More Americans died in Iraq in April than in March, in May than in April, and, unfortunately, if the current rate holds, in June than in May. Partly because of this, the president's popularity and support for the Iraq war have both plummetted. According to a CBS News poll a majority of Americans believe we should have stayed out of Iraq, and six in ten believe things are going badly for the U.S. there. Senior officers have begun to concede as much about the nation-building operation. "We can’t kill them all," Lt. Col. Frederick Wellman observed. "When I kill one, I create three." Recruits, despite the lure of bonuses as great as $40,000, remain scarce in the Army and Navy.

The American people are telling their representatives something. Four are listening. Conservatives Ron Paul and Walter Jones and liberals Neil Abercrombie and Dennis Kucinich introduced "Withdrawal of United States Armed Forces From Iraq Resolution of 2005—Homeward Bound" in Congress on Thursday. It proposes U.S. troop reductions to begin in Iraq before October 1, 2006. The resolution calls for the president "at the earliest possible date, to turn over all military operations in Iraq to the elected Government of Iraq and provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Iraq." Congressman Jones's support of the legislation is a profile in courage. Jones represents a coastal district in conservative North Carolina, teeming with retired veterans and active duty military. He vocally supported the war in 2003, but is now "troubled" by what he finds--or what we didn't find--in Iraq. Is he worried that his stance will alienate him from the Republican leadership or turn off constituencies back home? Jones answered yesterday, "I will never worry doing what's right."

The problem with withdrawing before we complete the job is former regime elements along with their terrorists allies will likely regain power and we would be in worse shape than we were before. Having said this, I think we may need some new strategies. A withdrawl of troops at this time or a time table to withdraw I think in all likelyhood lead to the following: 1.)Knowing when we plan to withdraw, former regime elements and their terrorist allies could lessen their attacks until we withdrawl and then they could step up their attacks. 2.)When the former regime elements along with their terrorists allies overrun the country after allied troop withdrawl they will be able to reestablish the al qaeda and other terrorist traning camps that existed prior to Saddam's removal. 2.)They will likely restart the former regime's WMD program, as America will no longer be in the way. 3.)Shia and Kurds will be caught in a blood bath along the lines of what happened when America withdrew from Vietnam. 4.)After abandoning our allies in Iraq, no one will ever trust us again. 5.)The former regime elements along with their al Qaeda allies will be emboldened because they will have defeated America. This will only encourage more attacks against our interests, possibly including our home land. Right now former regime elements and their terrorists allies are busy trying to regain their former base of operations which means they have less resources available to use elsewhere.

I think the problem with concluding Iraq is not worth it is this means the entire war on terrorism is not worth it. I think Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few other places need to be viewed as multiple fronts in the same war, much in the fashion that the European and Pacific fronts were viewed as part of the same war during WWII.

I don't think Congressman Jones stance represents courage. Surrender is not an act of courage. If we surrender, we will only encourage more attacks against ourselves or our allies. We may need to change our strategies but I think it is too early to ponder surrender.

Finally, there remain some unanswered questions about the former regime's WMD programs. Perhaps the conventional wisdom on this issue is correct, nevertheless, it does need to be resolved.

They want troop reductions by October 1, 2006. Interesting.

Since elections there has been a US troop reduction in Iraq of approximately 50,000 men. There are now more Iraqi Security Force troops fighting in Iraq than American ones.

PS: Less Americans have died in Iraq than died in one day on the beaches of Normandy, and since Iraqi Elections attacks have dropped by 25%, according to General Richard Myers (though Media coverage has certainly gone up.)

Where is our resolve?

October 1, 2006? Just in time to score points for the midterm Congressional elections....

Hahahah. Seriously though I don't think that October 1 2006 is taht radical a request. That is well into next year.

Understanding why support for the war in Iraq is dropping isn't rocket science. When the war was going well -- and there was much fan fare and well-orchestrated events -- Americans felt good about the war. However, now that things are turning sour and there is a daily rise in American casualties people are naturally turned off by it. People like victories and not quagmires. In April of 2003 it felt like a victory. Now it feels like quagmire. I suspect support for the war will continue to drop, but probably won't go lower than 35%.

Eric

I agree it really is not rocket science as to why support for the operations in Iraq have declined. No reasonable person likes it when our people are killed or injured. It does seem the Bush administration underestimated the difficulty. The Bush administration did not seem to help when they underestimated the difficulty and they along with our allies seemed far to willing to work through the UN. As we now know, the UN was unlikely to help us no matter what.

I think the administration needs to do the following: 1.)Point out what has been accomplished. Two terrorist supporting regimes have been removed. We and the free world are far safer because of it, even if the French, Germans, and Russians are a little less rich because of it. 2.)The coverage of the main stream media has been highly biased. Recently Abu Talha who is said to be Al Zarqawi's top operations agent on Iraq has been captured and the Sunnis seem to be showing increased interest in entereing the political process. These would seem to be positive long range developments but the media is mostly focused on the comments of congressman Dick Durban and this resolution. The Bush administration and supporters of Iraqi freedom should do more to bring attention to the positive developments. They do exist. They are just under reported. 3.)The administration needs to remind people of the stakes involved. At one time we did understand them. If one's main source is the main stream media, they will probably not understand the stakes. I think a premature withdrawl will only embolden our enemies which will make another 911 style attack much more likely.

1.)Point out what has been accomplished. Two terrorist supporting regimes have been removed. We and the free world are far safer because of it

B. Poster -- I agree with you. However, Wilds and his ideological allies do not even accept the fact that Iraq was a terrorist-supporting regime, instead opting to refer to Hussein as a "toothless tiger" and that of the like.

2.)The coverage of the main stream media has been highly biased.

To this point, again, I have to tell you that what seems obvious to us is denied by the Old Right, who often characterize the media as "neoconservative."

There are certain people who will never be won over; their ideology is far too deep-seated. This is especially true when we're talking about the intended goal of democratization, since the other side in the argument does not even consider democracy a good idea.

Back to the main topic -- I think October 2006 is a very reasonable date to bring home the troops. However, I wouldn't support this resolution because extraordinary and unfortunate circumstances may arise that warrant a small military force to remain for a short time longer.

All the way from Morocco to Pakistan, the entire Isalmic World, on the date of 9/11/01 there were three nation states that had been openly hostile to the United States. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was conquered.

Iraq was conquered.

Iran is surrounded on all sides by US military forces.

Hit list, anyone?

Ben,

I've quoted from the State Deparment's list of state sponsors of terrorism the information regarding Iraq's support of terrorism. So I've always accepted the fact that Iraq -- like our ally Pakistan -- has been an historic supporter of terrorism. However, you're right that I don't think it wise to have invaded and occupied Iraq -- it was a colossal error.

If support for the war is to move back into the black then there needs to be an important development -- like a significant waning in the insurgency or the capture/killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Without that support for the war will continue to slip. I doubt President Bush -- or anyone else -- chronicling a laundry list of our "accomplishments" will do much to move the poll numbers. Most Americans will see it as special pleading. People are moved by large, grand theatrical events -- that's why President Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier and the toppling of the Saddam statue were so critical to the perception of our success in the war. Painfully slow progress in getting a government in place or training more Iraqi security forces really doesn't do much to get the patriotic blood flowing.

I apologize for the inaccurate statement about your view of Iraq's support of terror.

Eric

I think not removing Saddam Hussein would have been a colossal error. He should have been removed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. If not then, he should have been removed after the WTC bombing of 1993. Ramzi Yousef who had an Iraqi passport and was known as "Rashid the Iraqi" was the mastermind of the WTC bombing of 1993. He may have been an Iraqi agent, in any event he seems to have worked very closely with the former Iraqi government. Abdul Rahman Yassin was given sanctuary in Iraq. He mixed the chemicals for the WTC bombing of 1993. Had this attack accomplished what Al Qaeda and their Iraqi supporters hoped it would have it would have killed tens of thousands of Americans. Some reports suggest that these guys may have also had something to do with the downing of TWA Flight 800 and they appear to have had plenty more dastardly things they wanted to do to us. More on this can be found at:

www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Saddam%20and%20TWA%20800.htm

I just don't think leaving Saddam Hussein in power would have been consistent with the goals of achieving security for us or our allies. With Saddam Hussein out of power, less of those resources are available for world wide terrorism. The Iraqi terrorist training camp of Salman Pak was dedicated to world wide terrorism. One of the things terrorists learned there was how to hijack planes using things such as knives. This camp is now closed. What we have now has been described as "tough", however, I think it is nothing compared to the strategic nightmare of having Saddam Hussein still in power. The only thing that seemed to be holding his regime in check was a combination of sanctions and the US military prescense that was there to enforce the sanctions. The ISG concluded the sanctions were not going to be sustainable over the long term.

You are correct to point out that pointing out our accomplishments may be percieved as special pleading. Much of the media is blinded by Bush hatred so many of them will try and spin it that way, nevertheless, the Bush administration will need to stress it more. They have the advantage of having the truth on their side. At a minimum, by focusing on them people will be able to get a more accurate picture of events. You are also correct to point out that people are moved by grand events and not by painfully slow progress. Painfully slow progress is waht we have right now. Sometimes it seems like no progress or even moving backward. I'm sure WWII felt that way too at times. It is tough going but it is necessary. If we are to win, we may need the resolve of the greatest generation who won WWII. To achieve this, the American people and our allies will need to be reminded of the stakes. Admittedly the farther away from 911 we get this gets tougher.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Ben-T

"Hit list anyone?"

If we are going to win this war, at a minimum, the regimes in control of Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority will need to be removed or they will need to change behavior. This may have to be accomplished by some kind of coup. I'm not sure we have enough troops to remove these regimes by force.

I actually think the greatest threats to America come not from Islamic Extremists but from Russia and China. Admittedly this is debatable. In any event, I think we need to keep a close eye on Russia and China.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Iraq is colossal failure because currently the Bush Administration is not following a strategy in Iraq. Due to a combination of forseeable failures and outright arrogance the Bush Administration has led the American military to a thorny impasse. Or more prosaiclly, they've hitched our wagon to a tree stump.

The Bush Administration doesn't have a strategy; it has hopes. It hopes the situation will improve, that Iraq's security forces will quell the insurgency, that the government can function autonomously and become a reliable U.S. ally, that the germs of democracy in Iraq will ripple throughout the Middle East and transform it for the better. This strategy is no different from someone gam-bling his spare money on the slot machines in Vegas hoping he'll hit jackpot. The situation might improve or it might worsen, or more likely just achingly move along without much signs of life. However, we shouldn't keep our soldiers in Iraq on hopes and prayers just under the guise "doing something." When hope replaces strategy it's time for us to get out. Fighting and dying on nothing more than a "slot-machine strategy" is a definite indication of a colossal failure.

