56 Comments

1. Rich:

I will admit to being a “default” supporter of President Bush. He wasn’t my first choice four years ago.

I am continually amused to have the knowledge that no matter how dumb, slow or wrong the President may be about any number of things, he is still a far superior choice to any of the Democratic alternatives.

Even more so when I condiser how the “intellectual superiors” on the left continue to “misunderestimate” him.

Oct 24, 2004 - 1:01 pm 2. heather:

There is a wonderful book entitled, “The Wisdom of Crowds,” by James Surowiecki. It is subtitled: Why the many are smarter than the Few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations.

That Afghani lady is absolutely correct. By definition, a dictatorship (even if run by one of Plato’s Guardians), limits information and decisions to a very few people.

Accidentally, the British common law and respect for contracts; and the American Constitution and federal system, stumbled upon just that: decisions are made by a very wide range of people, and therefore, those decisions are wise.

Oct 24, 2004 - 1:46 pm 3. heather:

Also, since the Democratic party is dominated by people who make their living (and gain status) by expert wordsmithing, naturally, it judges any Republican candidate – especially one who cannot chatter easily, or make sonorous statements – as stupid.

This is a big mistake. I could never understand the Dems opinion about Bush. What on earth did they think he was doing during the Florida 2000 debacle? And – as a students of history – I know that you can judge the quality of a leader by the people he chooses to have around him.

Aside from strong Democrats, Clintonistas and Dukakis supporters, by the way, who in fact is a real true blue Kerry supporter?? I mean, a leader has to have followers, doesn’t he??

Oct 24, 2004 - 1:52 pm 4. Terrye:

Roger:

I too am having difficulty here of late slogging through the same stuff. In fact I find that I can not even watch the talking heads on TV anymore without wanting to throw something at the damn thing. For instance it has been a month since I watched Fox News Sunday because Juan Williams is more trouble than he is worth. yada yada yada…

The old crap about Bush being dumb from people who could never accomplish the things he has and the tired old lefty song and dance from folks who could care less what happens to the Afghan woman you mentioned.

People say that the Eruopeans just hate Bush, not true, they hate democracy. They hate Americans in general. Just go back and read the stuff they were saying long before Iraq.. Indians, the Salem Witch trials, slavery, Viet Nam, WW2 and on and on. They like Kerry better than Bush because they think they can jack him around.

I changed because I got tired of their crap.

The left abroad and more and more the left here behave like bigots. They make assumptions about their rivals that tends to dehumanize them and they assume a moral superiority based on ego not merit.

Oct 24, 2004 - 1:57 pm 5. scaramouoche:

I heard Hitch on CBC radio this morning where he deftly demolished every muddle-headed question hurled at him by squishy-leftist host, Michael Enright. It was a delightful perfomance–smooth, smart, witty and articulate–and it was a pleasure to hear it being broadcast by Canada’s publicly-funded bastion of multi-culti el cubism. Believe me, interviews like this on the Ceeb occur about as regularly as Halley’s Comet.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:06 pm 6. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó Just note: slavery, the Salem Witch Trials and our treatment of the First Americans were all European imports. There wasn’t even an America to blame for them yet.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:29 pm 7. alan aronson:

Hitch’s artilce is probably the weakest I’ve seen touting Bush. Gives more reasons for voting for Kerry/Edwards. Three comments:

1. No, i won’t snicker at the comment by the Afghani physician. Were I in her place I might well feel the same. However she is simply wrong. She lived not so much in a dictatorship as in a failed state and there is a difference. Correct me if I’m wrong when did this become a war on dictatorships? Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to see all the world’s dictatorships go away but we don’t have the ability to make them go away if we only consider the small ones. What about China (and Russia if things continue to go as they have)? One reason I’m voting for Kerry is that his conception of terrorism is closer to reality than Bush’s.

2. “The Kerry camp also rightly excoriates the President and his Cabinet for their near-impeachable irresponsibility in the matter of postwar planning in Iraq.” Hitch seems not to have a problem with rewarding failure and incompetance. I do.

3. CH also wrote: “I take pleasure in advance in the discovery that he will have to make, that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a more dangerous and better-organized foe than Osama bin Laden, and that Zarqawi’s existence is a product of jihadism plus Saddamism, and not of any error of tact on America’s part.”

