Is freedom the antidote to terrorism? President Bush hangs his foreign policy on an affirmative answer to this question, calling the removal of non-democratic regimes "the urgent requirement of our nation's security." Natan Sharansky wrote a whole book based on this premise. "In an age of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism," the Israeli politician writes, "the dangers of ignoring the absence of democracy in any part of the world have increased dramatically." If only it were so easy to erase the ugly reality of terrorism with an abstraction.

The four suspected London terrorists who sacrificed their lives so that others might die did not grow up under tyranny. One was born in a country so free that its citizens smoke marijuana openly, while the other three were longtime residents of West Yorkshire--not heretofore spoken of in the same breath as Islamabad or Mecca. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's murderer is a Dutch citizen, raised in a nation that is perhaps the furthest thing on earth to the mullahcracies and strongman states that pollute the Middle East. Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh, would-be shoebomber Richard Reid, and the Weather Underground partook in acts of terrorism despite hailing from free countries. Even the 9/11 hijackers tasted freedom and found it not to their liking.

Ask a proponent of the freedom-as-inoculation-against-terrorism theory what the two freest nations in the Middle East are. Then ask what two Middle Eastern nations are most beset by terrorism. That these different questions should yield the same answers should be enough to raise new questions about the theory's relevance.

This is one of the most important and well-phrased posts on this blog. Apologies in advance if my remarks are a little "huffy".

Taking cues from Sharansky, and also Victor Hanson, Daniel Pipes, and exposers of the "New Anti-Semitism", I sympathize strongly with the attitude that, in the face of global state rivals like China and India, and non-state enemies like al-Qaeda (and its offshoots), liberal capitalism, led by the US of A, has to muscularly assert itself - economically, philosophically, etc. - in parts of the globe where other systems have collapsed or are weak.

Particular details must be ironed out. For example, was "Operation Iraqi Freedom" truly a "brain fart" (in the words of retired Marine General and former Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni)? and Did the Pentagon underestimate the number of troops required to secure Iraq (as retired General Eric Shinseki clearly stated)? But these questions must be posed as constructive, committed criticism, not sly Leftist-dressed-up-as-liberal "dissent". In other words, with a clear bipartisan commitment.

One thing I do believe is that we ordinary Americans can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't fight a war on terror and whine because gas prices are relatively high (still lower than in Europe). Yet we can't boast about nation-building without a clear, even fierce, commitment to curtailing, e.g., runaway profiteering by some Americans and honor killings by Iraqis. Americans need to demonstrate sincere grief and outrage that Iraqi civilians are being murdered by the dozens, and devout Muslims need to demonstrate the same over bombing victims of London and Madrid.

Freedom, as Dan points out, is always vulnerable to abuse. So at the same time we would do well to extol other civic virtues like service and self-restraint.

Bush's mumbo jumbo about spreading "freedom" is just a grand rationalization for not finding WMD stockpiles in Iraq. I don't take it seriously.

Is freedom the cure all end all elixer to terrorism? No. Will it eliminate a vast portion of the problem? Yes.

Look at the amount of Muslims living in Britain who reguarly committ suicide attacks, and then look at the amount of Muslims living in Saudi Arabia.

The U.S? Palestine? Germany? Egypt?

It is uncomparable.

Eric, WMD stockpiles was the rationale for sending UN inspectors. The casus belli was Saddam's refusal to comply with UNSC Resolution 1441, which violated the conditional cease fire he had signed with the U.S. You continuously claim in the past that he did indeed comply with 1441, you have bene shown numerous times to simply be lying.

Did the Weather Underground ever kill anyone? If not that would seem to be at least one striking difference of some homegrown terrorist groups and that of the islamic fundamentalist variety. I don't believe the Earth Liberation Front has killed anyone either.

Provocative post. My short answer is that, while disaffected youth can be found in every society, and some of them can be moved to commit terrorist acts; the idealogy, the educational systems that disseminate it, the finances and the logistics that support these acts, are provided by rogue states who's policies would be difficult if not impossible to maintain in the open environment a free society provides. My belief is that a proliferation of free and open societies, while not eliminating terrorism, will decrease its frequency and more importantly, its scope and effect.

Dan points out that the two freest societies in the ME are the most beset by terrorism. I would argue that it is precisely beacause they are relatively free societies surrounded by non-democratic, terrorist-sponsoring societies that fear their freedoms - that that is the case. Take away their resentful neighbors, and replace them with like-minded states, and you largely take away the terror.