Laurie Mylroie is a crackpot of the first rank. No one in government -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA -- takes her psychotic ramblings seriously anymore. She recently said that al-Qaeda was just a front organization for Iraqi intelligence. This was after she spent time discussing how Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh were also secret agents of Saddam Hussein. For those with an abiding interest in crackpot theories or other absurdities I suggest the Art Bell newsletter or -- if you have the financial means -- college.

So as the case for invading Iraq all but vanishes into the ether the justifications for it will become ever more reaching. The simple case of Iraq's massive stockpiles of WMD threatening the United States is now nothing more than a puddle of hope about a future Iraqi democracy. However, watching the events unfold as they have has all the elan of high drama. Right now we are witnessing the closing act where the Bush cultists desperately try to salvage one tiny of piece of flotsam from their ship-wrecked arguments.

"There are certain people who will never be won over; their ideology is far too deep-seated. This is especially true when we're talking about the intended goal of democratization, since the other side in the argument does not even consider democracy a good idea."

Well isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

Democracy is only one of many types of regime. There are several types of just and good regime. Often democracy is not a just and good regime--because democracy can only be as good as the demos can make decisions. Republics (the just limited form of rule by many people) are hard to keep. Why does saying these things make me an ideologue?

On the other hand, you think that democracy everywhere by everyone is a good idea. Worse, your a missionary about it -- you believe that the armed imposition of democracy around the world is a great feat, a notch on the US's belt to brag about. Aren't you the one with a deep-seated ideology incapable of revision by fact or logic?

"Iraq is colossal failure"

-Eric Wilds

I read this line and then predicted that the rest of your post would be erroneous in nature. I was correct.

So let's see, we've been in Iraq for just over two years. Let us count the progress made by the Coalition and Iraqi Government, and then let us count the accomplishments made by the insurgency, shall we?

First, the Coalition

-The initial invasion was one of the most succesfull operations in military history
-A democratically elected Iraqi government now runs the country and is in the process of drafting a constitution
-Iraq's economic future appears to be booming, and the Iraqi Dinar is now beginning to gain on the Euro
-There are now more ISF troops in Iraq than American ones
-Various US military operations across the country have ravaged Insurgency command and control centers
-Any popular support that the Insurgency once had from the people of Iraq is disappearing by the moment
-From war's beginning to today we have had a troop presence pullout of roughly 150,000 men. Around 50% of our force.
-The ISF is growing ever more competent
-The new Iraqi government has been officially recognized by the Arab league.

Insurgent Accomplishments

-The majority of Insurgent leadership is either dead or captured
-The Insurgency has lost it's capability to reliably attack hard targets and has been relegated to soft ones
-The Insurgency is fast losing any semblance of popular support
-The insurgency has succeeded in killing, in over two years of combat, less Americans than died at the Normany invasion in one day.
-The insurgency now concentrates mainly on killing not coalition troops, but Iraqi citizens.

Yes, a colossal failure.

Eric

I will try and address a few of your points. The Bush strategy is to try and spread democratic reforms to the middle eastern terrorist supporting states. This is because generally democracies have not waged war on one another. It recognizes that the status quo simply would not work. The strategy currently being followed may not work and it may not be a good one. The anti-Bush groups have not come up with any thing better. I would not characterize him as arrogant. He does seem to be a very determined individual. Another option we have is for the United States to simply colonize Iraq and other terrorists supporting states. Due to political realities within the US and allied countries, that option simply will not happen. In order to enhance the security of us and our allies, those governments will need to be removed or they will need to change behaviour. The Bush strategy is but one strategy. I would not characterize it as gam-bling. What I would characterize as gam-bling is the do nothing or surrender strategies of the opposition. It hopes their strategies which were used previously will lead to a different result than they led to previously, which was 911. As I said the Bush strategy may not work. If it does work, I doubt the left will ever be able to admit they were wrong.

Insulting Laurie Mylroie does not make her theories wrong. The CIA, DIA, and the NSA do not take her seriously. This comes as no surprise. To take her seriously, some of them might have to admit they failed at their duties. As even one of the prosecuting attorneys in the first article points out, these men could have been agents of another country they just weren't looking at that. That job was for someone in Washington and no one knew who. By referring to her and others who don't adopt the main stream leftist view point as psychotic menas you don't have to consider the points they raise. It would be better to support or refute an argument on its merits rather than to use insults. What I have attempted to show is that Iraq and terrorists including Al Qaeda were in league together. These two articles along with many others I have presented lend credence to that theory. I'm not very familliar with Art Bell. From what I do know about him, he often features people who have various dreams and visions about various future events. I don't think the people I reference are comparable. You suggested I attend college. I have. I am a Certified Public Accountant. The problem I see with the elite universities today is they tend to try and indoctrinate their students with a leftist viewpoint.

"So the case for invading Iraq all but vanishes into the ether the justifications for it will become ever more reaching." Once the regime had been removed, something else had to be put in its place. Admittedly, what we should do next is more difficult than removing the regime. We are certainly not going to stay there forever. "The simple case of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD threatening the United States is now nothing more than a puddle of hope about an Iraqi democracy." As I pointed out previously, their remain some unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD and WMD programs. David Kay believes Iraqi equipment that could not be identified was transferred to Syria and it could have been WMD. Charles duelfer says it warrants further investigation and David Kay points out the situation was more dangerous than we originally thought. The conventional wisdom seems to say that the stockpiles of WMD were not there. The conventional wisdom could turn out to be correct, but I would suggest not being to guick to sound the all clear on Iraqi WMD stockpiles. "However watching the events unfold as they have has all the elan of high drama. Right now we are witnessing the closing act where the Bush cultists desparately try to salvage one tiny piece of flotsom from their ship-wrecked arguments." I have explained in previous posts, on this blog, that I am no Bush fan. What I am doing is expressing skepticism either at the conventional wisdom or at the standard leftist talking points. Actually if Iraq's stockpile of WMD has gone missing this is not a pro Bush argument. One of the reasons for the operations in Iraq was to halt the spread of WMD. If WMD stockpiles were moved elsewhere then all we did was enhance their proliferation!! But again the conventional wisdom could be correct. In this case, I actually hope it is!! I just don't share the optimism of some.

I have already pointed out what I think would be likely to happen if American and allied troops left Iraq right now. While I think the choice to rmove the former Iraqi dictatorial thug was the correct one, what comes next is much more difficult. This congressional resolution is tatmount to surrender. Surender before a very powerful enemy such as this is unlikely to enhance our security or the security of our allies.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

The case for the invasion of Iraq does not vanish.

Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN weapons inspectors, and then refused to comply with UN Security Resolution 1441.

Then, on the eve of war, large scale truck convoys decided they just HAD to mosey on over the Ba'ath party controlled Syria.

You have tried to refute this in the past by saying that in 1994 some guy saw truck convoys carrying oil go into Syria. It is hardly a refutation. To accept this one woudl have to believe that on the eve on invasion, Saddam was dedicating manpower and machine power that could have been used for the defense of his country to carry oil into Syria.

Did Saddam refuse to comply with resolution 1441 for no reason? He just woke up one day and decided he felt like signing his own death warrant? If Saddam had nothing to hide, why was he so willing to risk his arse in order to hide it?

Edit: When I said "You" I was referring to Eric Wilds. Sorry for any confusion.

Well isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually, 'tain't.

Democracy is only one of many types of regime. There are several types of just and good regime.
I disagree. My opinion is best summed up by a fellow named Thomas Jefferson. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." That is the essence of democracy. It is not about minutiae such as direct-election of senators.

On the other hand, you think that democracy everywhere by everyone is a good idea.

Yes, I think people all over the world should be free to choose their leaders/representatives and influence their governments (in the various ways this occurs in democracies -- freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.).

Worse, your a missionary about it -- you believe that the armed imposition of democracy around the world is a great feat, a notch on the US's belt to brag about.

No one suggests that we go around the world toppling every last oppressive regime by directly warring with them. However, I'm a big supporter of the Reagan Doctrine, and I think in the case of Iraq, the more extreme Bush Doctrine was the right way to go.

And yes, I do think it is a great feat, a notch on the US's belt to brag about. This is one of the things that sets us apart -- our willingness not only to defend our own freedom, but to defend the freedom of others and even to facilitate the advancement of freedom around the world.

Aren't you the one with a deep-seated ideology incapable of revision by fact or logic?

No, because of two things: 1) I recognize the uncertainty of the Bush Doctrine. If in 5-10 years, Iraq and the Muslim world in general are still human cesspools threatening the free world, the Bush Doctrine will have proven to be a failure. However, if Iraq turns out to be a successful, stable, free democracy, inspiring a kind of domino effect throughout that part of the world (as has already happened to a limited extent), and terrorists continue to be thwarted in their attempted attacks on the mainland, Bush will have been vindicated. 2) I recognize the obvious fact that there has to be certain limits to the people's power in a democracy, minority rights for example. No sensible person disagrees with this proposition.

-ben

I meant to say the protection of minority rights.

Regarding "ideology" Ben L, this is my point:

X is a comparitively rare form of government, historically, and it happens to be the one you were raised in, but you think that X is the only legitimate, just, or good form of governnment. You think that every country can, should, and problably will become X, and that other courties' becoming X would basically get rid of war (since X countries don't fight wars against each other). You think that people who dare to think that X may not always be a good thing are ideologues who can never be convinced of what is so obvious to you.

I think X can be good or bad, is one among many forms of government that can be legitimate or tyranical, and doesn't have any special ability to end war.

Gee, whose the ideologue?

Substitute democracy for X, and you get Ben L. Substitute socialism for X and you get, well, lots of blinded ideolgues, IMHO.

The problem being that in the modern world, where X is democracy, X is not a relatively rare form of government, and X is the form of government used by almost all of the world's most powerful nations. In the modern world, X is not the exception for succesfull and powerful nations, it is the rule. And in the modern world, where Y is politically radical and anti-American dictatorships, Y poses a direct threat to X's continued survival and way of life.

In the modern world, X is the norm for nations that are economically succesfull and connected to globalization,and those nations that meet such conditions, yet do not accept X, are beginning to accept X more and more every day. For an example of this, look no further than "Communist" C. It has also been proven that X is in no way limited to western civilization, nor is X necessarily the government of choice in western civilization. Rather it is economic prosperity, and connectedness that allows X to prosper, and economic desperation and the disconnectedness that comes with it that serves as a spawning pool for Y.