This one caught my attention as Kevin Drum of “Political Animal” (Oct 22 – link below) recently referenced the issue of Mr. al-Zarqawi and Mr. Bush. Read it for yourselves and perhaps you will come to the conclusion that “near-impeachable” is understating the situation. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004979.php

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:37 pm 8. Tom Grey:

The Afghan woman is right — I changed my own blog title to include: A World Without Dictators.

That is when the WoT will be won, and that is when terrorism will be reduced to, still too frequent, Oklahoma types.

The big first step in a dictatorship should be private property; then a free press.

The US and Israel should be laughing at the EU for supporting Arafat, and the PLA, despite the lack of a free press.

But the Leftist “moral superiority” is based on hate of success, hate of money … hate of Jews and non-conformists. The “Jew” is the outsider, always.

(And the Jews are guilty of wanting to avoid assimilation). But there’s also the now-hypocritical moral superiority of the poor over the rich. And the usual support for the underdog — but what if the underdog is evil?

Afghanistan, a new democracy in about 3 years; Iraq on track to become a democracy in less than 2 years after regime change. Bush is VERY competent, in results.

He could prolly improve his speech “strategy”. I suggest morning or day-before audiences with invited bloggers, who get the story first, and then he repeats it for the DemStream News.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:42 pm 9. ricpic:

Where are our feminists on the tremendous improvement in the lot of their sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I thought they were concerned with women’s status worldwide?

Their silence is defeaning.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:04 pm 10. ricpic:

Oops. Should be deafening.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:07 pm 11. Terrye:

Richard:

I know these things are European imports but Europeans do not. I have discovered they nothing of their own history. In fact in a recent survey the Spanish said one of the many things they disliked about us was our treatment of our natives once upon a time. Now let that sink in. I guess they think the Consquistadors were diplomats.

Alan:

I think the 90’s represented impeacheable incompetence on the part of the Clinton adminstration and while you might yearn for the good old days when the Taliban was shooting women in Afghanistan I don’t and neither do the Afhgans.

The thing that amazes me the most is the capacity of the left to on one hand justify tolerating dictatorships of every kind while at the same time criticizing the government for tolerating dictators. It is a convoluted contrary and ridiculous notion.

If you want to go that way just say you will vote for Kerry because he is more likely to pander to the dictators with the oil and you want cheap gas. I think the stock market might agree with you there.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:20 pm 12. Charlie (Colorado):

Alan, the problem with the whole “near impeachable irresponsibility” argument is that you’re asserting this irresponsibility for a post-war period that was, by every objective measure I can think of, as amazing a success as the active war was. We conquered a country in a few weeks, with fewer civilian casualties total than sometimes happened in single days in WWII or Korea, and with fewer military casualties than we endured in a single training accident preparing for Omaha Beach; even with the civilian casualties, we reduced the civilian death rate by a factor of three or four over Saddam’s regime; the economy of Iraq has recovered more in a year than Germany’s economy recovered in five; there is a generally popular and accepted interim government; and there is every reason to believe that there will be popular elections in January.

Can we imagine, after the fact, that some of these might have been done better? Sure. We can also see, after the fact, that we’d have been better off not to elect Jimmy Carter. Lack of prescience is not a crime.

Nor is a lack of a sense of history and proportion — but it’s certainly nothing to be encouraged.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:29 pm 13. Charlie (Colorado):

…while you might yearn for the good old days when the Taliban was shooting women in Afghanistan I don’t and neither do the Afhgans.

What she said.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:30 pm 14. Cap'n Billy:

Re: alan aronson at October 24, 2004 02:37 PM

Your links and arguments are unconvincing, Sir, in fact not worthy of consideration. No war is waged perfectly, and all kinds of decisions have to be made with information at hand, some good some bad. Drum’s hindsight is worthless, as are your comments. As has been mentioned in these pages before, under your standards FDR, Eisenhower, Churchill and numerous other architects of our victory in WWII would have been removed from office after about the first year and we would be speaking German, Japanese and performing slave labor in the rice paddies and Volkswagen factories today. One of the stupidest statements made in this wretched campaign is Kerry’s assertion that we should not have gone to war without a plan to win the peace. Pure twaddle, as are your posts.