Obi Juan: The Weathermen killed three of their own members when a bomb they were working on--intended for a soldiers' dance at Fort Dix--detonated in the posh Manhattan townhouse they were crashing in. In the early '80s, Kathy Boudin, a Weather Underground leader, was convicted of murder. She was involved in a Brinks robbery in Nyack, New York that resulted in the deaths of three people. At that point the Weather Underground really didn't exist (or consisted of Kathy and her boyfriend), so perhaps we can't pin those murders on them. But we can say they killed three of their own in the townhouse.

Eric - "Bush's mumbo jumbo about spreading 'freedom' is just a grand rationalization for not finding WMD stockpiles in Iraq."

Replace "rationalization" with "political replacement" and we're in agreement.

Here's a question for you, Eric: Which is preferable, Bush's grand rationalization or a Kerry presidency. For without the one, we would surely have the other.

I agree with Eric’s short post. My take on it was that Bush put himself in a position to have to save face after not finding WMD’s of any significance. And when it was clear that he was wrong for going in the first place, he used the installation of democracy as the key to Iraqi freedom and the reason for our extended stay in that country. It was and remains very poor spin to mask a mistake.

Anyway, WE (the U.S.) are incapable of solving all of the World’s ills. Especially by pushing democracy on countries that don’t have it, don’t understand it, and may not want it.

We need to take care of our own business whilst protecting our country from within and, only if necessary, go abroad when our interests overseas are threatened.

Nobody claimed that we are. However most serious foreign policy strategists know that if the US wants to make any actual progres in the Middle East we need to help reform the region. Likewise, the vast majority of serious foreign policy strategists know that attempting to reform the Middle East with Saddam Hussein sitting in the seat of power in Baghdad is folly.

That is why I supported the war.

Swede makes a couple great points. I would suggest one addition. "Free and open" are not enough. Societies must also offer an alternative political view that is compelling enough that the consensus of public opinion in these societies will not sympathize with the terrorists. The "enlightened multiculturalist" position (so common in Europe and in our academy) that we must "keep religion out of politics" will not cut it. The traditional American position, where the citizen informs his vote and his actions by reflecting on what God wants, can be the basis of such a vision.

The "enlightened multiculturalist" position (so common in Europe and in our academy) that we must "keep religion out of politics" will not cut it. The traditional American position, where the citizen informs his vote and his actions by reflecting on what God wants, can be the basis of such a vision.

Doc, I believe in God. But, please re-think this view as it relates to the Middle East. I think the last thing we need are Muslims who are even more religious.

I understand that there appears to be much in Islam which seems to make its coexistence with other belief systems problematic. If by "more religious" you mean "more attached to their heretical ways" I agree with you.

My response is not that they become "more religious" in the sense that they delegate more power to religious leaders, but that they become "more religious" by individually reflecting more on what their religion requires of them politically.

Since, like all men, their reason is connected to their self-love, if there is anything in Islam which can be construed to allow them to co-exist with others, it will be drawn out and emphasized. Trying to seduce them with material goods and pleasures will only make their self-hatred and their hatred of us greater.

If, God forbid, there is not enough in Islam on which to build a peaceful, just, coexistence, we will at least have an identified enemy to fight. If democratically-elected Islamic governments consistently choose terror, then defeating those governments militarily will strike at such an Islam in a way that defeating dictators will not.

The "enlightened multicultural" alternative means a non-symmetrical fight where they will inflict a "death of a thousand cuts" on us and we can never even punch them back.

http://www.zenit.org/english/

There have been some very thoughtful explorations on the root cause of terrorism coming from the Vatican in recent days. I highly recommend the Interview With Professor Joan-Andreu Rocha - 'On Religious Fundamentalism and Terrorism' in which it is proposed that "the fallacy of contemporary secularism is precisely to want to reduce religions to a purely personal issue, denying their social transcendence. But it is not easy to bring about social change. Some propound this change of society by forcing it -- with terrorist acts -- because they don't see any other solution."

Also "What Makes Terrorists Tick - Theories About Motivations and Causes" in which it is discussed that "a few years ago it was assumed that suicide attackers were young, single, unemployed males for whom a religious movement filled a gap in their lives. But more recent data reveal that poverty and illiteracy are limited as causal factors. More relevant, he argues, are feelings of inferiority and resentment."

