superb, and right on target.

So, what is he trying to say?

Yuppers.

Wow. He nails it. That's EXACTLY what would have happened if GWB had indeed done what the Democrats are now saying he should have done to begin with.

J.

Beautiful

Actually, my in wargames theory class there was something that could be used even before a preemptive strike, I think it was called Agressive Deterrent. Sounds like a good plan for Iran.

Another columnist did a similar piece about two years ago focused on the immediate aftermath of the (non) attacks, including an appearance by some guy named Osama ben Laden on the Larry King Show.

This sounds exactly right, the way it would play out. For some people, it's better to die on your knees (or for other people to do so, anyway) than to live on your feet.

That is good. Considering that after 9-11, the left still don't want us to do anything, it is so disingenuous for them to condemn Bush for not doing enough before it happened.

"Muslims were going to fly jet airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yeah, Right."

Absolutely on-target. And you know what? Not too far off the mark of what could have, in fact happened.

Ben-Veniste to Rice:

So you had a memo entitled "Bin-Laden Determined to Attack U.S." but even the author of the memo says that it was just unconfirmed speculation not relating to any specific threat or calling for any action, much less the murder of thousands of innocents and toppling of a legitimate, peaceful government that you and your fellow war-mongerers initiated, isn't that right?

And how do you refute the compelling testimony of Mr. Atta, who, as one of your many innocent victims spent three dys in federal custody when he was humiliated by an illegal arrest in front of scores of his fellow airline passengers?

Pretty good article for a jew-hater.

/ Joke (based upon the Easterblogg kerfuffle last year)

#10 J. Lichty:

Man, did he ever step in it on that one. I, for one, forgive him, since I think that he has genuinely grown as a result of the experience.

#8 RadioMattM:

it is so disingenuous for them to condemn Bush for not doing enough before it happened.

This is of a piece with the left's sudden, newfound purported love for the draft (e.g. Charles Rangel). "We simply must institute a draft, to make the burden sharing more fair!" Now, can you imagine how the left would howl if Bush actually called their bluff?

See this article by Kathleen Parker that's along the same vein: In a Parallel Universe...

#8:
Considering that after 9-11, the left still don't want us to do anything, it is so disingenuous for them to condemn Bush for not doing enough before it happened.

Correction. The Left does want us to do something about terrorism. In fact, two of the biggest leftists, Kerry and Dean, were loathe at the fact that the war in Iraq was taking away resources and manpower from the true war on terror which, let's face it, isn't based in Iraq

Last line is the best:

McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

I love the dig at McCain in the article at the end. A cheap shot unworthy of the rest of the piece.

But for one sentence, I applaud this essay...

When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."

Geez, this is probably number 3 or 4 in the top list of reasons for a lot of sticky keyboards out there in LeftistLaLaLand after reading this Socialist wet dream, right after [Link: www.noahchomskynude.com...] or [Link: www.leninbuttbongo.com...]

The Left does want us to do something about terrorism.

LOL. What?

WOW. That was spot on.

#6 twisterella:

I had written back in 1998 in a 3-part article about a concept called anticipatory self-defence ([Link: www.suite101.com...] which boils down to a preemption theory.

Of course, back then I was also writing that with peace, the terrorists would have nothing to rail against and that their attacks would only be hurting the people that they claimed to be the voice of.

My views have changed some, namely that preemption must take the form of vigorous and total military action against the terrorist groups before they cause harm, and then the peace will come. In other words, I've changed the order in which peace can be accomplished. Destroy the terrorists, and peace will come.

The Left does want us to do something about terrorism.

LOL. What?

didn't you get the memo? we're supposed to figure out "why they hate us".

IIRC it involves alot of "sharing circles".

I was watching the grilling of Condi and thinking, even if they knew, just imagine the reaction if in the morning of September 11 FBI agents try to stop anyone of arab background carrying carboard cutters to board planes in the USA and they effectively stop attacks...

#14 Adam Kraus

Correction. The Left does want us to do something about terrorism. In fact, two of the biggest leftists, Kerry and Dean, were loathe at the fact that the war in Iraq was taking away resources and manpower from the true war on terror which, let's face it, isn't based in Iraq .