Meanwhile, Y is the norm for economically desperate, disconnected nations, and Y has been pumping out warriors by the battalion who are convinced that their sole goal in life is the removal of all things X from their life, and the ultimate destruction of X. The world of Y has been doing this for decades.

Since we know that X nations do not pose a threat to us, and Y nations do, it would make logical sense that the best way to protect ourselves is the systematic destruction of Y. The best way to do this is through the continued expansion and steady of X, along with G, where G is globalization.

Ben,

Read the next sentence of the Dec of Ind that you quoted from. All you seem to be doing is equating democracy with the right of the "people" to revolt. Jefferson was more than capable of acknowledging that other forms of government, that is non-democratic forms, did legitimately exist as the next line makes clear.

So if that is what you mean by democracy than every town, village, country, nation that has ever existed has been a democracy.

Also note that unlike Lincoln's deceitful reading of the Dec (that the Straussians like Jaffa and neocons love to hold to at all costs), the quote you extract from it says "instituted AMONG men" not OF or BY, as if to intend "Of the people" or "BY the people." Jefferson et. al. in the Declaration leave open the question of what form of government is appropriate, after all, it is simply a declaration of the several states independence from Britain.

Final point, deriving powers from "consent of the governed" gives no prescriptions for how one determines consent. This can be done through democratic means, such as elections or referenda as you probably have in mind. This can also be done just as well by a Russian tzar of old who calls on the peasantry to show their support for him against the aristocracy from the balcony of his palace. Many Tsars and kings have been quite beloved by the governed who willing consented to a non-democratic form of rule.

Speaking only in and dwelling among abstractions makes . . . you . . . an . . . ideologue!

And Ben T., cute, very cute! You make me laugh sometimes.

So if that is what you mean by democracy than every town, village, country, nation that has ever existed has been a democracy.

This is completely, unimaginably ridiculous. Contrary to your asinine beliefs, many czars, kings, and other assorted dictators have not been "quite beloved" by their people. And how can you "willingly consent" to abandon your right to willingly consent?

Also note that unlike Lincoln's deceitful reading of the Dec (that the Straussians like Jaffa and neocons love to hold to at all costs)

As an aside, the hatred of Lincoln and the Civil War on this forum-of-sorts is pretty overboard, resting comfortably in wackjob territory. It seems his name is brought up with contempt whenever possible. At one point I granted certain points, for example accepting your assertion that slavery did not cause the Civil War. I've recently learned that my initial inclinations were correct, after reading Thomas Sowell's essay "The Real History of Slavery". On pg. 154 of "Black Rednecks and White Liberals", he writes:

"The Civil War that grew out of tensions over slavery was the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere and cost more American lives than any other war in the country's history. Whether or not those fighting on either side thought of their battles as being over slavery, as distinguished from secession, without slavery there would have been no secession and no Civil War. The states that first seceded were states where slaves were the highest percentage of the population. Contemporary words and deeds by the leaders of the Confederacy made unmistakably clear that slavery was at the heart of their secession and at the heart of the constitution that they established for their own new government. In later times, as slavery became ever more repugnant to people throughout Western civilization and even beyond, apologists for the South would stress other factors. But the real question is what factor moved Southern leaders when the fateful decision was made to secede -- and that was 'unashamedly,' as a Civil War historian put it, slavery."

Thomas DiLorenzo, everyone on Lew Rockwell / VDare, Brian, and pals: owned by Sowell.

This can also be done just as well by a Russian tzar of old who calls on the peasantry to show their support for him against the aristocracy from the balcony of his palace.

It is frightening that you believe the people living under a dictatorship freely express support in such ways. Did Stalin have consent of the governed? Did Mao? Did Hussein? Does Castro and Kim Jong Il? Similar scenes like the one you described have been found in all of these countries.

Speaking only in and dwelling among abstractions makes . . . you . . . an . . . ideologue!

My "ideology" is freedom. Your ideology, by contrast, is ironically a reflexive aversion to ideology.

And Ben T., cute, very cute! You make me laugh sometimes.

Is that honestly the best you can do? Acting like a condescending, smug d-bag instead of responding to Mr. T's very well-reasoned and direct response to short?

". This can also be done just as well by a Russian tzar of old who calls on the peasantry to show their support for him against the aristocracy from the balcony of his palace. Many Tsars and kings have been quite beloved by the governed who willing consented to a non-democratic form of rule."

-Brian

Sure. Until those peasants start feeling like maybe they DON'T want to consent to non-democratic rule. Then the beloved Tsar calls in his beloved Cossacks.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/zarqawi-being-betrayed-in-mosul.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/another-lightening-update.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/lightening-update.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/everyone-in-neighborhood-is-afraid-of.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/rights-of-disabled.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/todays-lightning-brief.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/iraqi-law-makers-call-for-dismantling.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/salafis-talk-on-tv.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-on-operation-lightning.html

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/05/following-operation-lightning.html

Oh yes, and an example of how at least one news agency deal with finding 'truth':

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/restricted-blog-bbc-not-allowed.html

And this is all just from one Iraqi blog. Yep. Such a major quagmire..... Sigh, why is it that the people in the middle, who actually want to think logically about things and know what is going on, are so badly outnumbered by people that either kiss Bush's ass or think running and hiding under the bed, so the US doesn't have to risk getting hurt by the bad nasty people in the world, who have the audacity to shoot at people that threaten their totalitarian ambitions?

You post there Kagehi? I am also Ben-T on Iraq The Model.

Also check out www.afreeiraqi.blogspot.com and www.hammorabi.blogspot.com

Let me try and address some of the points that have been raised:

Iraq is a colossal failure due to the situation we are currently in and the fact that the original case for war -- Iraq is a threat of a unique urgency as President Bush so deceptively put it -- has gone up in a gigantic plume of smoke. There was no expectation that there would even be an insurgency of this magnitude plus we were guaranteed that Iraqi oil revenues would finance the operation, that we would be down to 30,000 troops at this time, and that we would be greeted as liberators. Now we have Senator McCain trying to give Americans a dose of reality by telling them we're in for a long, tough fight and it could still take years. If President Bush was a car salesman then the Iraq war is a lemon.

Next we have the new Bush cultist claim that we are turning Iraq into a democracy because democracies don't go to war with each other or don't support terrorism. Oddly though, the same Bush cultists accuse democracies like France, Germany, and Russia of supporting Iraq, Hizbollah, and Hamas. So on the one hand they argue democracies don't support terrorism, and on the other they say they do. So Bush cultist talking points ably demolish Bush cultist talking points. No criticism is necessary.

It's not just "left wingers" who don't take Laurie Mylroie's ramblings seriously -- it's the entire intelligence apparatus of the federal government. The point is that since all the original justifications for the Iraq war have evaporated the Bush cultists are left to promoting unofficial, crackpot conspiracy theories.

Saddam did comply with UNSCR 1441 by allowing inspectors into the country. When Hans Blix test fired some of the al-Samoud 2 missiles and found their range could potentiall exceed 150km -- the maximum ranged imposed by other UNSCR -- then Iraq began voluntarily dismantling those missiles.

The idea that Iraq moved WMD into Syria rests on a fallacious assumption that the Bush cultists don't yet seem to grasp. WMD facilities and actual WMD are two different things. (WMD don't procreate by virgin birth.) So saying that Iraq shipped its WMD to Syria implies Iraq had large WMD facilities producing WMD in 2002/2003 under the noses of the inspectors, satellites, and secret U.S. operations.

Here's David Kay at the Commonwealth Club:

"If weapons were produced, they required at least three things: a productive enterprise, scientists and engineers to work on it, security people to guard and move them."

"My conclusion is: Large weapons stockpiles didn't exist, so ipso facto they didn't move to Syria or Lebanon. And that's about the best you're going to do."

But let's say Saddam is really a sorcerer and can create WMD out of thin air -- how usable would the WMD be to him sitting in the ground in Syria? If the WMD came from the Muthanna State factory from 1994 then the chemical weapons would be useless by now since they only have a shelf life of 5 years. So who cares if there's a bunch of useless goo Iraq shipped to Syria?

I don't.

Why Eric do you think that he decided to refuse to comply with UN Resolution 1441? He just decided one day that he felt like having the US invade his nation?

It just doesn't add up. He had UN weapons inspectors thrown out of his country. He then refused to fully comply with United Nations Security Resolution 1441. Then, on the eve of war, he just decided he HAD to devote large scale military convoys on moving....something, (we don't know what, because it isn't WMDs, right?) Into Syria. Even though one would imagine he would want to use his military assets for the defense of his nation.

Cleared out chemical weapons labs have in fact been uncovered in Iraq.

I believe Saddam saw himself in a pretty crappy situation. He knew that if he complied with the UN they would find the weapons. If he didn't, the US would invade. So he took the best option he had. He sent them to his Ba'ath party buddies in Syria, he created the Insurgency strategy (it is well known that a good portion of the Iraqi Insurgency is made up of former Republican Guard units.) and he went into hiding.

Under the nose of inspectors? Not quite. Whenever Saddam decided he was getting a little too uncomfortable with the UN weapons inspectors, he found a reason to throw them out.

The US had various satellite images of Iraqi WMD programs. If you recall, mobile weapons facilities were purported to be a key component of the Iraqi WMD program. The kind of mobile facility that would have needed security personell to move it...security personell like the Iraqi military convoys that left for Syria on the eve of war?

Now certainly WMD claims were greatly exaggerated, I never bought the WMD story to begin with. I have my own reasons for supporting the war. However most likely Saddam had SOME WMDs.

For more of my thoughts on why I support the war, see various posts made by me in this thread, as well as the "Magna Carta, June 15, 1215" one.

If the Iraq war has been a collassal failure because things were not as easy as expected, then so is every war in human history. Of course there is a big difference between "Not as easy as expected" and "Colossal Failure" and nobody taking a serious look at Iraq from a strategic standpoint could regard it a colossal failure.

Ben,

That's an interesting story about the fate of Iraq's WMD, too bad it's practically all fictional. If Iraq had refused to allow Hans Blix and the international inspectors into his country then you would have a case, but he did, so you don't. UNMOVIC had free reign over all of Iraq, was acting on the "best" U.S. intelligence available, and came up with nothing.