Regarding Islamic terrorists, my understanding is that the Koran offer 3 choices to the Infidel: Convert; Allow yourself to be subjugated and pay a crippling tax; Die.

http://www.zenit.org/english/

Since Ben-T cites UN resolutions against Iraq in order to prop up the legality of the War in Iraq, I am curious if he would support US military action against Israel considering the extensive number of UN resolutions that state has violated and continues to violate. We wouldn't want the "will of the international community" to be flouted now, would we?

"But these questions must be posed as constructive, committed criticism, not sly Leftist-dressed-up-as-liberal "dissent". In other words, with a clear bipartisan commitment." - Jeremiah

Translation: The only "constructive, committed criticism[s]" are those that work from the neoconservative premises of Hanson, Pipes, and Sharansky. Arguments based on a principled appeal to the non-interventionist foreign policy thoughts of Washington, Jefferson, and conservative stalwarts like Senator Robert A. Taft are not "constructive" and therefore deserve to be rebuked by both major political parties as we - in the words of John T. Flynn - go marching.

I am curious if he would support US military action against Israel considering the extensive number of UN resolutions that state has violated and continues to violate.

lol That is a paleoconservative's wet dream.

Ben-T,

You continue to misrepresent my position. To say that Iraq was not complying with UNSCR would be inaccurate and to say that Iraq was complying in all respects would be equally inaccurate. Iraq was cooperating in allowing inspectors into the country, permitting unfettered access, and destroying al-Samoud missiles. Iraq, however, was reluctant to meet others demands like allowing the flyover of U-2 surveillance aircraft. So making either categorical staments -- Iraq was cooperating or not cooperating -- would not be accurate.

The casus belli for war was that Iraq was producing WMD and was concealing stockpiles of WMD and in this regard Iraq was in compliance and had disarmed. So in hindsight, or foresight for some us, the war was wholly illegitimate.

The nonsense we hear concering spreading freedom and democracy and human rights is just post-war spin. The reason for invading Iraq was never "we can't be free unless Iraq is free."

The problem for "conservatives" is that Bush's rhetoric isn't conservative at all but just a rehashing of French Jacobinism, Woodrow Wilson, and to some extent Henry Wallace. So while it is mumbo-jumbo it is mumbo jumbo of a very distinguished pedigree.

Whatwhatwhat?! Benjamin, don't be so vulgar!

Ralph,

I don't understand your question. Whether a Kerry presidency would be better than a Bush presidency is hard to say. I didn't vote for either of them, however.

Ma! Why'd ya have to go and embarass me like that!!!

I'll take a shot at responding to Ralph's question.

My answer is that neither candidate was "preferable." While Bush took us to war in the name of phantom "mushroom clouds" over US cities - and now of course in the name of "global democratic revolution" - Kerry cowardly ceded his sworn duty, as a member of Congress, to declare war; unconstitutionally and illegally giving that power to Bush by voting for a resolution "authorizing the use of force" against Iraq at the President's whim.

On a more general note, what has the whole "lesser of two evils" (which is exactly the rationale for voting for Bush out of fear of a Kerry Administration) and undying fidelity to the GOP actually gotten the conservative movement? The federal government is as big and intrusive as it has ever been. We have a majority on the Supreme Court - with seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents - that believe the federal government has almost unlimited power. We have campaign finance reform, bloated budgets, and nation-building exercises ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan all under a Republican Congress. Our borders continue to be overrun by illegal aliens. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land under Republican leadership.

With partisan friends like these who needs enemies?

Bush cultists are not in any sense conservative. Their view of right and wrong, good and evil, conservative and liberal simply comes down to whatever is in the immediate partisan interests of George Bush. It's a personality cult.

James,

Ben-T referred to UN Security Council resolutions, not the misguided resolutions of the loopy at large UN. The Security Council is nutty enough without the likes of Libya and Zimbabwe voting.