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:51 pm 15. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó Yes, everyone knows those Dutch and English settlers who founded Los Angeles and San Francisco were just icky towards the poor natives.

Roger ó League of Apostate Gentlemen (and Ladies), eh? Well here’s hoping you apostates can feed the true believers of the Democratic party a diet of worms on November 2.

Hey, if you can make Michael Moore and Hemingway jokes….

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:53 pm 16. richard mcenroe:

Can anybody tell me when our plan for winning the peace in Europe went so horribly wrong?

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:54 pm 17. richard mcenroe:

Crap. ALAN Moore jokes….

Oct 24, 2004 - 3:55 pm 18. Charlie (Colorado):

Credo.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:03 pm 19. Charlie (Colorado):

Also published as a full-page ad in the Washington post.

(Okay, I’d quibble with a couple of his points … but only a couple.)

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:03 pm 20. RogerA:

Mr. Aronson: “near impeachable?” If you believe that, sir, seek professional help. By my reckoning, the Afghanistan elections represent a major victory in the war on terror. The Taliban and UBL, both assumed to be in control in Afghanistan are reduced to impotence (and this is one good reason, BTW, for the Bush administration not asserting UBL is now dead). The Arab world sees the prototypical jihadists reduced to impotence and a Moslem state freely electing their own government. That too will come to pass in Iraq in January. I am thankful, as others have pointed out on this thread, that you were not voting in 1944 following the allied setbacks in WWII. This adminstration has a strategic vision while the critics of the Bush adminstration seem to think success is what we did in the Balkans–bombing from 30,000 feet, not producing casualties, and still not draining the Balkan swamp.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:06 pm 21. Terrye:

Today Zarqawi took credit for the execution deaths of the Iraqi National Guardsmen. Some say it was an inside job. I say why were they unarmed?

These kinds of things happen and they are not Bush’s fault. I think the problem is the anti war people blame Bush for every problem encountered in that sad country but rarely take note of the obvious. Zarqawi was invited into that country by Saddam Hussein. He was given medical treatment and training and money and protection and he is doing exactly what he was brought there to do: Kill people. Now you can either blame Bush for the fact that awful things like this happen or you can blame the murdering son of a bitch that did the deed.

This should not be a hard choice.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:33 pm 22. richard mcenroe:

Charlie(Colorado) ó Quibble away, but I think we agree, that guy would make a better neighbor ó and role model for our kids ó than most college professors, lawyers and “progressives” you’re likely to meet.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:41 pm 23. Rick Ballard:

Richard,

I’d really quibble with you on “most” in your last comment. “Many” would be much more accurate.

Aside from that, the Credo ad was obviously paid for by fat-cat Republicans. Soros, Bing and Peters all say so and you know we can trust them.

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:13 pm 24. Charlie (Colorado):

Richard: Oh, yeah, but “credo” is the first person singular, “I believe“; I don’t necessarily believe every last word.

But close.

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:23 pm 25. Jamie Irons:

Charlie

Since he repeatedly says “WHAT I AM…”

shouldn’t it be sum rather than credo?

Jamie Irons

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:30 pm 26. Charlie (Colorado):

Jamie — Him yes, me no.

But where else can you find arguments about Latin grammar on the political blogs?

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:33 pm 27. richard mcenroe:

PeterUK ó Is the Telegraph website down?

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:43 pm 28. Rick Ballard:

Charlie (C),

I hope that you, Jamie and RogerA are working on suitable victory haiku for Nov. 3.

Everyone should also be thinking about a good “Dead Parrot” sketch too, although matching Richard’s bin Laden riff will be very difficult.

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:56 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

Someone please confirm for me that Alan Aaronson actually just told the woman who lived under a dictatorship (actually several serial dictatorships) in Afghanistan, that she was wrong about living in a dictatorship?!

Is the attitude that will sustain the Great White Father Kerry as he rebuilds all our sundered alliances? “I’m sorry, naive little brown person, I know you think you need seed grain to replace the crops you lost in the drought, but you see, it’s really much more important that we ratify Kyoto first…”

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:12 pm 30. Terrye:

ricahrd:

Yes indeedy that is what the man, woman, sheep, whatever said.