I don't think you -- or others -- really have a grasp on what the purpose of the inspection process was. UNSCOM left Iraq in 1998 and at that time they had completely destroyed all of Iraq's entire chemical, nuclear, and biological facilities. There were no WMD programs left in Iraq. UNSCOM left Iraq due to Operation Desert Fox, not because Iraq threw them out. Some of the chemical weapons -- and precursors -- were unaccounted for -- that is Iraq destroyed them outside the supervsion of the United Nations. That's why everyone acknowledges that Iraq has "unaccounted" for weapons. But "unaccounted" for weapons doesn't mean they exist; it just means they're unaccounted for and need to be accounted for. Evidence of their destruction would account for such weapons. However, since it's impossible to destroy the same weapons twice, it's hard to quantify the exact amount of weapons and weapons precursors Iraq did away with. This is why Iraq's cooperation "on substance," as Hans Blix put it, was so difficult. Taking soil samples and then trying to precisely quantify how much WMD was destroyed is difficult, but Mr Blix said Iraq was cooperating "on process."

So the U.N. inspectors were there to try and resolve Iraq's unaccounted for weapons -- weapons -if they existed -- would date back to the early 1990's.

There was no evidence -- given by the U.N or this Administration -- that Iraq surreptiously re-started building large-scale weapon facilities after 1998. There is no evidence Iraq was producing weapons in 2002 and early 2003. The "stockpiles" that President Bush kept mentioning were Iraq's "unaccounted" for weapons, but this is clearly outright deception: if these weapons exist in stockpiles then they are no longer "unaccounted " for.

So for those who want to believe that Iraq shipped WMD to Syria all you need to do is show the large-scale chemical (or nuclear) weapon facilities where such weapons were produced. David Kay searched all over Iraq for these facilities and realized they didn't exist. That is why his conclusion was that the stockpiles didn't exist, so no weapons went to Syria. In the early 1990's it was the Muthanna factory that was producing the Sarin, Tabun, and VX nerve gas. This factory was totally destoryed. So where's the equivalent of the Muthanna factory that was producing chemical weapons in 2002 and early 2003? To provide a resolution to this question, just name the factory, tell Charles Duelfer or David Kay, and then we'll know Iraq does have WMD. No one can name this facility, however, because there is no such facility.

Now, Iraq has been sending large truck convoys into Syria since the 1990's as part of their oil dealings. So what's more likely: that this was another illegal shipment of oil, or a shipment of weapons that magically appeared out of the ether?

I think the first Gulf War went much easier than expected, so clearly not every war in history went worse than expected. However, the entire casus belli for this war was wholly bogus: Iraq was possessing the most lethal weapons ever devised, has a fleet of unmanned drones capable of targeting American cities, the prospect of mushroom clouds, poison gases etc. So after we take pre-emptive action to eliminate the threat of Iraq's WMD we realize there was nothing to pre-empt, it was all a fraud. It would be as if after fighting Iraq in the first Gulf War over the invasion of Kuwait we realized Iraq never invaded Kuwait at all. That would be a colossal failure, but that's exactly what happened in this war.

Eric

Saddam Hussein did violate UNSCR 1441. David Kay and Hnas Blix point this out. More on this can be found here:

www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13824

www.benadoassociates.com/article/209

www.pejmanesque.com/archives/005685.html

Mr. Kay and Mr. Blix reached different conclusions about what needed to be done. As we now know, the UN was unlikely to help us no matter what but there appears to be no doubt that UNSCR 1441 was violated.

If Iraqi WMD stockpiles were moved to Syria, this is not a pro-Bush argument. It is already known that 300 and some odd tons of explosives went missing from an Iraqi facility prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This causes me to wonder what else might have been missing. If this is so, all we did was enhance the proliferation of WMD!! This is hardly a pro-Bush argument. Of course as I stated before, the conventional wisdom on this issue could turn out to be correct. I sincerely hope so. Expressing skepticism at the conventional wisdom or at the main stream media talking points does not make me or any one else a Bush cultist.

To produce WMD three things are needed. 1.) Productive enterprise. As pointed out previously, truck convoys containing "Iraqi equipment" were moved to Syria. We aren't sure what was moved. Charles Duelfer says it warrants further investigation. A chemical weapons lab was founded when American forces took Fallujah last year. We have found a number of cleaned out labs throughout the country. Productive enterprise seems to have been present. Scientists and engineers to work on it. Many of the Baathist regime's top leaders fled to Syria, in the run-up and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Secuity people to guard and move them. These convoys were guarded by security people and something was buried in the Bekaa valley by people wearing protective clothing. In fact, Mr. Kay points out that the situation was even more dangerous than we originally thought.

"So who cares if there's a bunch of useless Iraq goo shipped to Syria?" We don't know if it was useless goo. Mr. Duelfer does not seem to think so. The ISG was investigating it and was not able to complete the investigation. Mr. Duelfer believes the investigation should be completed. Again, the conventional wisdon may be correct and I hope it is. I just don't share the optimism of some.

There was no attempt by the Bush administration to decieve, however, it does seem clear that they along with Congress and the Intellegence Community under estimated the difficulty.

I have plenty of doubts about the Bush policies. From speaking with people who have been in Iraq and are currently there, I am cautiously optimistic that this can work. Having Saddam Hussein continuing to aid and abett terrorists who were attacking us was intolerable. Clearly the situation on the ground needed to be changed. Once the former regime was removed, something had to be put in its place and we are not going to stay forever. We trying to change the dynamic on the ground. To not do so would only ensure more attacks on our homeland. It remains to be seen whether or not this will work. The opposition has failed to present a better option.

"Its not just 'left-wingers' who don't take Laurie Mylroie's ramblings seriously -- its the entire intellegence apparatus of the federal government." What Dr. Mylroie and others I have documented previously are doing is expressing skepticism at the conventional wisdom. They have provided very compelling evidence for their claims. This does not make them crackpots. By hurling insults at people, this relieves someone of having to address their points on their merits. It is far better to address a point of view on it merit rather than to insult the messenger. I have issues with the "enitre intellegence appartus of the federal goverment." The intellegence community failed to: 1.) Account for Saddam's WMD stockpiles. Clearly they are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they were going to be. 2.) The intellegence community failed to anticpate the insurgency. 3.)The intellegence community failed to anticipate the situation with the UN Oil for Food program, which left the administration wasting its time going through a UN who was unlikely to help us no matter what. We have former CIA agent Michael Schurer who was in charge of the team that was tracking Osama Bin Laden doing the following: 1.) Describing Osama Bin Laden as "pious, charismatic, gentle, generous, talented, and personally courageous" while comparing him to Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln. 2.) Blasted America's policies as imperial. 3.) Blasted America's support of Israel. Point 1 is so far off base that I'm not sure how to begin. I would suggest reading the official statements from the terrorist groups themselves. This will easily disprove his statements concerning Bin Laden. Point 2 is wrong. America has no colonies. Iraq has now been turned over to the Iraqis. The Iraqi government has pointed this out. Point 3 is wrong. Israel is the most important buffer between the free world and islamic extremists. Without Israel we and the free world would be in much more danger. Again check the official statements of the the terrorists themselves. It is fairly easy to prove Mr. Schurer wrong on these points. I'm not sure how I could trust him to ana-lyze more complicated things. Some reports have suggested the CIA is riddled with this kind of flawed ana-lysis. Other reports indicate the new CIA head Porter Goss is trying to change this. I hope he succeeds. "The point is since all of the original justifications for the Iraq war have evaporated the Bush cultists are left to promoting unofficial crackpot theroies." The original justifications for Operation Iraqi Freedom are spelled out in the Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force. This can be found here:

www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop/iraq_iraq_resolution.shtml

A summary of the reasons given are as follows:
1.)Enforce all relevant security council resolutions regarding Iraq. This includes those resolutions requiring Iraq to stop the repression of its civilian population.
2.) Defend U.S. security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
3.) Eliminate Iraq's WMD stockpiles and WMD programs.
4.)Iraq was in clear and material violation of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War.
5.) Iraq's efforts to thwart the weapons inspectors.
6.) Iraq was continuing to harbor members of al Qaida and other terrorists organizations. These terrorists and these organizations were affecting the life and security of American citizens.
7.) Iraq had used WMDs. There was the danger Iraq could give these WMD to terrorists. This justified America's need to defend itself.
8.) The Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338) needed to be enforced. This called for the removal from power of the Baathist regime and promotion of a democratic government to replace it.
9.) Iraq was offering on going support to to international terrorist groups and the need to prosecute the war on terrorism. (In other words the resolution understands that you can't win this war by allowing that regime to remain in power.)
10.)The national interests of the United States require the United States restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.

Points 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 are still valid. They have not evaporated. There remain unanswered questions concerning point 3. With respect to point 7 this is what most concerned Mr. Kay. It seems his concerns were justified. The "resistance", which consists of large numbers of former regime elements, has already used WMD agaisnt our troops and a chemical weapons lab along with other items have already been found. Fortunately the WMD they used was used improperly. With respect to point 8 this law predates the Bush administration and the "neoconservatives." Your original statement that all of the original justifications for Operation Iraqi Freedom have evaporated does not seem to be correct.

If Iraq's WMD stockpile has gone missing this is not a pro-Bush argument. Posing questions that if answered could harm President Bush and his administration is not the actions of a "Bush cultist." It is quite the opposite. Dr. Mylroie and others such as newsmax, the Washington Times, and a number of others have raised legimate questions regarding the conventional wisdom. Mr. Duelfer believes furhter investigation is needed. As stated previously, the conventional wisdom on this could be correct. For the sake of the security of us and our allies, I really hope it is.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Eric

Operation Desert Fox was launched because of Iraq's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Saddam's efforts to decieve the inspectors are well dcoumented. Some of the inspectors at the time complained that the approach of Mr. Blix was too laid back. Saddam Hussein could have easily documented the destruction of the weapons in question. He chose deception. Given his prior history, this left us and our coaliton allies no reasonable choice but to take the actions we took. As for any facilities, we have found some since we have been there. It was either David Kay, Charles Duelfer, or someone with the ISG that pointed out we have been able to uncover things the UN inspectors never could. The necessary equipment may have been part of the "equipment" that was transferred to Syria. A "facility" could be almost anywhere, perhaps even underground. We have found massive underground bunkers and many other things of interest. Given the deception employed, these will not be easy to find.

Saddam had plenty of help from his pals and he had lots of time, as we played a futile game with the UN. What we have been unable to find can fit in a two car garage. What was detected going into Syria has been described as an "up tick" in traffic. Saddam used security people to guard these and when they arrived at the destination people with protective clothing then handled whtever was moved. Our satelites cannot look inside the vehicles.

As Ben-T pointed earlier, it is unlikely Saddam would be sending illegal oil shipments to Syria, in the run-up to the war. Apparently the ISG does not believe this either. Mr. Duelfer says it warrants further investigation. But again, the conventional wisdom could turn out to be correct and I hope and pray the conventional wisdom is correct.