"But these questions must be posed as constructive, committed criticism, not sly Leftist-dressed-up-as-liberal "dissent". In other words, with a clear bipartisan commitment." - Jeremiah

"Translation: The only "constructive, committed criticism[s]" are those that work from the neoconservative premises of Hanson, Pipes, and Sharansky. Arguments based on a principled appeal to the non-interventionist foreign policy thoughts of Washington, Jefferson, and conservative stalwarts like Senator Robert A. Taft are not "constructive" and therefore deserve to be rebuked by both major political parties as we - in the words of John T. Flynn - go marching." - James

Are you saying that we should abide by the foreign policy thoughts of Wash, Jeff, and Taft? Please, I do want to hear more about how to do that ... given 21st century realities like immigration, the erosion of American manufacturing, NAFTA, and environmental hazards, which seem to me to make "isolationism" a difficult principle by which to govern. (And that's not considering terrorism.)

Jeremiah,

You're going to have to be more specific. The idea that we can no longer follow the foreign policy ideas of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Taft etc because they are not in tune 21st realities is just an easy way of avoiding difficult questions. The real debate is over the wisdom of invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 or as some misguided attempt to spread the germ of democratic capitalism.

It's common for interventionists to say that "isolations" are out of step with current realities or that old ideas no longer apply. This of course is just a way to dress up the failure of Iraq.

We didn't invade Iraq because of NAFTA, immigration or lost manufacturing jobs but because Iraq's WMD posed a real and dangerous threat to the citizens of this country. Now that it has all been exposed as one giant deception, and that the Bush Administration along with their fellow lackeys in media were running a 24/7 disinformation campaign for almost a year, the apologists try and change the subject. They try to point out the unrealism or the impracticality of "isolationism" through large generalities.

None of it will work. The war in Iraq was a sham, based on lies, and now being dressed in the language of liberty.

Bush cultists are not in any sense conservative. Their view of right and wrong, good and evil, conservative and liberal simply comes down to whatever is in the immediate partisan interests of George Bush. It's a personality cult.

Eric, your sanity is waning. Are the 53,000,000 people in this country who voted for GW "Bush cultists"?

Eric, I share your concerns about weaknesses in the administration's justifications for justifying taking out Saddam. Before it occurred, I didn't want the US and others to invade. The $ cost alone was enough to horrify me. The way I dealt with it to make my biggest financial contribution in 2004 to the non-interventionist Libertarian AntiWar.com. I paid close attention to conservative critics of the war like economist Craig Roberts and military historian William Lind. I was, and remain, very concerned that our govt bungled has already bungled the operation (too hastily disbanding the Ba'ath; Chalabi-gate; American corporate corruption). When I read that F. Fukuyama said he would not vote for Bush, I said "Aha!" and felt marginally secure in voting for Kerry.

Still, I mistrust "cut and run" criticism of the US-led occupation. One, much of it comes from America-hating Left. But I don't dismiss some of the claims of "neo" or "big Government" conservatives, either, some of which I mentioned earlier. My concerns are mostly practical and self-interested: how to get a functioning representative govt on its feet in Iraq ASAP, so the US can stop shelling out manpower, money, and materiel. And I think that embracing this agenda should be the #1 concern of pols, pundits, and citizens right now.

Webster,

Israel has defied UNSC resolutions too. My point was to show how utterly hypocritical it is for supporters of the invasion of Iraq to trot out UNSC resolutions and the specter of the "will of the international community" being flouted to justify the Iraq War while they turn a blind eye to the resolutions Israel has violated and would not favor military action against that state to enforce them.

Jeremiah,

Who said anything about isolationism? Non-interventionism - the sort of foreign policy I support - and isolationism are not the same thing. The latter implies that I support building up a "Fortress America" - I don't. I subscribe to Jefferson's dictum: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." In other words, economic freedom and international trade with other nation while avoiding political and military entanglements.

International commerce does not imply international empire for the United States. The US military should not be used at the behest of politically favored business interests abroad; rather businesses must bear the risk of such commerce themselves.

Ben-T,

You continue to misrepresent my position. To say that Iraq was not complying with UNSCR would be inaccurate and to say that Iraq was complying in all respects would be equally inaccurate. Iraq was cooperating in allowing inspectors into the country, permitting unfettered access, and destroying al-Samoud missiles. Iraq, however, was reluctant to meet others demands like allowing the flyover of U-2 surveillance aircraft. So making either categorical staments -- Iraq was cooperating or not cooperating -- would not be accurate.

The casus belli for war was that Iraq was producing WMD and was concealing stockpiles of WMD and in this regard Iraq was in compliance and had disarmed. So in hindsight, or foresight for some us, the war was wholly illegitimate.

The nonsense we hear concering spreading freedom and democracy and human rights is just post-war spin. The reason for invading Iraq was never "we can't be free unless Iraq is free."

