however, to say that what we've done is bad because it hurt the Iraqi people. That's just ridiculous.