I think the decision to remove the dictatorial thug was the correct one. What you do next is a bit more difficult. I don't think the administration or our allies expected the insurgency and they do not seem to have planned well for the post removeal of the Baathist phase. I have already pointed out what I think is likely to happen if we were to leave now.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Nice to see sane and informed people here Ben-T. I bookmarked this site a while back when linked from someplace else, but hadn't added it to me 'read every day' list until I made my post on this comment thread. As usual, the people following the conspiracy theory are applying the same sort of lack of skepticism and logic here as they would at a UFO convention. Rush to judgement comes to mind, especially when their evidence can be contradicted by other facts or is based on things like the recent memos, which is turns out where 'retyped' copies of ones that no longer exist in their original form. Claims that they 'seem' valid doesn't mean much if you can't prove that some words where not altered, transposed or added to make the reporters story sound better. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, especially given the willingness of some media outlets to flat out make up fake documents. And again, other information contradicts the premise implied by the memos, even if we knew with 100% certainty they are not out of context, or conviniently hand picked from several 'plans' that might have been under discussion. Sanity and respect for judicial procedure (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) don't seem to be concepts some people think apply to governments.

Saddam did allow weapon inspectors into his country so he was in compliance with UNSCR in that regard. Undoubtedly he was not in complete and full compliance with UNSCR 1441 but this hardly justifies a war. The United States should reserve military action only when it's country or people are threatened and not to enforce UNSC Resolutions. If you think the United States military does exist to enforce UNSC resolutions, then we strongly disagree on that point.

Still you continue to confuse WMD with WMD facilities. You can ship WMD to Syira, but you cannot ship a factory to Syria. In the early to mid 1990's Iraq's chemical weapons were being produced in the Muthanna State factory -- that's where its Sarin, Tabun, and VX nerve gas came from. UNSCOM totally destroyed this factory. So if Iraq was producing WMD after this point -- which would mean it was after 1998 -- it would have needed to reconstitute a brand new chemical weapons factory. So this question is simple: name the factory where Iraq was producing its chemical weapons after 1998? If you can't name the factory, or give me the address, you have no case, because there is no factory to name.

The intelligence regarding Iraq wasn't universally flawed. As I've pointed out previously our own DIA said they had no evidence of WMD in Iraq, this was the opinion of Mr Putin, French Intelligence, DGSE, and the conclusion of the United Nations weapons inspectors. The CIA recently issued a new report rectifying their earlier intelligence to agree that Iraq's "unaccounted" for WMD were destroyed in the early 1990's.

Laurie Mylroie isn't a "skeptic" of U.S. intelligence, but a full-fledged monomaniac who thinks the Oklahoma City bombing and even al-Qaeda were just front operations for Saddam Hussein. The Bush Administration would have a great case to make against Iraq if any of her ramblings had any merit to them. They don't take them seriously because they're groundless.

There are CIA agents who have come forward to admit they were told to manipulate intelligence to make the case for war and the new Downing Street Memo also gives this credence, so the possibility that the Bush Administration corrupted our intelligence agencies remains a real possibility. In 2001 the CIA said they had no evidence that Iraq was producing WMD and Colin Powell said in February of 2001 in Egypt that "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." Later Donald Rumsfeld admitted that we'd received no new intelligence on Iraq since 1996. So intelligence on Iraq dried up after 1996 and in 2001 the best intelligence on Iraq was ambiguous and then a year later it moves to certainty. What explains this transformation? Political corruption most likely.

Whether our intelligence was corrupted or just innocently mistaken doesn't remove the fact that the war was fought on false pretenses and had no connection to the war on terror nor to American security. The sooner we withdrawal from Iraq the better.

Nice try Wilds. Downing street is rapidly becoming another Rathergate.

The reporter who supposedly recieved the memo claims he retyped it on another piece of paper, and then burned the original. Allegedly in order to protect his anonymous source. In short, he has nothing to corroberate his claims, and for all we know he could have written the entire "Downing Street Memo" on his own.

As for Iraq having nothing to do with the "War on Terror." We have had the debate over the merits of the Bush Doctrine plan for strategic Middle East democratization. You lose every time. If you want to try again you are welcome.

And yes, as a voting member of the UNSC and as a signature to the UN Charter, the US does have an obligation to the execution of UNSC resolutions.

UN weapons inspectors did NOT come to the conclusion that Saddam did not have WMDs. Saddam allowed them into his nation, but refused Hans Blix full access to what he needed. At this point Blix requested UNSC resolution 1441 be passed. It was, unanimously, and in response Saddam again refused to comply with the UN.

I don't know if you have noticed yet Eric, but we live in a global economy, and the US is possessed of the world's only blue water navy. Our national security and interests go a lot farther than our national borders. And yes, the US is committed to maintaining global security stability. I think it has something to do with that whole, failing to do so could bring globalization falling down around our ears thing. Like any great power in history, the United States projects it's influence outwards to the world around it. So far in our history, we have done so extremely succesfully. We might "strongly disagree" on that point, but my way has made the United States the world's premier economic power, eliminated the concept of great power war for all intents and purposes, and is already bringing untold economic and technological leaps and bounds to humanity and to the US in the twenty first century.

Eric

I thought I would need to clarify something. I do not think the United States military exists to enforce UN resolutions. I think the United States and our allies placed to much faith in the UN, which we now know was unlikely to help us no matter what. I was tired and what I was attempting to illustrate was that WMD was not the only reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom. So even if we eliminate point 1 from my previous post, points 2,4,6,7,8,9, and 10 are still valid. As for point 3, questions still remain. As for point 5, if the UN was not going to do the inspections we would have had to do it and Mr. Hussein would have played the same games with us that he played with the UN. The United States and its people were being threatened, as is explained in the Congressional resolution and other sources. Al Qaida and other anti-American terrorists organizations were being harbored. trained, and paid by the Iraqi government in Iraq. To leave him in power became too risky. As stated previously, what you do after the Baathists are removed is a bit more difficult. Regadiing UNSCR 1441 he was in violation, Blix and Kay both agreed on this point.

The ISG points out that "Iraqi equipment" was transferred to Syria. They are not sure what was transferred. We have located a chemical weapons lab in Fallujah, as well as other cleaned out facilities. If there is a weapons facility, it is likely in the Sunni Triangle or some place where the security situation is precarious. This would be the best place to hide it or the equipment can be moved to Syria and located in another facility. The ISG thinks there may be something to this. They have said it warrants further investigation.

French, German, and British intellegence all believed Saddam had WMD. French officials privately informed Max Boot of the LA Times of the true position of the French government. The Germans were actually the most alarmist of all. Russian intellegence likely believed Saddam had WMD. More can be found at:

http://halogen.note.amherst.edu/-theindicator articles.php?date=02262004&page=14

www.eriksvane.com/lies.htm

Mr. Putin recently admitted the Russians also thought WND would be there, however, as we all know he disagreed with the decision to remove Saddam. This can be found at:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/06/60minutes/693422_page2.shtml.

That being said the Russians, French, and Germans would have had substantial reason to mislead us. It would not surprise me, if they statements often contradict.

Our intellegence seems to have ranged from the following: 1.) Certain they wouold be there. 2.) Lack of any reliable information. The problem with point 2 is we knew Saddam's history, we knew about his hatred of us, we knew about his alliance with terrorist who hated us, and we had no assurances that we or allies would be safe. Saddam and his Baathist party could have easily cleared up any discrepancies. He chose not too. Given Saddam's history, his hatred of us, his alliances with al qaida and other terrorist groups who hate us, and the deception he employed against the inspectors led us to assume the worst. We know all of the WMD were not destroyed. WMD was used against our troops. Thankfully it was used improperly.

Dr. Mylroie, former CIA director James Woolsey, and others have correctly pointed out that organizations such as Al Qaida need state sponsors to operate effectively. Iraq was just one of the state sponsors. There have been reports of a third terrorist involved in the OKC bombing. Some, including Mr. Woolsey, think a third terrorist of middle eastern orgion was involved. I strongly suspect this to be tha case, but I'm not sure. Questioning official stories, especially stories such as these where there is evidence that the official story may not be correct does not make one a monomaniac. Of course it is standard leftist technique to attack the messenger. This way they don't have to address the points raised. The points that she, Newsmax, and the Washington Times, among others have raised are not pro-Bush arguments and they don't help the left either. I'm not necessarily endorsing Dr. Mylroie's points. The main thing I'm getting it is, as verified by multiple sources, which include Dr. Mylroie there remain unanswered questions about the former Iraqi regime's WMD program.

All investigations to date have exonerated both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair. If an intellegence agent were to come forward now, I would wonder if he was lying then or is he lying now. I would likely conclude he is lying now. In the run up to Operation Iraqi freedom, there would have been no political gain. Even going back to the Clinton administration the government thought WMD would be there. This is not new to the Bush administration. The Clinton administrtion made numerous references to this.

In order to carry out political corruption on the intellegence would require both democrats, republicans, and the congressional oversight committees on intellegence to work together. Then we would need to corrupt the intellegece of other countries. I've already provided the documentation that the WMD threat was believed to be real even before the Bush administration took office. The "Bush lied" diatribe is an example of a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand the test of scrutiny. That is unless we conclude that the Clinton administration was in on the deception. David Kay says the following:

"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Huessein."

"The problem we face is that before the war, not only did the U.S. administration, and U.S. Intellegence but the French, British, Germans, and the UN all thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not finding them tells us we have got a more fundamental problem." On accusing the administration of lying he says, "it trivializes what we did find and what we did face." On whether the administration pressured intellegence, "absolutely wrong." He concludes the decision to remove the tyrannical thug was "absolutely prudent."

More ana-lysis can be found here:
www.defense.gov/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.html

Charles Duelfer reached much the same conclusions as Mr. Kay did. Ana-lysis can be found here:
www.frontpagemag.com/Aricles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15443

You bring up the downing street memo. The leftist media has only reffered to the parts that they like while ignoring the fact that in the text of the memo shows the British were clearly concerned about Saddam's using WMD. The reporter who released these memos admits he is unable to authenticate them.

