Apparently protecting Saudi with the US military from an invading tyrant was an extreme affront to UBL. Apparently he wanted Saddam to invade? The guy has no use for the Saudi Royalty either. That guy’s post-9/11 plan sucks worse than Bush’s post-Saddam plan.

“Even in terms of a conventional threat to the western Persian Gulf, the only thing holding Saddam & Sons back was our continued presence in the region. Do you really think that the Saudis would have let us stay there forever — whether Saddam was gone or not?”

Rich, I’d be curious to hear what you think about current U.S. military involvement around the world. Do you think we should still have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Until when should we keep troops in Saudi Arabia, in your opinion — until all the countries in the region are democracies?

Even if Saddam had no WMD ready to deploy, his continued activities to develop and manufacture them have been documented by David Kay and others — and from what I see, I do not think it would have taken him long to move some of this stuff from “program” to deployable weapons. In fact, based on the Insight article by Ken Timmerman recently, it looks like he was storing CW percusors — if not the acutal weaponized “juice” — in his ammo dumps. Or, I guess they have a real problem with bugs among their ammo, huh?

Would you prefer that we waited until one of those weapons is used against us, before we took him down?

Even in terms of a conventional threat to the western Persian Gulf, the only thing holding Saddam & Sons back was our continued presence in the region. Do you really think that the Saudis would have let us stay there forever — whether Saddam was gone or not?

Do you think that the UN would have not pushed for our “unilateral” withdrawal (especially in light of their ties to Crude-for-Food) — leaving Saddam & Sons, and their armies, in place … ready to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at their discretion, while the UN wrung their hands and did nothing.

Now, consider what it would do to diplomacy and economics if the pool of Persian Gulf oil was controlled by only two entities — the Iranian mullahs, and Saddam & Sons.

(And, I’m not even going to get to his support for Palestinian terrorism …)

There are three criteria that, when met in the present geopolitical environment, establish as prudent the removal and replacement of a nation’s leadership by outside forces.

> A leadership with a demonstrated history of using lethal force to deny people their inalienable rights, combined with a demonstrated history of aggressive expansionism.

> Possession of national resources, infrastructure, and a level of development sufficent to enable the widespread, lethal application of modern technologies by this leadership to such expansionism.

> A lack of structural checks and balances within that government and society, at a level of effectiveness that is sufficient to prevent the leadership from acting on its inclinations towards expansionism and brutality.

These three criteria, when viewed by reasonable people (i.e. most Americans), establish a nation as a threat to world peace — whether or not they have hit us first, whether or not we have coddled them in the past in the name of diplomacy.

This does not mean that we must invade them — it means that we must be willing to act to change that nation, by the most effective and efficient means possible … and when you have a leadership within that nation that will turn your good-faith efforts against you, probably the most effective means to institute change is the forced removal of such leadership.

Iraq under Saddam & Sons met all three criteria — and chose to continue with deception when challenged.

America only meets the technological and development criteria — and yet you act as if we are the ones threatening world peace.

This is a War on Terror, in all its forms … not just revenge against Osama bin Laden, Al Quada, or even “purist” Islamofascism.

I’d argue that the Taliban was easily coopted by bin Laden because they were poor, and he brought in lots of money of his own, connections to obtain more money, and men. Associating with bin Laden had lots of upside, and little downside for most of their period of cooperation.

Al Qaeda’s money wouldn’t be persuasive for Saddam, because Saddam already had plenty. Bin Laden would have to make a case for cooperation on other grounds, and would have to make the deal sweet enough for Hussein to ignore the negatives (like, getting in bed with a distrusted religiously oriented group that might endanger his own rule.)

I believe i mentioned Chalabi and Perle as being examples of the greedy. Perle has an investment company, and has given talks telling people how to make money on the war. Chalabi and his family have been given contracts and such, and Chalabi is paid $350,000 every month by the US.

Ms. Dani writes: “Iraq too strong??? Too centralized??? Which Iraq are you talking about? They are as divided as you can get.”

BEFORE the war. Now, they’re divided, thanks to us, and fertile soil for Al Qaeda to take root in.

Democracy itself is not enough — in order to avoid further hijackings, Iraq must institute structural changes to both limit the reach of its leadership, and preserve respect for the inalienable rights of individuals within its borders.