Why should the Afghan woman have all the fun? I am sure there is a dictatorship somewhere that would love to take alan in.

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:30 pm 31. Charlie (Colorado):

Haiku:

Bush repeatedly

misunderestimated

Democrats will plotz.

More of a hoku, really, but what the hell.

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:31 pm 32. Roberts:

Criticisms of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war such as those parroted by Aronson are simply laughable.

Such “critics” have no credibility with me whatsoever, their standards of perfection in the conduct of war operations – the very model of chaos and friction – are so inherently stupid as to make their very sanity questionable. Of course, the real answer is not that they are insane but rather brazenly dishonest.

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:38 pm 33. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó But do you think people like that are even aware of the sheer insularity and racism they’re demonstrating? For all their talk about multiculturalism and tolerance, they feel not the slightest hesitation in telling this woman that the reality she’s lived with on the ground her entire life simply isn’t so, and why? Because they have access to the nice white men in New York who tell them differently?

And yet they get so snippy if you call them bigots.

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:41 pm 34. Charlie (Colorado):

haiku:

Autumn election

cadaverous candidate

recalls Viet Nam.

At least this one has a kigo.

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:51 pm 35. Charlie (Colorado):

You know, Richard, I remember that bothering me even in the 70’s — I guess from the first time my father pointed it out. (I was an Environmentalist, Dick Lamm, Paul Ehrlich, Club of Rome, the whole bit, at least for a while.) I was on the organizing committee for the first Earth Day in Pueblo, and one of the things we were very active doing was trying to forbid cars in City Park on weekends.

The problem — as my father pointed out — was that it was a very common thing for the hispanics in Pueblo to go to the park, find a place to park, and spend hot summer days out there. Since there was effectively no parking around the park, the ban we suggested would eliminate this.

Once I was sensitized to it, I noticed that over and over again the “liberal” schemes came down to explaining why a “liberal” ought to run things and Knew Better.

Those of you who recall my stories of being descended of bank robbers and Indian badmen may guess that the Knew Better part didn’t sit well.

Oct 24, 2004 - 6:57 pm 36. Charlie (Colorado):

Maybe a double dactyl?

Higgeldy piggeldy

Cadaverous candidate

… damn.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:14 pm 37. Sandy P:

–Can anybody tell me when our plan for winning the peace in Europe went so horribly wrong?–

When we didn’t act like the Empire they think we are and impose parts if not all of our Constitution, IMHO.

And when we didn’t neuter a certain )$(*%* little country. The’ve been stirring the pot for 225 years, and I, for one, am getting fed up.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:20 pm 38. Rick Ballard:

Barren fall branches

brilliant second day sunrise

bleak Back Bay despair

Maybe too much accidental alliteration.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:23 pm 39. Sandy P:

Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, have free health care and 100% education.

Or something like that from John Derbyshire.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:23 pm 40. DennisThePeasant:

Alan Aronson-

Wow. Stupid like that doesn’t come around here very often any more.

Do you actually have a passing acquaintance with the concept of what constitutes an impeachable offense? I know the constitution uses big words (bigger than those used by Kevin Drum, for damn sure) and is written above the level of 6th graders in your favorite multi-cultural magnet school, but if you’re going to go out in public and shill for Bullwinkle J. Clouseau, you really ought to invest enough time and effort to sound smarter than Matt Damon in Team America.

And by now you ought to know that Kevin Drum is the blogger’s version of Juan Williams…unnervingly earnest and dumber than a fencepost. If you’re spending your time reading Kevin Drum and going “Gee, that’s a good point…wish I’d thought of that”, you’re now officially at the wrong website. Both Roger and a number of the commenters here have quite elegently debunked the ‘incompetence in Iraq’ trope making the rounds amongst those Anti-Liberationistas lacking the intellectual and moral courage to publicly fly their flags in sympathy with Saddam Hussein and his fellow fascist dictators.

So please spare us this kind of nonsense, if we all shaved 25 points of our I.Q.s, we’d be at Kevin Drum’s blog right now. We aren’t though, and perhaps that is something you should give some thought to.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:34 pm 41. Charlie (Colorado):

“Hokku”.