And the German war machine of World War II was not based at Anzio, or Omaha Beach, or El Alemein.

And of course they want us to do something. That's why they are pushing the government to focus its attention on people who fit the profile of the 9-11 hijackers: 80 year old women in walkers.

Sad, but not far at all from true...or what would have been true.

A fine job, Gregg. Is anyone paying attention? This is one thread I'd like to hear from the Kossacks and other assorted LLL's on.

#14

Uh, Adam, do you think it's Saddam doing this?

It is the war on terror. Make no mistake. I realize that you have to use a bit of nuance to draw that conclusion, but that shouldn't be too much trouble for you.

AdamKrause:

No, they don't want to fight the war on terror. Kerry has already said that its a law enforcement and intelligence problem. Spain used law enforcement tactics to fight terrorism. The police arrived four days before the attack at the place where the bombs were assembled...No warrant...no entry. 200 hundred died. That's the appoach we used in the Pre 9/11 days. 3000 died.

I also get tired of ignorant people saying its too hard to do Iraq and AQ at the same time. How on earth did we fight the Nazis and Japan at the same time in WWII. It was a problem that was orders of magnitude more difficult. The forces involved in Iraq can't be used to hunt AQ. They are the wrong type. There would be just as much intelligence focus on Iraq today with Saddam in power. What do you think we would be doing just ignoring Iraq?

#24 RadioMatt. Well done. I would add that the left is also eager to hire lots of "first responders" --- i.e. unionized government employees who vote for and donate to democrats.

In a world devoid of political considerations, there are other places that would have made more sense to attack than Iraq. But Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan weren't in violation of 17 UN resolutions to disarm, and hadn't been militarily weakened by the First Gulf War. The UN Resolutions provided the context for overthrowing Saddam. In turn, the war in Iraq draws the terrorists into a fight with soliders when they otherwise would have been free to target civilians, and creates a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East, which is the only long-term hope for dealing with global terrorism.

Will it work? It won't if we cut and run. In the meantime, one either sees Iraq in the global context of the war against terrorism, or one doesn't... or chooses not to.

#27 jerryofvirginia

You ask:

How on earth did we fight the Nazis and Japan at the same time in WWII. It was a problem that was orders of magnitude more difficult.

The answer was that the government drafted just about every able man. the US also shifted the entire american industrial infrastructure to focus on fighting the war.

The current government has done none of that.

The thing that is bothering me with the commission is that somehow we should have acted on intel for 9/11 yet we shouldn't have acted on intel for Iraq. Seriously - which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

Excellent "outing" of the whole sorry partisan circus...

#14 Adam Krause

Take a gander at this, if a dem was in office, this wouldn't be possible:

The First Candle

It’s the day that brought me back to life. It’s the 9th of April and I’m free, and they will not steel my joy again and they will not silence me. A year ago at the same date, the thieves and criminals prevented me from celebrating my freedom in the open air, and today thieves, criminals and fanatics are doing the same, but they will not steal my happiness that is making my soul fly and dance with joy and they can’t stop this.

A year ago, words failed me as I met the 1st American soldier, and I still remember his name, “corporal, Adam” and all I could utter was “thank you!” how could I ever put my whole life in few words? How could I have thanked that soldier enough? How could I have told him what it meant to me to see him and his comrades-who brought me back to life- at last? Thank you Adam, Lieutenant Antonio, Captain Brian Curtis and all the coalition soldiers who I can’t remember their names, and those I never met.

It’s the 9th of April and I feel safe! And I don’t care what those ‘political experts’ on the newspapers and TV channels, say about the ‘occupation’, deteriorated security and ‘unemployment’. You can’t understand this, because you never experienced real fear this long. Let me tell you about it, as I’m one of those who passed Saddam’s filthy test of life.
The statue fell and with it, horror fell. You don’t know what it means to be scared to death most of your life, brothers and sisters. I knew that and I faced it during the reign of evil and darkness. I was afraid to talk, I wasn't allowed to think and I wasn't allowed to feel…I wasn't allowed to love.

If I were to really boldface all the great parts in there, the whole thing would be boldfaced.