The problem for "conservatives" is that Bush's rhetoric isn't conservative at all but just a rehashing of French Jacobinism, Woodrow Wilson, and to some extent Henry Wallace. So while it is mumbo-jumbo it is mumbo jumbo of a very distinguished pedigree.
Posted by Eric Wilds at July 18, 2005 04:25 PM

I do not at all misrepresent your position. You continuously claim that Saddam allowed UN inspectors unfettered access. This is simply a blatantly false statement. He offered them nothing like unfettered access.

And no, the Casus Belli was clearly that Saddam was refusing to comply with UNSC 1441. His refusal to comply was what prompted Bush to issue his ultimatum, and his refusal to comply with the ultimatum was what prompted Bush to signal the invasion.

I come from the Thomas L. Friedman school of war supporters, who were advocating an invasion on Iraq, using the arguments I use today, throughout the year 2002, which, if I am remembering correctly, was before the invasion. But maybe that's just another Neoconservative lie.

Ben-T,

UNMOVIC wrote a daily report detailing their activity in Iraq. They frequently mention making suprise visits to certain suspect sites and
never admit being forcibly denied entry or access to any facility.

The Bush Administration repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq's lethal bio-chemical arsenal and how it jeopardized our country.

If Iraq had a single mustard gas shell and secretly spirited it from location to location to avoid the weapon inspectors that would be a technical violation of UNSCR 1441 but an absolutely absurd reason to start a war.

Bush mobilized support for the war through the use of outlandish and ridiculous horror stories e.g. mushroom clouds to frighten Americans -- an unconscionable effort to grease the wheels of war.

If the purpose of the war all along was regime change and injecting "democracy" into the Middle East then the whole drama of going to the United Nations, demanding Iraq disarm, and declaring Iraq a threat was one long disinformation campaign. The critics of the President would be accurate in saying he wanted to go to war all along -- even before 9/11 -- and that he was lying when he said he hadn't made up his mind. So if Iraq's threat to the U.S. played no role in Bush's decision to go to war then Bush was lying before the war began. If Iraq's threat was the reason to go to war then Bush is lying now. Either way Bush is a liar.

So if Iraq's threat to the U.S. played no role in Bush's decision to go to war then Bush was lying before the war began.

Of course the assumed risk played a role. Do you think he was just playing games with himself when he asked Tenet if it was a "slam dunk case"?

If Iraq's threat was the reason to go to war then Bush is lying now.

Everyone admits that the threat numerous agencies around the world believed Hussein posed was one of the reasons for going to war. Stop shadow boxing. The WMD threat ended up not being there. This does not mean, however, that the war is a waste and that our soldiers "died in vain." Though I definitely endorse Sharansky's more complicated way to defeat terror, my most gut-level reaction is this: We've shown, after years of ignoring Islamic terrorists, that we are not willing simply to put up with their attacks any longer. We have to establish some kind of disincentive in order to prevent future attacks.

Either way Bush is a liar.

I think Bush has proven to be too much of a socialist. In that way, he can piss me off. But what's the point of calling him a "liar"? He seems to be a decent man. And how is he any more manipulative than any other politician who's ever lived?

My point was to show how utterly hypocritical it is for supporters of the invasion of Iraq to trot out UNSC resolutions and the specter of the "will of the international community" being flouted to justify the Iraq War while they turn a blind eye to the resolutions Israel has violated and would not favor military action against that state to enforce them.

James, what you and your paleocon buddies don't seem to understand is that Israel is not a threat to our security. (If you're going to reply in the predictable paleo way, citing the Pollard case, let me direct you here.) Whether or not you want to admit it, and disregarding whatever false outrage might be summoned up by short and others from this statement, crazy Muslims were/are the threat.

It is interesting that Wilds knows so much more about Saddam's reaction to 1441 than does Hans Blix, who was quite clear that Saddam was very heartily refusing to comply with UNSC

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3319.asp

NOTE: Wilds seems unable to make a distinction between what he calls "Bush Cultists" and people who simply support the war anyways.

As I have made clear before, I support the war for my own reasons, I don't really care about Bush's reason for supporting it.