Dammit.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:40 pm 42. Charlie (Colorado):

Haiku:

Dennis the Peasant

Disposes of idiots.

Satisfying crunch.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:43 pm 43. DennisThePeasant:

Oh, and Alan…

When you say something like this…

No, i won’t snicker at the comment by the Afghani physician. Were I in her place I might well feel the same. However she is simply wrong. She lived not so much in a dictatorship as in a failed state and there is a difference.

…I can only note that (a) you do not tell us what that critical “difference” is, and (b) you do explain, assuming this supposed “difference” does exist, why it would disqualify action against either a failed state of a dictatorship that constituted a threat to the security of either the United States or the nations of the Middle East and/or Asia.

So basically, it appears you’re whipping out some smug Kerry-esque bullshit/nuance to get around a few inconvenient facts.

For example, labelling Afghanistan a ‘failed state’, as opposed to a ‘dictatorship’ does not change the fact that the leadership of that failed state/dictatorship gave aid and sanctuary to al-Qaeda and OBL, disenfranchised and enslaved the nation’s entire female population, actively persecuted religious minorities, sanctioned and protected a huge illegal drug trade, and attempted to facilitate the destabilization of any number of nations which in no way constituted a threat to its’ own existence.

Now, if you want to try out a nuanced explanation to this simpleminded Republican as to how executing women without trial in a soccer statium is a fundamentally different event when occuring in a ‘failed state’ as opposed to a ‘dictatorship’, I’m all ears.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:57 pm 44. DennisThePeasant:

Charlie-

Satisfying crunch indeed. I haven’t tossed a troll in a month. God, that felt good…

I love the smell of naplam in the morning.

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:02 pm 45. alan aronson:

I Feel the Love

“Of course, the real answer is not that they are insane but rather brazenly dishonest.” Roberts

“Wow. Stupid like that doesn’t come around here very often any more.” DennisThePeasant

——————————————–

Hey folks, “near impeachable” was Hitchen’s phrase; I was only agreeing with him. Again the difference is that he is willing to reward failure and incompetence and I am not.

And, in the end, impeachable is whatever the House says it is.

Syria is a dictatorship. Iraq was a dictatorship. The Taliban created a failed state. There is a difference. A failure to comprehend this difference is one of the reasons why Bush will fail at dealing with terrorism. Hence I am voting for Kerry.

Shinseki and others called it right prior to the invasion so the “hindsight” arguments don’t work. The reality is that this Administration went into Irag with a bunch of best case assumptions and an inability to deal with a reality that failed to conform to those assumptions. This isn’t planning it’s wishing.

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:12 pm 46. doug b:

Heather,

“Accidentally, the British common law and respect for contracts; and the American Constitution and federal system, stumbled upon just that: decisions are made by a very wide range of people, and therefore, those decisions are wise.”

That doesn’t give the founders the credit they deserve. Madison, et al weren’t “stumbling” towards a decentralized system.

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:13 pm 47. Yehudit:

“(And the Jews are guilty of wanting to avoid assimilation).”

Guilty as charged. And so is every other ethnic group in this country. That’s what’s so great about America. Why on earth should we all be melted down into some grey pea soup? My culture is beautiful and deep and gives my soul great sustenance, and is available to anyone who wants to join. There are lots of “Intro to Judaism” classes in any city, open to all, usually at local synagogues or JCCs. Check us out sometime.

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:32 pm 48. flenser:

aronson …

Geez, what a moron.

Is there a lawyer in the house? Not a setup for a joke, I’m afraid. Powerline has a story of Ted Kennedy campiagning in a back church in Florida, urging people to vote for Kerry. Includes pics of people in pews with Kedwards literature in hand. This cannot be legal, can it?

While you people were playing with the dumbot, I’ve been having a chat with that rarest of birds, the well intentioned lefty, on the Stolen Honor thread. He actually attempts to make arguments, and responds to those made to him. Totally freaked me out.

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:36 pm 49. richard mcenroe:

I guess Aron decided his own racism was too self-evident to debate?