In similar vein, from here in the middle east the connection between the terrorist groups which has been poo pooed all along by the left;
and now Falujah seems to be proving it.
All the time people 'here' have been pointing to Hizbollah and the Syrian/Iranian axis, but in true Clinton style denial is easier.
Iran's Proxy War

How long before someone with guts (showing that the Israelis are fighting the same WoT and have been the so called "canary in the coal mine") will get to the nub of the problem and put Syria and Iran on the spot.
How many American soldiers have died because denial was easier than face up to Syria?

Regarding my #32, I just got done reading the whole thing. I strongly advise that everyone here does.

VDH makes short work of Prof. Asad AbuKhalil of U.C. Berkeley:

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1 2950

Amazing. And depressing, too.

Although he left out the part about William Kuby and the Center for Constitutional Rights representing Mohammed Atta, Al-Aziz Al-Omari, and 17 others in a $19 billion civil rights lawsuit against the Bush administration.

Folks,

I am getting nailed over at the posts for Counterpoint and Atrios. Not on the facts...but for instance when I made a typo which came out like I said the South Vietnamese Army was communist...and they tried to say I didn't know anything.

You guys have got to stop only posting to the choir.

Get out there and do intellectual battle at Counterpoint and Atrios (Eschalon?). But use facts and not insults.

They are talking to themselves over there.

kelly:

Not true!! There were lots of exemptions to go around. We actually did not fully use our manpower and as a result we had a serious replacement problem at the end of the War.

I was not just refering to only manpower. We fought multiple campaigns that were larger then Iraq and took more time in each theater.

ETO: Battle of the Atlantic. North Africa/Italy, France, the Air War.

PTO: Centeral Pacific, South Pacific, CBI

We had to juggle R&D and production to suit the needs of each campaign. It was absolutie mind boggling. Compared to WWII the GWOT is a piece of cake.

This is brilliant. I just sent the link to a friend on the other side.

Greetings from Sweden!

They recently said on the news over here that the muslim bastards hav captured two more Americans and are holding them as hostages.
Any one in the U.S. who can confirm this statement or is it yet another islamic hoax???

slightly OT on Fallujah situation

...Major Larry Kaifesh, 36, from Chicago, Illinois, said the rebels were disguising themselves as civilians and hiding their weapons in white rice sacks to move around the city before launching ambushes against the troops. .

..Soldiers also said they found weapons hidden inside an ambulance...
I wonder where they got this idea from?

more here,
Dead buried in soccer stadium

#30 anotherKevin - Indeed. Surely there is not a better example in history of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

#41 Hmmm

..Soldiers also said they found weapons hidden inside an ambulance...

I guess our side learned that lesson too because they obviously looked in the ambulance.

Hmmm... What say we get Gregg's permission to flesh this out into a full-length novel, and donate the proceeds to a widow & orphan fund for our WOT soldiers? I'd like to read every fun-filled chapter, then burn it.

Funny, but I was listening to left wing radio yesterday, and the looney liberals were praising the FBI lady who wanted to search Mousouwi's (spelling not even close) apartment and computer in the Twin Cities. Saying Bush's FBI prevented it.

In reality, Clintons PC FBI prevented this. Her manager was afraid of what would happen if we searched this Mid-Eastern Muslim's apartment.

He was being held on some visa issue I believe. Basically the left claims we should have "shredded the constitution" to seach this man's private residence and engage in racial profiling.

My post:
Correction. The Left does want us to do something about terrorism. In fact, two of the biggest leftists, Kerry and Dean, were loathe at the fact that the war in Iraq was taking away resources and manpower from the true war on terror which, let's face it, isn't based in Iraq.
#24 Response:
And the German war machine of World War II was not based at Anzio, or Omaha Beach, or El Alemein.

Ok, this brings us to the question of whether Iraq was a terrorist threat which necessitated military action, or, has the war functioned as a boon to Jihad-style terrorists who now find a new front on which to combat the US? If we had not invaded, would Iraq have slowly become a welcome ground for the independent Jihadists we are trying to fight? I'd say the evidence points towards no, since all information found after the war indicates that there were no Iraq-Jihadist ties, and moreover that Saddaam had little sympathy for these kinds of terrorists and their radical causes. I don't mean to give the impression that I believe Iraq was no threat whatsoever before the United States invaded, just that it was not a Jihadist-terrorist threat in the way that, of course, Al Queda and state that actively support and give refuge to Al Queda are. So, I don't think that the analogy between Germany in Anzio, and Al Queda in Iraq is valid.
#27
Adam Kraus: No, they don't want to fight the war on terror. Kerry has already said that its a law enforcement and intelligence problem. Spain used law enforcement tactics to fight terrorism. The police arrived four days before the attack at the place where the bombs were assembled...No warrant...no entry. 200 hundred died. That's the appoach we used in the Pre 9/11 days. 3000 died.