Ben,

Hans Blix -- and I quoted him as such -- made the claim that Iraq was cooperating "on process," but not "on substance." This suggests Iraq was providing the inspectors with unfettered access to specific sites but that such visits were not useful in resolving the issue of Iraq's unaccounted for weapons. Since the growing consensus is that Iraq destroyed these weapons in the summer of 1991 taking measures to demonstrate this are difficult. You can't destroy the same weapons twice and you can't go back in time and witness the destruction, so you're left without any clear cut answers.

However, this problem is more of a technical/scientific one than one of Saddam's failure to cooperate. The inspectors also found no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq even after acting on the best U.S. intelligence -- and that's because it was bunkum.

I do distinguish between Neocons and Bush cultists. Neocons have their own agenda, have no direct loyalty to the Bush Administration and will criticize it when they feel necessary. Irving Kristol is a Neocon, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are Bush cultists. Hannity and Coulter have no philosophy, no worldview, no sense of right and wrong, no belief in truth or falsehood outside the partisan interests of George Bush. Bush is their center, the unshakable axis around which their entire life revolves.

Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are Bush cultists.

Eric,

I agree with your assessment of Hannity. He is painful to listen to. His debating style is absurd -- almost invariably just listing off a bunch of foolish lefty quotes. He's a complete joke. However, I honestly don't think Ann is a "Bush cultist." She wrote a column earlier this year criticizing him for not fighting against abortion strongly enough. It started with, "Maybe he is an idiot" or something to that effect.

"Ben,

Hans Blix -- and I quoted him as such -- made the claim that Iraq was cooperating "on process," but not "on substance." This suggests Iraq was providing the inspectors with unfettered access to specific sites but that such visits were not useful in resolving the issue of Iraq's unaccounted for weapons. Since the growing consensus is that Iraq destroyed these weapons in the summer of 1991 taking measures to demonstrate this are difficult. You can't destroy the same weapons twice and you can't go back in time and witness the destruction, so you're left without any clear cut answers."

-Eric Wilds

No, it would suggest Saddam was following such standard practices for his regime as allowing inspectors into chemical plants that had long since been cleared out. Saddam was quite experianced in how at dealing with UN inspectors, a few "surprise" visits by a team that had almost no experiance dealing with weapons inspections against hostile regimes.

"I do distinguish between Neocons and Bush cultists. Neocons have their own agenda, have no direct loyalty to the Bush Administration and will criticize it when they feel necessary. Irving Kristol is a Neocon, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are Bush cultists. Hannity and Coulter have no philosophy, no worldview, no sense of right and wrong, no belief in truth or falsehood outside the partisan interests of George Bush. Bush is their center, the unshakable axis around which their entire life revolves."

-Eric Wilds

Okay, I was under the impression I was being referred to as a Bush Cultist. By your definitions I would be a NeoCon, though I am more of a Libertarian than anything.

I agree with you that people like Sean Hannity are simply Bush cultists.

Ben,

You can read UNMOVIC's daily reports at www.iraqwatch.org. There is an entry for every day they were there and there is no mention made of being forcibly removed by Saddam Hussein. Again, the weapon inspectors were acting on the best intelligence we could give them and came away with nothing.

However, since my opposition to the war had nothing to do with whether Iraq was complying with UNSCR 1441 and your support for the war had nothing to do with WMD, but with trying to plant a democracy in Iraq, this debate is really just shadow boxing.

Ann Coulter is a Bush cultist extraordinaire. A few pro forma comments about Bush not keeping the line on spending doesn't remove one from the ranks of Bush cultism. Ann Coulter's "columns" have been little more than examples of cheap mendacity, mean spirited name calling, and sarcasm. You never learn anything from reading her "columns" except that liberals "like Saddam Hussein." She never shows any ana-lysis or thought. Thomas Friedman, a supporter of the war, shows examples of thinking and you can learn from his columns. Ann Coulter's opinions are little more than cartoonish tomfoolery. The fact that she can market herself as a conservative just goes to show the absolute collapse of the conservative movement. Its leading spokesman seem to be Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity -- Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest.

Eric, I don't look to Ann Coulter for knowledge and wisdom. I read her columns occasionally for a laugh. The question is not whether or not she is a brilliant scholar; it's whether or not she is a sycophant in the vein of Hannity. As her latest column illustrates, sh'ain't.

"However, since my opposition to the war had nothing to do with whether Iraq was complying with UNSCR 1441 and your support for the war had nothing to do with WMD, but with trying to plant a democracy in Iraq, this debate is really just shadow boxing."

-Wilds

True.