If that can be done in ways that differ from what we have chosen, that is fine — but those structural chagnes must be made, or we will have to go in there again in the future.

The Iraqi people are human beings — and have the same capacity for adaptation that we all have. They can change … and must … change; in fact, they have a responsibility to the rest of us to do so, to keep their nation out of the hands of those who would kill to rule …

… regardless of what Al Quada does.

Get real … if this Administration was as crooked as you imply, they would have emulated the “progressive” UN and joined in on the Crude-for-Food bonanza … or Iraq would have been colonized as early as 1991.

Iraq too strong??? Too centralized??? Which Iraq are you talking about? They are as divided as you can get.

Um, the Bush administration (and Chalabi and Perle, et al) seem to be the expansionist thugs who hijacked Iraq and will leverage the wealth and people of Iraq for their own greed and megalomania.

There was little likelihood of Iraq being hijacked by Al Qaeda, as Afghanistan was. Iraq was too strong, too centralized, and too wealthy compared to the Taliban.

It is not impossible nor rare for someone to communicate to a specific person or group of people a message via broad statement while addressing a larger group to whom that statement does not pertain. That is what I think he was doing. Of course, that is my opinion because I am not in Dubya’s head.

Also, I DO know people who think and have said that Iraqis cannot govern themselves and even that Arabs in general cannot govern themselves. You must live in a bubble or have your own radio show.

I never said this made Democrats any better than Republicans, and when Democrats play the race card, they’re just as deserving of criticism. (yawn…)

When Bush said “there’s alot of people in the world”, I doubt he was referring to one leader or one small group of people. Granted, who knows, other than the man himself, who he was specifically talking about. The Lew Rockwell & CATO crowd, and many others, believe that you cannot force democracy to work with the point of gun, especially in a nation that does not have the civil foundation for it. As they (rightly) point out, democracy means more than elections.

As Patrick Basham pointed out in his report:

The long-term survival of democratic institutions requires a particular political culture that solidly supports democracy. The following cultural factors play an essential, collective role in stimulating and reinforcing a stable democratic political system:

-Political trust, i.e., the assumption that one’s opponent will accept the rules of the democratic process and surrender power if he loses an election;
-Social tolerance, i.e., the acceptance of unpopular groups (e.g., homosexuals);
-Economic development (a high standard of living legitimizes both democratic institutions and incumbent politicians);
-Popular support for gender equality; and a
-High priority on freedom of speech and popular participation in decision-making.

Now, if Bush is referring (as I believe he is) to all those people who believe that we can’t force democracy upon Iraq, then he is very, very wrong to make the assertion that he did.

Subsequently, rarely have I heard rational people make the argument that non-whites in general can’t self govern, because they’re non-whites. This is the racism that Bush referred to. Now, perhaps there are a great many people around the world who DO feel this way. Personally, I’ve never met one of them, nor have I read anything by any of them. But, if they do exist, and this is who Bush was referring to, then, so be it.

But, I think you would be hard pressed to find “alot of people in the world” who actually believe that nonsense that Bush was talking about. This article explains why democracy cannot be forced upon the Iraqi people. And it has nothing to do with the pigment in their skin.

There’s some beer in the office fridge, I think I very well may do that. As for prozac, no deal. Not until after work.

Look, It’s certainly not your opinions that I am concerned with. If it’s your opinion that liberals play the race card too much, hey, fine. If it’s your opinion that liberals shouldn’t criticise Bush for the same thing that they do, fine. Your opinion is yours, and in this little libertarianesque worldview, I wholeheartedly support your right to opine on whatever you like.

What I was concerned with was your argumentative tactics. By ascribing false assertions to people, then lambasting them for supposedly making those assertions, you made a big mistake. Most antiwar folks didn’t claim that non-whites couldn’t self govern. Subsquently, Radley (and/or George Will) never claimed that Bush was a racist.

I was merely calling you on your erronious tactics. There’s a gaping difference between your “opinions”, and ascribing false assertions to folks.

And I apologize profusely if you took the “you must be drunk or high” statement as a “personal attack”. I honestly thought that anyone who could take “Bush shouldn’t play the race card” and turn it into “Bush is racist” must be inebriated in some capacity. Offending you was not on my to-do list, I promise you that.