Iraq's ties to terrorists and terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda are well documented. I have already extensively documented it. This is not being conducted on false pretenses. The congressional resolution spells out 10 reasons for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even if the UN resolutions are removed as a justification, the others are still valid. There remain unanswered questions on the WMD issue. Given the fact that the Iraqi baathist party was an integral part of the terrorist network, Iraq has everything to do with the war on terrorism. You are not likely to win this war by leaving his terrorist regime in power. To withdraw now would be handing the terrorists a victory which will only embolden them and make us less safe. I spell out in my first post what is likely to happen if we withdraw now. Iraq, Afghanistan, and a number of other locations need to be viewed as multiple fronts in the same war, in much the same way Europe, Japan, and North Africa were viewed as multiple fronts in the same war during WWII, as opposed to separate wars. A poll, such as the CBS poll, referenced here that separates the war on terrorism and Iraq is at best misleading. At one time the MSM understood this. The following article, ironically from CBS news, discusses the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This article can be accessed at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/attack/main524191.shtml The article is archived under "War on Terror." To conclude we should have stayed out of Iraq means we should have stayed out of Afghanistan, which means we might as well surrender or shift the frontline to our streets. By the way, the government really needs to do something about our border situation!! I stand by my conclusion that the operations in Iraq have made us safer by drawing terrorists away from us and to Iraq. I think President Bush needs to remind the American people of the stakes. You loose in Iraq you loose the war and we and our allies would be less safe.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

If the Downing Street Memo is a 100% forgery then why hasn't the Blair government disclaimed its authenticity? They said it didn't report anything new.

Hans Blix was not denied entrance into Iraq and the inspectors made suprise visits to many locations in Iraq without interference. Iraq voluntarily began dismantling many of its al-Samound 2 missiles. Iraq provided unfettered access to any location and eventually began permitting U-2 flyovers. Nothing incriminating was found that would substantiate the claims of the Bush Administration was Iraq was possessing and concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised. So your insinuation that "Saddam refused to comply" doesn't reflect the day to day reports of UNMOVIC.

If we are in Iraq to "democratize" it and not to take pre-emptive action against a "threat of a unique urgency," as Bush so deceptively put it, then this is an ex-post facto justification. The Iraq's war ostenstive connection to the War on Terror was that Iraq could provide WMD to terrorists "on any given day," as Bush again so deceptively put it. So at best the war in Iraq was only theorectically part of the War on Terror, but without WMD it isn't part of the War on Terror at all.

So let's pretend that the purpose of the war all along was to make Iraq a "democracy." I pointed out the problems with this before, but let's review it again.

A "democracy" is no better than the political parties running for office and the most prominent party in Iraq is the Iranian backed al-Dawa party. So those who say that we should be fighting and dying in Iraq for democracy are really just saying Americans should be fighting and dying for the al-Dawa party. Would any Americans even vote for the al-Dawa party? Of course not, so fighting for "democracy" in Iraq means telling your fellow Americans that they should die for a political party no American would vote for. I find this an unpersuasive argument for war.

Then there's the universal cliche -- we're turning Iraq into a democracy because democracies don't support terrorism. Well, maybe that's true and maybe it isn't. However to most of the people who support the Bush Administration it isn't true since they accuse democracies like France, Germany, and Russia of supporting terrorists like Hamas -- and Hussein of course. So they argue "democracies" don't support terrorism and then they accuse democracies of supporting terrorism. So Bush cult nonsense refutes Bush cult nonsense.

I think America is a rich and vibrant nation and I surely wish to preserve our free-market economy and our Constitutional liberties. However, I don't see the nexus between our liberties and nation-building in Iraq. The Iraq war has cost billions of dollars and that's money the Bush Administration wasted that could have been part of our free market economy.

The 9/11 Commission Report looked into all the evidence of al-Qaeda's financial supporters and concluded there was nothing to indicate that Iraq -- or any other state e.g. Saudi Arabia funded al-Qaeda. They also mention that there was no "operational collorative" relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. So any suggestion that Iraq trained, funded, or harbored al-Qaeda as part of a working relationship is speculation, and not part of the official record. If you read the 9/11 report it makes clear that there was much greater "links" between Hizbollah and al-Qaeda and the training camps were in Afghanista and Lebanon, and not in Iraq. If you wish to believe that Iraq funded and trained al-Qaeda you can do so, but it's not part of the official record. Someone can choose to believe that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance also, but it's not part of the official record. Right now, both those beliefs are "conspiracy theories."

Iraq did have lots of chemical factories -- just as all semi-modern economies do. But you keep evading my question: Name the factory that was actively producing Sarin, Tabun, and VX nerve gas after 1998? It's a very simple question. The factory that was producing Iraq's chemical weapons in the early 1990's was the Muthanna factory, but it was destroyed by UNSCOM. Well, name the factory that took its place after 1998? Until you can name the factory that was producing these chemical weapons there's no reason to conclude anything was sent to Syria.

It's hard to see how America is more safe after creating a Sunni insurgency. In fact the Administration's rhetoric belies the idea we are fighting terrorism. The effort currently seems to be to get enough Iraqi security forces in play to handle the security situation. This means that our military is nothing more than a provisional security force for Iraqis. However, "if we are fighting them over there so we won't fight them here," is accurate then there's no point in training Iraqi security forces since once our troops withdrawal from Iraq all the terrorists will show up in our streets. Of course no one in the Bush Administration raises this contingency because no really believes we're fighting them over there so we won't fight them here. It's another cliche.

So apart from cliches and unproven conspiracy theories there isn't much reason to support the war in Iraq. However, there are many reasons to oppose it.

Eric

The reporter who released the downing street memo is unable to verify its authenticity. According to the British official who was quoted the document "appeared authentic." In other words he was only reporting on what he thinks he knows. Even if it is authentic, the news reports typically ignore the parts of the memo that describe that the British were concerned about what they would do if Saddam used WMD during the war. "Bush lied" has been investigated and re investigated so many times that I have lost count. Every time Bush has been exonerated. These folks forfieted their credibility long ago.

Saddam did not comply with UN resolutions. This is well documented. He practiced mass deception. I have already documented this. More here:

www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp

www.newsmax.com/arhives/articles/2003/1/27/125634

www.newsmax.com/archives/aritcles/2003/1/27/161214.shtml

www.usembassy.lv/EN/Iraq/defiance

Bush did not do anything deceptive. If anything, he has consistenly underestimated the threats posed by terrorists. I'm concerned this man does not even realize our greatest threats are not from Islamic extremists but are from Russia. Not that Islamic extremists aren't dangerous. They are dangerous. Bush and his administration have understated national security threats from the beginning. The Congressional resolution spells out the reasons for Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is a part of the public record.

Our own government officials, such as Condi Rice have said that an Iraqi democracy may not look our own. Iran is playing a large role in the so called "insurgency." I don't think the mullahs like them very much. I'm not sure if this will work. What I think is clear is it was in the interest of our national security and that of our allies to change the situation on the ground. For us to be successful, the govenrments in Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority also will need to change behavior or they will need to be removed. I have reservations about our policies. The other options on the table are continue doing what we were doing before 911 or surrender. Policies such as this led to 911.

Yes the war in Iraq has cost billions. 911 cost trillions. If we fail in Iraq, terrorists and their organizations, such as Al Qaida are strengthened. This would only make the next 911 more likley. If we leave Iraq right now, the former regime elements will probably return power. We would be out of the way, so they would probably reconstitute the WMD programs. They would probably re establish the terrorist training camps that were there before we removed the former regime. They will be emboldened at having defeated America. This will make another 911 all the more likely or worse a "WMD 911." Such an event would in all likelyhood lead to martial law of some sort. By taking the fight to the terrorists we lessen the risk of another 911. By doing so we help to preserve the liberty of ourselves and our allies. Btw I'm writing a letter to my congressmen and President Bush to do something about the border situation!!

Eric

The 911 Commission report found no evidence of corrobation on the 911 attacks. No one ever said there was. This would leave us having to explain what Boeing 707s were doing at the Salman Pak terrorist training Camp and who was training the terrorists on how to hijack planes using knives. We could assume the Iraqi Baathists did not know what they were doing, but it does not seem likely. Other captured documents reveal that Saddam's government paid money to terrorists. The 911 Commission Report ignored the evidence from the Justice Department that Al Qaida and Iraq had agreed to work together in the area of weapons development. This is not conspiracy theory as not all "official" sources agree. Offical sources within the Bush administration and the Deparment of Defense have expressed skepticism at the conventional wisdom that nothing of significance was moved to Syria. Offical sources within the ISG, such as David Kay and Charles Duelfer have pointed out that equipment that could have included WMD were moved to Syria. The ISG has said it warrants further investigation. I have already proven and provided the information to document this. I have also provided links to document that 1.)Iraq provided safe harbor for terrorists. 2.)Iraq provided terrorist training camps. 3.)Iraq paid salaries and provided housing to certain terrorists including al qaida members. 4.)Iraq and Al Qaida agreed to work together on weapons development. One can say there was no relationship but a proponderance of the evidence does not agree. I would suggest looking at it from all angles and not just what the main stream media reports. Not all official sources agree and those who say there was no relationship are ignoring key pieces of information. The ultimate conspiracy theory is the one that "Bush lied." This has been investigated and re-investigated. As for Bush having knowledge of 911 in advance, that has been investigated and proven false.

"Name the factory that was actively producing Sarin, Tabun, and VX nerve gas after 1998?" I'm not sure where the particular factory you seem to be looking for is. Given the level of deception employed by the Baathists and given they knew we would be looking for it I don't think they are going to put this out in the open and mark it with a big X. The facility you are looking for could be one of the labs that we found that was cleaned out. The equipment could have been moved elsewhere to another facility. The military found a chemical weapons lab when they took Fallujah last year. They were very specific about this. It was not a harmless chemical factory. My best estimate would be that any active WMD programs or WMD materials would be in the "Sunni Triangle." This is where Saddam loyalists are and the security situation has always been precarious. Even the ISG concludes something was moved to Syria. They say it warrants further investigation. So if you say nothing went to Syria, it would seem official sources do not agree. I have been informed that chemical weapons labs can fit in a house. The WMD that was used against our troops could have killed thousands if it was used correctly and this was only one weapon. As stated before, I think it would be reckless to be too quick to sound the all clear on Iraqi WMD stockpiles.

The "insurgency" is made up of former regime elements and their Al Qaida allies. The former regime, as I have already documented, was devoted to world wide terrorism. They are now spending resources to try and recapture Iraq and re establish their terrorist training camps. Those resources would have been spent on world wide terrorism. We need to defeat them now, so they cannot show up on our streets. If we leave now, this is probably what would happen.