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:23 pm 50. holdfast:

a.a. (hole)

Though Hitch is certainly a gifted writer, I’m not sure that a Pommy journo is what I’d call a subject matter expert on the US Constitution and impeachable offences thereunder. I’m pretty sure that the constitution was designed so that the “crime” of incompetence would be punished at the ballot box. The framers were a smart bunch of guys, and your candidate, JF’nK should give thanks every day to the god that may or may not exist, depending on the audience, that those framers set an incredibly high bar for treason (perhaps too high…)

Oh, and the problem with the initial looting wasn’t a lack of troops or the lack of a plan- it was a lack of will. Shooting a few dozen pour encourager les autreux (sp?) would have done the trick nicely, but probably would have resulted in impeachment proceedings. Absent the will to do enforce a harsh martial law, it would not have mattered how many troops there were standing around with their thums up their ass. You lefty types want a bloodless war fought with beanbags and nerf bats – as well as instant and overwhelming victor – and it ain’t gonna happen.

Now run back to the daily Kos and complain that you can’t get laid because the Bushitler and Heinrich Ashcroft have created a “climate of fear in this country.”

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:31 pm 51. Jamie Irons:

I think I detect an interesting, nuanced shift emerging in the left’s arguments about Iraq and the WoT generally.

The latest complaint seems to be “Well, Bush didn’t do the war well enough. We could have done it better.”

Isn’t this a dying gasp?

Could it be that it is dawning on these people that all the carping, goal-post-moving, bad-mouthing, wolf-crying, history-revising really isn’t taking them anywhere?

Maybe, now that Karzai is elected, and Iraq has a prospect of having successful elections in January…maybe, just maybe, it is starting to dawn on these defeatists that they were wrong?

Jamie Irons

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:55 pm 52. alan aronson:

Dennis, I thought you didn’t know the difference. There are plenty of resources on this. Look it up.

Do you believe we invaded Afghanstan to stop the execution of women? Women are currently on line to be stoned in Nigeria. Do you advocate invading that country? If you do with what army? Ours is currently tied up. Would you share with us your record of advocacy for Afghani women prior to 9/11? Were you even aware of the situation in that country?

You also assume too much. I supported Afghanistan and am happy to see the Taliban gone (and dead to the extent that has been accomplished).

Failed states provide a nurturing habitat for terrorists that run of the mill dictatorships don’t (dictators tend to frown on alternative power bases). We, of course, have the right to go where we are threatened. I don’t believe I ever said anything to the contrary.

Given the link between the Taliban and AQ, they needed what they got. It is now well established that no such link existed with Iraq. Hence Iraq was optional and as the costs in blood and treasure rise it is no longer sufficient to justify the war by the removal of Saddam alone.

Now before you go on another round of assuming. It is a good thing that Saddam is gone as well as his two worthless sons however the world is full of unpleasant dictators and we aren’t going to get rid of all of them.

It is clear that our invasion of Afghanistan resulted in a net saving of lives. As the death toll of Iraqis rises the benefit of a premature removal necessarily falls.

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:17 pm 53. Charlie (Colorado):

Given the link between the Taliban and AQ, they needed what they got. It is now well established that no such link existed with Iraq.

Oh, nonsense.

See, this is once again the “blindly repeat the meme” behavior. The 9/11 and Senate Intel Committee reports — as well as any number of stories in the press and other reports — clearly establish that there was (1) an open connection between Saddam and terrorism, such as Saddam’s harboring abu Nidal and funding the terrorist factions among the Palestinians, and (2) clear connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. What the actual reports said was that there was no operational co-ordination between Saddam and al Qaeda.

It’s not like the reports are hard to find, hard to read, or, for that matter, hard to search if you don’t want to read the whole thing. (Although the 9/11 Commisssion report is actually a pretty good read.)

But Terry McAuliffe says “no connection”, Carl Levin repeats is, and we get this firing rule established that says “iraq war” ⇒ “no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda”.

Oct 25, 2004 - 1:06 am 54. Charlie (Colorado):

Sorry, should have caught this in the last post:

Shinseki and others called it right prior to the invasion so the “hindsight” arguments don’t work. The reality is that this Administration went into Irag with a bunch of best case assumptions and an inability to deal with a reality that failed to conform to those assumptions. This isn’t planning it’s wishing.