I did not know that, although it doesn't surprise me that Kerry would advocate shifting the emphasis from fighting terrorist hold-outs abroad to improving our security at home. This must mean the few times I heard both Kerry and Dean talk about allocating more troops to Afghanistan, they were really just, well, lying.

on the local news today one of the four murdered in falluja was semi local seems he was from near punxatawny pa oh and On Topic i love alternate universe/what if history stories real good one but like someone else said the best line was the one about mccain

#46 Adam Kraus

My post:
Correction. The Left does want us to do something about terrorism.

LOL. What?

I agree with Easterbrook, although I think the same exact thing would have happened to Clinton if he had tried doing that sort of thing before the embassy bombings in '98. When he bombed Iraq in '98, everyone accused him of doing it to try to cover up his political troubles. If he had gone after Al-Quaeda, people would have said the same thing.

That being said, I really wish Clinton had actually had the guts and the discipline to go after Al-Quaeda, and shut down Pakistan's nuke program, etc. A lot of our current problems wouldn't exist if he had spent more time going after our enemies and less time "getting his winkie whacked," as Lewis Black would say.

I really wish Clinton had actually had the guts and the discipline

Two things of which he was notoriously deficient.

#24:
In a world devoid of political considerations, there are other places that would have made more sense to attack than Iraq. But Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan weren't in violation of 17 UN resolutions to disarm, and hadn't been militarily weakened by the First Gulf War. The UN Resolutions provided the context for overthrowing Saddam. In turn, the war in Iraq draws the terrorists into a fight with soliders when they otherwise would have been free to target civilians

Again, was Iraq nearly as influential in supporting terrorism (the kind the US fights, not Islamic Jihad or Hamas or some other palestinian group) as these other countries you have listed - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia? Have we really removed a whole outpost infested with terrorist, or have we drawn them in? The war draws the terrorists into a fight with soldiers when they otherwise would have been free to target civilians? Oh, great, so now they can fight with soldiers while at the same time targeting civilians, which is exactly what has been happening. You also have to consider how many of the current militants have been siphoned away from well-established terrorist organizations, which are the real problem for the US, and how many of them have either been recruited anew by these organizations, or are self-inspired Jihadists who have decided to give their lives to giving the "illegal American Imperialists" hell in Iraq.

#46 "Ok, this brings us to the question of whether Iraq was a terrorist threat..."

My question is: Why are none of the 'dots' from the 1993 WTC bombing and the 'Millennium Plot' connected to answer exactly that question?

I've looked a couple of times for definitive information on 'who was responsible' for either/both of those attacks, and there's exactly two types of reporting. One sort claims Iraqi intelligence, points to Iraqi passports, the ID-theft of dead Kuwaitis for more passports, payments from Iraq, visa stamps from Iraq, confessions from some, convictions from others etc. The other sort claims AQ. OBL has claimed credit, confessions also appear to support this.

But no one appears to do the research to see if it couldn't be _both_.

There's another couple ties between Iraq and terrorism. (Not necessarily 'sufficient', but non-zero). The training camp near Baghdad with a 707 is one. The group up in the Kurdish areas is a second. And a third would be the well documented payments to the families of suicide bombers. The itinerary of several AQ folk through Iraq is also indicative - but not conclusive.

Public statements from both Saddam and OBL are also not as antagonistic as people portray. I can't convert 'Nice job OBL' into 'Die OBL Die' via mental gynmastics, I must be insufficiently nuanced.

#46:

Do you really think that the jihadis we're fighting in Iraq today would be peaceful flower growers if only we hadn't invaded?

Good work from Easterbrook.

This is a great essay. I don't think I could have been convinced to go to war with Afghanistan before 9/11, and I'm not exactly a liberal.

Frankly, if I were the president I would have quit already. If I saw half of the scary but vague crap that lands in the PDBs, I wouldn't be able to sleep. "Something big" happening is not at all helpful. We know that at any given time Al Qaeda, as well as other islamic terror groups, would love to land an attack in the US, and we are an incredibly open society with ridiculously long and porous borders (and you can't do anything about that without being called racist and worse). Deciding where to put resources would be impossible (unlike localized or timed threats like the Olympics or the Millenium). And people bitch about the airline searches now. Can you imagine if that had happened pre-9/11?

As for Kerry allegedly wanting to do more about terrorism, oh really? Is that why he wanted to cut the intelligence budgets? Weapons systems? Please. He would no more have attacked Afgahnistan thatn Bush, and if he can't see the interrelatedness of Islamic terror groups and their state sponsors (like Baathist Iraq), then we're in heaps of trouble if he's elected.

Again, was Iraq nearly as influential in supporting terrorism as these other countries you have listed

Probably not, but we had no political context (17 UN Resolutions) to invade any of them. We were supposed to invade Saudi Arabia? Yeah, they supported terrorism more, but how could it be justified?

how many of them have either been recruited anew by these organizations, or are self-inspired Jihadists who have decided to give their lives to giving the "illegal American Imperialists" hell in Iraq.

Given that Hamas is reduced to recruiting schoolboys, I'd say that the adult male terrorist pool has been somewhat chlorinated. And if jihadis are flocking to the cause, I fail to see how the result would have been any different if we had attacked elsewhere in the region.

#30, anotherKevin:

>The thing that is bothering me with the commission is that somehow we should have acted on intel for 9/11 yet we shouldn't have acted on intel for Iraq. Seriously - which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

Absolutely true. All of the lib "what if" questioning has been based on a fallacious assumption: that somehow, somewhere, there was or could have been a process by which all of the exactly right information would have reached the President's level, fully verified and accompanied by none of the wrong information. One might as well wish for the entire Earth to be a tropical paradise and for all children to have ponies. Intelligence just doesn't work that way.

#14 Adam Kraus:

>Correction. The Left does want us to do something about terrorism. In fact, two of the biggest leftists, Kerry and Dean, were loathe at the fact that the war in Iraq was taking away resources and manpower from the true war on terror which, let's face it, isn't based in Iraq

Um, yeah. The Left is going to devote every minute of every day for the rest of their lives to finding the Real Killers.

Oh, wait, that was somewhere else...

#51:

Oh, great, so now they can fight with soldiers while at the same time targeting civilians, which is exactly what has been happening.

In war, when you engage your enemy, death and destruction often result. Compare the world prior to the US entry into WWII after Pearl Harbor and after. After the US entered the war, guess what happened? THINGS GOT WORSE. For a while.

You also have to consider how many of the current militants have been siphoned away from well-established terrorist organizations, which are the real problem for the US, and how many of them have either been recruited anew by these organizations, or are self-inspired Jihadists who have decided to give their lives to giving the "illegal American Imperialists" hell in Iraq.

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter -- the lesson needs to be the same no matter what the origin of a jihadi. Established terrorists, new recruits, whatever. Each and every one needs to learn that if they engage the US with their jihad, they will die.

We are fighting a classic Gravesian Purple/Red (tribally organized around respect for power and contempt for shame/weakness) culture there, and I don't see any alternatives to communicating that message short of taking the fight to them.

#59: Oops...I mean "before Pearl Harbor and after".

Adam Krause -- have you read #32? What do you think of that?

#37, links please?

#56
Probably not, but we had no political context (17 UN Resolutions) to invade any of them. We were supposed to invade Saudi Arabia? Yeah, they supported terrorism more, but how could it be justified?

So you invade because it is politically viable? You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.

About the confusion surrounding the second paragraph, I think I may have not made my response to your statement clear.
In #24 you said, "...the war in Iraq draws the terrorists into a fight with soldiers when they otherwise would have been free to target civilians."

Ok, there are now a lot of terrorists in Iraq who fight with soldiers and would generally like to see America withdraw shamefully from the country. You suggest that drawing them into such battles is a good deed, for now they are distracted from their daily activities of blowing up civilians. I'm sorry, I don't think they would be blowing up Iraqi civilians, or those from any other country, if we hadn't arrived. I don't even think they would be any more liable to carry out terror against U.S. interests, because, as I suspect, most of these militants either originate from Iraqi resitance groups, or they were recruited by Al Queda-like groups (the real problematic groups) for the specific purpose of giving the U.S. occupiers a hard time. I doubt Al Queda has felt obligated to spread its resources dangerously thin by allocating lots and lots of its militants to Iraq, when the outcome of the Iraq scenario does not directly impact them in any major way. Granted, they wouldn't like to see a middle east that is slowly democratizing and secularizing, but they have more immediate concerns. Like fleeing from coalition forces in Afghanistan.

#63

So you invade because it is politically viable? You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that.

Surely you're joking.

Iraq was in flagrant violation its surrender terms in the 1991 Gulf War, a historical record of initiating hostilities against three of its immediate neighbors, was in violation of 17 (that's SEVENTEEN) UNSC resolutions, all of which threatened "serious consequences" if it failed to comply, its population was in extreme distress because of the oil-for-palaces program, various minorities in the country had experienced brutal repression, the Iraqi government had been proven to be behind the assasination attempt of a former US President, and the Iraqi regime regularly fired on US aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Iraq failed to meet the standard required of it in order to account for chem/bio precursor materials unaccounted for since 1998 (the 1441 test), and every single western intelligence agency had grave concerns about Iraq's ongoing intent to pursue nuclear weapons. AND STILL, IN SPITE OF ALL THIS, the US was unable to secure UNSC support, and had to expend precious political capital against thousands who comprised a self-named "anti-war" movement.

And in light of this, you expect someone here to defend the assertion that the Bush administration should've invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

You're mad.

#61:
I think that's very good, and I'm happy that's the way things are now. On moralistic ground, perhaps it could considered an acceptable and sufficient reason for the war in itself, although it certainly would not have sufficed for the international community. #8's post pointed out the hypocrisy of Democrats who condemn Bush's inaction before 9-11, yet at the same time criticize any action he takes to fight terrorism now. I was saying that maybe the war in Iraq isn't the best way to combat terrorism, as many Democrats have argued. The issue is how willing the Democrats would be to be strong on fighting terrorism in other locations around the globe.

#63:

I doubt Al Queda has felt obligated to spread its resources dangerously thin by allocating lots and lots of its militants to Iraq, when the outcome of the Iraq scenario does not directly impact them in any major way.

You don't think the outcome of the Iraq scenario directly impacts Al Qaeda?

Then why have they infiltrated the country to fight there? Why is al-Zarqawi still there? Why did 200 Spaniards have to die in Madrid last month in an Al Qaeda attack designed to pressure the Spanish government into withdrawing its troops?

Don't you believe it. Iraq matters very much to Al Qaeda, because if the US succeeds there it will put the lie to everything that AQ has claimed. People in the region will be faced with a stark choice: life under a brutal Islamist theocracy, Taliban-style, or life in a modern 21st century secular, capitalist democracy.

I don't know why people have such a hard time relating the operation in Iraq to the war against Al Qaeda. It is a simple matter of Sun-Tzu's second rule of warfare: seize something of value to the enemy and hold it. And if you think Al Qaeda does not value Iraq, then I'm afraid you simply haven't been paying attention.

Granted, they wouldn't like to see a middle east that is slowly democratizing and secularizing

I should say so. And with that, I think you may have written the understatement of the day.

Adam Krauss:

Dean and Kerry are bsing the public on the GWOT by advocating more troops for the Afghanastan. There is nothing for those troops to do. OBL and CO are in Pakistan.

Excellent article, but what I think might have happened, if the FBI raided the apartments of these 19 'hijackers' and paraded them in front of the American public on 9/10/01, is that they'd be sent back home to their countries because of lack of proof for conviction on any Federal crime. And we'd have an even nastier surprise for 9/11/02. This thing was in planning for ages.

But, yeah, the article's right - the left still wouldn't believe it could have happened. Heck, there are whole websites dedicated to proving it *didn't* happen that way. Gee, kind of like the Holocaust...

#64:
JC Johnson, you may want to read back a few posts. In #28, V the K wrote:

"In a world devoid of political considerations, there are other places that would have made more sense to attack than Iraq. But Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan weren't in violation of 17 UN resolutions to disarm, and hadn't been militarily weakened by the First Gulf War. The UN Resolutions provided the context for overthrowing Saddam."

It wasn't me who was suggesting we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, he was. I actually have some doubts about if we should have invaded anyone. Most of my posts in this thread have been about pointing out the dubiousness of the Iraq-jihadi terrorist link, which I think isn't that controversial a stance. V the K seems to feel that, in the wake of the terrorist attacks it became absolutely necessary for the U.S. to invade at least one of the many countries that sponsor terrorism (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq). His whole reason for invading Iraq is that it was politically the easiest target, and I would agree with you that this is for a very good reason, considering its atrocious international/legal and human rights record. But onto the issue of terrorism. V the K wrote:

We were supposed to invade Saudi Arabia? Yeah, they supported terrorism more, but how could it be justified?

Which brings the question: did Iraq support terrorism at all (I mean the kind that our country really cares about)? If the answer is not really, then why invade at all, no matter how politically tenable it is? Invading because Iraq was an oppressive outlaw regime is a whole other cup of tea, and I don't think it should be confounded with invading because of U.S. security interests.

I will have to go now, but thank you all for the debate. I enjoyed it and it was well-done and informative.
p.s. my name is Adam Kraus (one s, no e)

In regard to all these questions about should we "invade" or not invade, I think some of you may be missing a point.

We have to fight the enemy one way or another. When we fight by invading, it gives us the opportunity to minimize civilian casualties, by attacking the bad guys close up.

We do not HAVE to do things that way, and our enemies surely would take a different approach if they had the weapons we do.

For those of you who have forgotten, you should note that we have MANY functional standoff weapons, ranging all the way up to ICBMs. We can destroy our enemies with a remarkably minimal loss of American lives, provided that we are willing to tolerate high civilian casualties on the other side.

If partisan bickering PREVENTS us from "invading" our enemy's countries while we still can, and allows them to develop WMDs (like Iran is doing right now!) then the nice-guy "invasion" option may become non-viable and may necessitate the application of, shall we say, more "blunt" means.

Our enemies are playing with fire. If they make us really mad (and they are sure doing their best to do just that!) then we may have no choice but to vaporize them.

Now tell me, those of you who keep whining about our "invading" the lands of Islamofascists who literally call for our deaths, and who are doing all in their power to murder us... would you rather we "invade" them or "vaporize" them?

Hmm? Invading is playing nice! Don't make us play mean!

you stupid assholes!

the dumb guy attacked the wrong f---ing country!

no intelligence = attack

lost of "historical" intelligence = no attack

how many dumb f---s take common sense and throw it in the shithole! if you are gonna defend the guy, just say he is stupid and move on! dont pretend like he is a cosmic genius or something!

usa sucks, is that you?

And WHAT IF President Bush had done what liberal Democrats -- now all armed with 20/20 hindsight, of course -- are saying that he SHOULD have done -- namely, single-mindedly focused on getting OBL and stopping any terrorist plots from Day One?

The New York Times, in its wisdom, along with the rest of the Liberal Establishment Media Fat Boys, would have gravely accused him of "going off on a wild goose chase" abroad to "distract attention" from "the urgent problems here at home -- racism, poverty, economic inequality and environmental pollution," etc.

They would have accused him of "demonizing" an "obscure Arab known to not one person out of 50" in order to "drum up war fever" so as to "take people's minds off his tainted election in the aftermath of Florida."

They would instead have advised him to "fight terrorism" by "reviving the Middle East peace process" [read: pressuring Israel to resume appeasing Arafat, as Jimmy "The Dhimmi" Carter just said he should have done], thus "giving the Palestinian people something to hope for".

And had he immediately ordered the CIA and FBI to swap terrorist data, and, say, investigate any Arab aliens taking lessons in flying airliners (like Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 pirates), and had any and all Arab aliens been kept from boarding planes on the morning of Sept. 11, they would have screamed that it was "racial profiling" and "a witch hunt against all Muslims," darkly warned that "our civil liberties are in danger" and cried that "a new McCarthyism is settling over the land."