The only good reason I know of to oppose Operation Iraqi freedom is I am concened all of this focus on Islamic Extremists may have caused us to loose sight of larger threats such as Russia. Also I'm concerned about what appears to be poor planning on the part of us and our allies may have caused us to get tied down in Iraq when there are other threats elsewhere. Of course it easy for me to be an arm chair general!! The bottom line is a war against Islamic Extremist terrorists that leaves Saddam's Baathist government in power is no more likely to be successful than a WWII scenario that takes out the Japanese imperial power but leaves Hitler in power or vice versa. Please understand I am not saying we are at war with "Islam." We are at war with "Islamic Extremists." Due to political correctness, we have had some trouble defining it.

"If the Downing Street Memo is a 100% forgery then why hasn't the Blair government disclaimed its authenticity? They said it didn't report anything new."

-Eric Wilds

Burden of proof is on the reporter. He can't verify the authenticity of his claims.

"Hans Blix was not denied entrance into Iraq and the inspectors made suprise visits to many locations in Iraq without interference. Iraq voluntarily began dismantling many of its al-Samound 2 missiles. Iraq provided unfettered access to any location and eventually began permitting U-2 flyovers. Nothing incriminating was found that would substantiate the claims of the Bush Administration was Iraq was possessing and concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised. So your insinuation that "Saddam refused to comply" doesn't reflect the day to day reports of UNMOVIC."

-Hans Blix concluded he was not being cooperated with to the extent that he needed to effectively carry out his investigations. This resulted in the passin of UNSC 1441, which Saddam refused to comply with. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

"A "democracy" is no better than the political parties running for office and the most prominent party in Iraq is the Iranian backed al-Dawa party. So those who say that we should be fighting and dying in Iraq for democracy are really just saying Americans should be fighting and dying for the al-Dawa party. Would any Americans even vote for the al-Dawa party? Of course not, so fighting for "democracy" in Iraq means telling your fellow Americans that they should die for a political party no American would vote for. I find this an unpersuasive argument for war.

Then there's the universal cliche -- we're turning Iraq into a democracy because democracies don't support terrorism. Well, maybe that's true and maybe it isn't. However to most of the people who support the Bush Administration it isn't true since they accuse democracies like France, Germany, and Russia of supporting terrorists like Hamas -- and Hussein of course. So they argue "democracies" don't support terrorism and then they accuse democracies of supporting terrorism. So Bush cult nonsense refutes Bush cult nonsense."

-Eric Wilds

Elaborate strawman, overall ineffective.

The Bush Doctrine look at the situation that is US foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1970s, which is, attempt to appeace and work with anti-American dictatorships, and hope that they don't facilitate terrorism behind our backs anyways. This resulted in 9/11.

The Bush Doctrine advocates a policy of strategic regional democratization. As is logical, this would begin with the three governments in the region that, on 9/11, were openly hostile to the United States of America. That encompasses Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Two down, one surrounded.

Even a casual observer of history will know that radicalism and dictatorship find their bases in economically desperate, disconnected societies. Just the kind of society that has been pumping out Jihadists by the battalions for decades.

We also know that democracy and tolerant societies grow in economically succesfull, connected societies.

Now then, what tool exists in the modern world that is more effective than any other in history in spreading wealth and connectedness?

You guessed it, globalization!

So then, by implanting strategically placed, democratic, connected, globalized states in the Middle East, we can effectively combat the economic desperation and societal disconnectedness that causes the Jihad problem in the first place.

The Bush Doctrine then, would strike not only at the Jihadists, but at the Jihad factory.

Apparently the reporter is now saying that he didn't destroy the 'originals', he destroyed 'photocopies' he made of the originals, which he then retyped, before destroying the photocopies. True? Maybe... But I can't help but wonder if this will become like the journalist who nearly got killed, starting with, 'I got shot at', and ending with, 'They even fired tanks at me!'. Or in this case, the reporter photocopied, blown up versions of microfilm, taken of the originals by invisible pigmies with equipment borrowed from the Q branch of MI6... Well, probably not. He might have told the truth this time. The pro-conspiracy types are certainly convinced it is, but then they believed it was real even when the originals where supposedly gone.

So far there's lots of hot air, but not much substance. If the Downing Street Memo is a forgery then all Tony Blair has to do is say so. However, he just said it didn't report anything new, so his own statements have corroborated its authenticity.

UNSCR 1441 mandated that Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors have access to Iraq to account for any weapons and weapons programs. Iraq allowed Hans Blix entry and unfettered access to Iraq's facilities. He was not stymied at any location. Iraq voluntarily destroyed its al-Samoud missiles, evidence of cooperation.

Perhaps this is still too difficult for some to grasp, but let me try again. If Iraq sent caches of chemical weapons into Syria then those weapons had to be produced in a chemical weapon factory. The chemical weapon factory that was producing Iraq's chemical weapons -- Sarin, Tabun, and the VX nerve agent -- was the Muthanna state factory in the early 1990's. This factory was totally destroyed by UNSCOM in the mid-1990's. So that would mean that after inspectors left in 1998 that Iraq would need to reconstitute a new chemical weapon factory, import or develop chemical precursors, and start stock piling chemical weapons. So let me try again: tell me the name of the chemical weapon factory that was producing these weapons?

If you are unable to tell me the name of this factory then there's reason to believe anything went to Syria and is only further proof the war was a monumental fraud and a colossal error.

Saying that we're fighting and dying for democracy in Iraq borders on meaninglessness. If I were ask someone who they voted for the last election and they said "democracy," would that mean anything? Of course not, either the person voted for Bush, Kerry, Peroutka etc. Equally absurd is to say we're fighting for "democracy" in Iraq. No we're fighting for the al-Dawa party et al.

So let me try this question again: why should Americans die for a political party no American would vote for? No Bush cultist has given me an answer because there is no good answer.

Let me try the other question: How can Bush say democracies don't support terrorists while all the Bush cultists accuse democracies like France, Germany, and Russia of supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Again, Bush cult nonsense refutes Bush cult nonsense.

Salman Pak was set up by the British SAS special operations in mid 1980's to train Iraqis in hostage rescue techniques. It was under the supervision of Iraq's Department of External Threats to train in counter-terrorism. Since Osama bin Laden -- as the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear -- was financing anti-Iraqi terrorits in Kurdistan, Baghdad responded by developing a counter-terrorism training camp. Iraqi defectors have been proven so dishonest they make Bill Clinton look like Honest Abe.

Throwing around words like "globalization," "democracy," etc sounds fancy because they are the latest word fads but word fads and strategies are very different things. There have been plenty of books written in recent years -- Amy Chua's _World of Fire_ Fareed Zakaria's _Illiberal Democracy_, Huttington's _Clash of Civilizations_ -- to show how democracy and globalization will not result in tiny cloned America's all over the world.

If President Bush had said we're invading Iraq to trigger a Sunni insurgency and then we'll have the American military function as a provisional Iraqi security force, he would have been right. However, he sold it as a pre-emptive war and never mentioned a Sunni insurgency -- a colossal failure is there ever was one.

"So far there's lots of hot air, but not much substance. If the Downing Street Memo is a forgery then all Tony Blair has to do is say so. However, he just said it didn't report anything new, so his own statements have corroborated its authenticity."

Sorry, you guys have burden of proof, and you can't verify your own claims. Not gonna fly.

"UNSCR 1441 mandated that Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors have access to Iraq to account for any weapons and weapons programs. Iraq allowed Hans Blix entry and unfettered access to Iraq's facilities. He was not stymied at any location."

Hans Blix clearly disagreed with you, as his various complaints to the UN led to the Bush ultimatum.

"Perhaps this is still too difficult for some to grasp, but let me try again. If Iraq sent caches of chemical weapons into Syria then those weapons had to be produced in a chemical weapon factory. The chemical weapon factory that was producing Iraq's chemical weapons -- Sarin, Tabun, and the VX nerve agent -- was the Muthanna state factory in the early 1990's. This factory was totally destroyed by UNSCOM in the mid-1990's. So that would mean that after inspectors left in 1998 that Iraq would need to reconstitute a new chemical weapon factory, import or develop chemical precursors, and start stock piling chemical weapons. So let me try again: tell me the name of the chemical weapon factory that was producing these weapons?"

Various hurriedly-cleared out facilities have been discovered in Iraq. Some still containint their stockpiles of Anthrax and Smallpox.

"Saying that we're fighting and dying for democracy in Iraq borders on meaninglessness."

Only to the most ignorant of policy observers. Sounds like you fit the bill just fine.

"Let me try the other question: How can Bush say democracies don't support terrorists while all the Bush cultists accuse democracies like France, Germany, and Russia of supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Again, Bush cult nonsense refutes Bush cult nonsense."

Another Strawman. Unsurprising. Whenever we get into a real debate about the various advantages of spreading democracy and globalization into the region of the Middle East, and it's effects on US national security and foreign interests, you fall back on this one after losing miserably.

If you were to ask anybody on the street which government they were more afraid of, Germany's or Iran's, I bet you I can guess which one the overwhelming majority would say.

Another note:

You still haven't answered the question of why a Saddam actively purchasing WMD arsenals is particuarly less dangerous than Saddam creating his own. We already know that he very much wanted to create such an arsenal. It was only a matter of time until he did.

If the Downing Street Memo is a forgery -- it's possible -- then all Tony Blair has to do is say so. No one involved in the "minutes" has alleged it's a forgery and if one of them does then some additional proof must be established. For instance, if someone confesses to a crime it's on no one's shoulders to establish proof of guilt. Since the British government at this time has not disavowed the memo its authenticity is not a matter of dispute.

"Hans Blix clearly disagreed with you, as his various complaints to the UN led to the Bush ultimatum."

You're going to have to be more specific. This is more vague than a Nostradamus quatrain. UNSCR 1441 demanded that Iraq open its country to weapon inspectors -- they did so. The inspectors demanded unfettered access to Iraq's facilities -- Iraq allowed them. The inspectors demanded Iraq destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles -- they did so. At no point did Saddam Hussein order UNMOVIC out of Iraq.

I guess I should stop trying to ask the question of the name of the facillity where Iraq allegedly produced all these WMD -- sarin, tabun, and VX nerve gas because it seems not to exist. It's a very simple question: name the facility that between 1998-early 2003 produced sarin, tabun, and the vx nerve agent? Is there a reason why I'm not getting a straight answer?

Democracy is an abstraction and a generalization and reality is made up of concretes and particulars. The reality in Iraq is not "democracy," but the al-Dawa party and other Shi'a backed political parties. So when someone says they're fighting and dying for democracy in Iraq what that means -- in reality -- is that they're fighting and dying for the al-Dawa party. So let's try this question again: Why should Americans die for a political party no American would vote for?
Either you have a good answer or you don't. I'm willing to be persuaded to support the war, but so far I haven't heard a convincing explanation.

"If you were to ask anybody on the street which government they were more afraid of, Germany's or Iran's, I bet you I can guess which one the overwhelming majority would say."

That's true. However, we should consider that since 9/11 there has been a campaign to focus on Arab/Islamic regimes as threats to global peace and Iran made it into Bush's "axis of evil" speech. Why should Americans' perception of a threat matter? Most Americans thought Iraq had WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and so on. A public with such incredible misperceptions as that should hardly play a role in determining policy.

If the point you're trying to make is that people fear democracies less than dictatorships, then that's hardly true. I'd wager most Americans would say Russia and Iran are greater threats than Cuba even though Cuba is a dictatorship and Russia and Iran have national elections.

It doesn't matter to me if Iraq purchases its WMD precursors from abroad or produces them at home. Iraq had about five years to get around to producing WMD, but never did -- but he still needed more time? Whatever.

"If the Downing Street Memo is a forgery -- it's possible -- then all Tony Blair has to do is say so. No one involved in the "minutes" has alleged it's a forgery and if one of them does then some additional proof must be established. For instance, if someone confesses to a crime it's on no one's shoulders to establish proof of guilt. Since the British government at this time has not disavowed the memo its authenticity is not a matter of dispute."

-Eric Wilds

Oh look, theres that nasty Burden of Proof coming to point out that you can't verify your claims. Nevermind the fact that even if we live in a fantasy world where the Memo is valid, the British government talking about what they think the American governmetn thinks is hardly an expose into US policy. I could say I think that you are a flying bunny with purple wings, but it wouldn't mean I am right.

""Hans Blix clearly disagreed with you, as his various complaints to the UN led to the Bush ultimatum."

You're going to have to be more specific. This is more vague than a Nostradamus quatrain. UNSCR 1441 demanded that Iraq open its country to weapon inspectors -- they did so. The inspectors demanded unfettered access to Iraq's facilities -- Iraq allowed them. The inspectors demanded Iraq destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles -- they did so. At no point did Saddam Hussein order UNMOVIC out of Iraq. "

-Eric Wilds

NO.HE.DID.NOT.OFFER.THEM.UNFETTERED.ACCESS. As Hans Blix was happy to point out to the UNSC.

"I guess I should stop trying to ask the question of the name of the facillity where Iraq allegedly produced all these WMD -- sarin, tabun, and VX nerve gas because it seems not to exist. It's a very simple question: name the facility that between 1998-early 2003 produced sarin, tabun, and the vx nerve agent? Is there a reason why I'm not getting a straight answer?"

-Eric Wilds

I guess I should stop trying to ask why a Saddam purchasing WMDs and attempting, succesfully, to dodge UN sanctions was not as large or almost as large a concern as a Saddam with factories. I guess I shoudl also stop pointing out that multiple, hastily cleared out facilities, some still with stockpiles of Anthrax and Smallpox inside have been found in Iraq.

"Democracy is an abstraction and a generalization and reality is made up of concretes and particulars. The reality in Iraq is not "democracy," but the al-Dawa party and other Shi'a backed political parties. So when someone says they're fighting and dying for democracy in Iraq what that means -- in reality -- is that they're fighting and dying for the al-Dawa party. So let's try this question again: Why should Americans die for a political party no American would vote for?
Either you have a good answer or you don't. I'm willing to be persuaded to support the war, but so far I haven't heard a convincing explanation."

-Eric Wilds

BS and you know it. We are having the democratization debate in the "Iraq War Unpopular" thread. No point building a whole new debate about the same topic here, just post there.

"That's true. However, we should consider that since 9/11 there has been a campaign to focus on Arab/Islamic regimes as threats to global peace and Iran made it into Bush's "axis of evil" speech. Why should Americans' perception of a threat matter? Most Americans thought Iraq had WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and so on. A public with such incredible misperceptions as that should hardly play a role in determining policy."

Yeah! Why should the wishes of the American people matter when making American policy!?!?

Let's ignore that Iran is radically expansionistic, radically Islamic in it's governance, and is currently buying up a lot of equipment they could be using to make a nuclear arsenal, something they have always sought, allegedly to make "nuclear energy" Kind of funny when they are sitting on massive oil reserves, isn't it? Nah, it's all a Bush plot to topple the Mullahs because they want the oil!

Sorry, I don't trust a band of radical, expansionistic Muslims with the equipment necessary to make nukes. Not happening.

As fun as this debate has been, I am going to NYC until Monday, so I now must exist, stage right. See ya later Wilds.

Eric

I'm pressed for time so I will have to be brief. The people who are up in arms about the Downing Street memo are generally ignoring the fact that in the memo it expresses that the British were concerned about the possibility Saddam might use WMD. Also, this reflects what some individual within the British government thought the Americans were thinking, not necessarily what the Americans were actually thinking. Anyway the "Bush lied" issue has been investigated and re investigated so many times that I've lost count. Bush and Blair keep being exonerated. Those who push the "Bush lied" theory forfieted their credibility long ago. In any event, the burden of proof is on the people who are excited about this memo.

Hans Blix did admit that Saddam violated UNSCR 1441 by his testimony to the UN. I think he wrote a book about it too. One of the ways he described the former regime's cooperation was "hide and seek."

The facility used to produce the WMD that you are asking about could have been the chemical weapons lab that was found in Fallujah when coalition troops captured it last year or it could have been one of the cleaned out weapons labs. I've answered this question on several occassions. At least I thought I did. Also, I have said many times the conventional wisdom could very well be correct on this. Even the ISG says further investigation is warranted. Saddam could have easily avoided war by working with us. He chose deception instead.

No one within the Bush administration has said that an Iraqi democracy will look exactly like our own. In any event this policy of democratizaion of Iraq predates the Bush administration and the "neo conservatives." I have my doubts that this can work. I hope and pray it does work. The terrorists clearly don't like Iraqi democracy. They are doing everything they can to undermine it. What I think was clear is the situation on the ground needed to be changed or we could expect more 911 style attacks. We get along okay with some Islamic countries, such as Indonesia, Yemen, and most others. It is only a few who give us the most trouble. I hope and pray they will choose a more moderate brand of Islam and all we ask is they not support international terrroism.

The Americans and probably the British were allied with Iraq in the 1980s because of the need to oppose Iran. According to our own justice department, the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaida had reached an agreement not to attack one another and to work together on weapons programs. The terrorists being financed were those attacking the enemies of Saddam. They were working with Saddam. Saddam also harbored terrorists and paid salaries to some of the folks involved in the WTC bombing of 1993.

The "Sunni insurgency" has come about because former regime elements and their al qaida allies are busy trying to recapture Iraq and to re establish their terrorist sanctuary. While they are doing this, less resources are avaliable for world wide terrorism. On that note, Bin Laden recently sent a message to Al Zarqawi to shift focus from Iraq to America. Clearly the difficulty was underestimated, however, it is too soon to declare it a failure. I explain in post number 1, on this thread, what is likely to happen if we leave now. The American people need to be reminded of the stakes in this. At one time we understood. Failure in Iraq means failure in the war on terrorism. If we conclude Iraq wasn't worth it, then Afghanistan wasn't worth it and we might as well conclude the fight for the survival of our civilation is not worth it and just surrender. I'm not ready to do that. If it were properly explained to most Americans, I think more support would be seen. Iraq is but one front in a broader war. This needs to be thought of like WWII. As far as explaining the stakes involved, the recent statements by Senator McCain are a good starting point. Frankly I wish president Bush had said what the senator said. So far what we get from the Bush administration is the insurgency is in its "final throes." This is technically correct but it does not account for the propaganda aspect of car bombs. Car bombs and simillar devices have huge propaganda value but they have little, if any, strategic signifigance. We have what used to be one of the biggest terrorist supporting regimes in the world reduced to car bombs and improvised explosive devices within certain areas of Iraq. This is partly why we are safer now than before. Again, the Bush admin. must do more to explain the stakes involved. Unfortunately, if one's only source is the MSM they probably will not get it and it will become harder to explain the farther from 911 we get.
I hope and pray we don't have more 911s!!

Two terrorist supporting regimes have been removed and their former sanctuaries are in the process of being transformed. The regimes of Syria and Iran also need to be removed or they need to change behviour. Failure to deal with this would also mean failure in the war. If we withdraw from Iraq, it would be very difficult for us to have any leverage on Iran or Syria. As I said before, the American people need to be reminded of the stakes.

I hit the post button by accident. The biggest threat to America is not from Islamic extremists but from Russia. This is not to say Islamic extremists are not a threat. They most certainly are and they need to be defeated. We need to ask ourselves has the focus on this threat, while very real, caused us to loose sight of an even bigger threat. Guess who the terror supporting stakes are closely allied with, none other than Russia.

Russia is no threat. It's economy is rapidly globalizing, it's blue water navy is dismantled, and it has made no attempt to rebuild it. It lacks any ability to retake it's holdings in northern and eastern Europe. The only threat Russia poses is through WMD proliferation. The "Russian Threat" Is backwards looking Cold Worrying.

Ben

You could be right about Russia being no threat. They do pose a threat with WMD proliferation and they have recently upgraded their nuclear arsenal. More information can be found on Russian threat at:

www.jrnyquist.com

www.thefinalphase.com/FirstWelcomePage.htm

But again, I may be wrong in my assessment and I may be over reacting. I may be engaging in "Cold Worrying", as you put it. I certainly hope you are right.

Ben

As I already pointed out, I could be over estimating the threat posed by Russia. Russia was the chief benefactor of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Russia is the biggest weapons supplier to China. Russia is the chief benefactor of Iran. Russia is the chief benefactor of Syria. Russia is the chief benfactor of the Palestinian Authority. Russia is also the chief benefactor of Venezuela. In other words, Russia is the chief benefactor of allot of people who don't like us and they are the chief benefactor of the terrorist supporting states. As you point out in your previous post, Russia poses a threat with WMD proliferation. Given that WMD, when used correctly, can kill hundreds of thousands of people and perhaps millions I think this is a signifcant threat indeed. Perhaps I am over reacting but I suggest we not underestimate the threat posed by Russia. At a minimum, those whose job it is to defend the national security interests of the United States should keep a very close eye on Russia.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

One big mistake that certain strategists tend to make these days is that they look only at individual countries based on an assumption that "bloc geopolitics" are no longer feasible. This assumption relies on the assumption that the model purported by Thomas L. Friedman is correct. What flies in the face of this is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Such an arrangement hints at a return of bloc gepolitics. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has made it clear that they hate the USA. We need to regard them as an Axis of Evil.

Steve