What Shinseki actually said was that he thought it would take 250,000 troops to invade Iraq, and about the same number to maintain order. Since his estimate for the invasion was wrong, why do you think the other estimate is right?

Your whole argument presumes the assertion that the way the Iraq War has gone has been an unmitigated disaster. There just really is no sensible evidence for that if you have any sort of historical perspective about what wars are like, from Zama to Kosovo. This is all predicated on the notion that Iraq is unusually unstable — but if you look at actual data or at the reports of people on the ground outside of the Bagdad Sheraton, it turns out not to be true. Most of the country is quite stable; several pockets of resistence have been eliminated, Sadr City is rapidly cleaning up as al Sadr decides he’d rather be a politician than a corpse, and it’s rapidly becoming a high-risk occupation to be an “insurgent” because the Iraqi people have about had it with them: they keep turning up dead in places like Fallujah.

Oct 25, 2004 - 1:30 am 55. DennisThePeasant:

Alan-

If you’re feeling love, it’s time to put your hands on the keyboard and leave them there. Better yet, put then on the table and leave the keyboard alone.

I couldn’t help notice that you have taken the well-worn path so often used by genus Leftus Dimwitus when confronted with the task of explaining, clearly and logically, what their yammering actually means…”Look it up”. Well, there really isn’t much to look up because the ‘difference’ to which you allude is little more than a rhetorical device intended to impart an aura of thoughtfulness and knowledge that doesn’t actually exist.

You may think saying things like

Failed states provide a nurturing habitat for terrorists that run of the mill dictatorships don’t (dictators tend to frown on alternative power bases).

can get you a respectful hearing around here, but in fact it fails, and fails badly, the standard laugh test for anyone remotely acquainted with the USSR’s extensive efforts throughout the Cold War organizing, arming and financing terrorist organizations throughout the world, and most certainly in the Middle East. If you wish to argue that the USSR should be considered a ‘failed state’, by all means do so. It can’t be any more embarrassing than what you are arguing now. The simple fact is that there is no particular reason to believe that ‘failed states’ and ‘dictatorships’, in and of themselves, view the sponsorship of terrorism in differing terms. Your rationale for stating so is beyond nebulous.

And Alan, please don’t start in with the ‘I never said it” routine. It also constitutes another well-worn path for Leftus Dimwitus. The simple fact of the matter, on explained quite well in one of Roger’s posts several days ago, is that we do not have enough meaningful information to properly assess whether US involvement in Iraq has been competently managed or not. Those without initiate and detailed knowledge of all the facts and the specialized training to evaluate those facts, such as yourself, do not make claims of incompetence by the Bush Administration out of knowledge or good faith. They make the claim because they have in the past, and continue to now oppose all efforts by the US and the Bush Administration to combat the intertwined evils of terrorist organizations and the governments (dictatorships and the war lords of ‘failed states’) that enable those organizations.

The reality of the matter is that you have neither the courage of your convictions nor the inherent honesty to declare yourself. On the one hand you claim to support the overthrow of the Taliban and the removal of Saddam, and on the other you condemn and damn those who have done the deed for not meeting a standard in excution that is wholly the making of your own imagination. Do you really think this is the first time we’ve had an Anti-Liberationista try this particular dodge on us?

You remind me so much of the US Sandalistas who so vocally supported ‘democracy’ in Nicaragua until the day came when the Nicaragua people used their new-found democratic prossess to evict the Sandinistas from power. Magically, and overnight, the Sandalistas lost all interest in Nicaragua, the Nicaraguan people and Nicaraguan ‘democracy’…because to them democracy was only interesting when it worked their way. In the same vein, Afghanistan and Iraq interests you only to the extent events in either country can be used to criticize and condemn the Bush Administration. That is as transparently obvious as any song of praise given Daniel Ortega by any Leftus Dimwitus those decades ago.

Oct 25, 2004 - 4:09 am 56. Bostonian:

Heather, I just began reading that book (The Wisdom of Crowds,” by James Surowiecki) myself. It is quite wonderful.

Oct 25, 2004 - 11:49 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: