Pandagon

The Guerrilla Quandary

Stirling Newberry's post on Fallujah gets a lot of it right:

Guerrillas are undefeatable. They're the Nightcrawlers of war, able to teleport away before you can lay a finger on them. They are conflict's evolutionary answer to overwhelming force, a large army turns to putty in their hands. They can attack the civilian population to bring instability and resentment then turn around to attack the military bringing fear and collateral damage. So we're stuck in this place where the only thing left to do is wage a massive hearts and minds campaign; problem is, we have to do it on their terms, not ours. We can't decide what they're going to accept because every time we reject the proposals of the Shi'ite leaders, even when our intentions are good, we get another mark in the hegemonic column and the guerrillas get one more propaganda piece. Our political leaders are upsettingly adept at pandering to Americans, we need to bring a bit of that political spinelessness over to Iraq. The guerrillas are going to attack, we can't stop that (just ask Israel). We can, however, open a front against those who let them escape or those who blame us for their attacks, we just have to move out of the warhawk mode and realize that the situation is now intractable if we stay in battle, our only hope is to dry up our opponent's support. And the only way to do that is to build a support base of our own.

A Million Mogadishus

After a horrific capstone to the second deadliest month since the official end of the war (of course, we can expect the blame the media first crowd to whine about this since it gets coverage), one has to wonder: after an Iraqi Mogadishu, we're faced with hard questions about how we're perceived, and what the Iraq is that we've created and that we'll be leaving if and when we pull out.

Instead, I somehow get the sinking feeling that the debate will be between people saying we should think about that and supporters of the war saying that this is a leftist line of thought that the media keeps advancing while ignoring the vast successes in Iraq France sucks Spain appeased fascists by electing socialists they just hate America.

Ah, discourse. Fuck you, too.

Brand New Theory, Now With 66% More Conjecture

Here's the new theory behind invading Iraq - Saddam had intentions to start programs to develop WMD.

Keep in mind that the WMD survey doesn't actually include any evidence for this assertion...we're now just looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Progam Activity Intentions.

Next up: we'll find Saddam's dream journal, his April 14, 2002 dream of dropping lime-green colored bombs on a series of silver arches while jazz music played in the background ironclad proof that invasion was necessary.

Sadder and sadder, day by day.

Help Out In Iraq

If anyone was wondering, there are charities and outlets through which you can send donations, either monetary or other, to Iraqi children.

Here's the address (slightly different because they use this acronym as well):

H.A.N.D. and/or Operation Starfish
c/o 1Lt. A. Heather Coyne
CPA/Baghdad Central
APO AE 09335

Analogous To A Fault

Matt Welch takes on the increasingly useless and disjointed Michael Totten's assertion that going to war with Saddam was like going to war with Hitler, because neither had anything to do with the sneak attacks that precipitated conflict with different entities. Matt makes the most important point - Hitler declared war on us.

The main reason that war on Iraq isn't comparable to war on Germany is that the two situations are totally different. Amazingly, people older than me can use analogies poorly as well...strange, that. Two allied states having declared war on the United States is not the same as a stateless terrorist organization having launched an attack on the United States (as well as all of Western Civilization) being connected with a secularized pan-Arab nationalist state with no significant ties to either the attack in question or, in any large part, the overall operational goals of the stateless terrorist organization. (Unless you're Laurie Mylroie, in which case Saddam is also behind the pothole on your street not getting fixed.)

At this point, supporters of the war need to sit down and realize that we went to war for a reason outlined by the government who conducted it, not their particular reason which is, more often than not, cleverly justified so as to be either ultimately unprovable or dependent on references to other conflicts, regardless of how accurate they are. War on Iraq can't be justified because war on Hitler was justified - it has to be justified on its own merits.

Iraq Open Thread

This is a very specific open thread, one that I'd like to put out for people who either served or have friends/family members who served in Iraq. Tell us about your/their experience if you want - I'd just like to honor and respect soldiers currently serving over there, and share their stories.

Bob Zangas

Want to humanize the War in Iraq?

Here you go.

Those two links will have different effects on all who read them but, for my money, they redouble how much I want us to stay in there and do the job correctly. Nothing in Bob Zangas's writing comes through more clearly than the dire straits Iraqis are in and the tremendous good he felt he and others could do for them. I pray we make good on his mission and ensure that neither his life nor his tragic death were in vain. His hopes were far too lofty to be sacrificed upon the altar of political expediency.

Driven Back

What worries me most about the hotel bombing in Baghdad (see Jesse's link below) is this graf:

Just...Damn

Hotel is bombed in Baghdad.

Exodus II: El Exodo

Spain's new government is set to withdraw troops from Iraq.

There's going to be the usual bared fangs from the pro-war right. "They didn't learn the proper lessons from their attack!" "Spaniards eat puppies - live!" But I doubt this is going to happen for another reason - you can bet that the Bush administration, for all their talk of hardball, is unwilling to let one of their few prominent allies in Iraq drop out.

It'll be backpage news, but expect to see all the tools of diplomatic coercion brought out here: all of a sudden, we're going to become a lot more Spain-friendly. I don't know if it's a good development or not (particularly since it's going to cause Bush to reevaluate exactly zero of his positions), but it'll be interesting to see what happens if and when support for invading Iraq is punished among foreign electorates.

Iraq's Legacy

Patrick Belton writes:

This would seem to further argue against launching wars that are unpopular and anything less than critical to your cause as the governments that you strongarmed into supporting you would not have a mandate and, if things didn't go well, you'd have the slow and embarassing withdrawal of country after country. Said withdrawal would prove deeply emboldening to whomever you're fighting and do wonders for both their recruitment numbers and their cause's aura of possibility.

In the end, I fear the legacy of Iraq will have been to aid Al-Qaeda and hurt the United States; the former saw recruitment jump and was given a battlefield ripe for terrorism (which truly gave them the home advantage as far as tactics were concerned) while the latter felt the effects of an almost universally unpopular war and is currently undergoing the indignity of suffering setbacks in a conflict it never needed to win. We didn't keep our eye on the ball, instead we opened up another battle front that ended up being pure gold for their propaganda, but not for ours.

Where's my Oil?

Victor Davis Hanson asks a damn good question:

I've been hearing rumors that all three have WMD's and are conspiring to give them to terrorists. So c'mon boy, sic 'em!

Sigh

If I wasn't sure before, I am now - the provisional constitution of Iraq will fly out the window as soon as American forces leave.

The new Iraq is going to face a choice between a constitution that will likely delimit what we consider to be some basic rights, and a bloody civil war between differing cultural and religious factions.

The lady or the tiger? Keep in mind the lady has tuberculosis and she'll eventually just open up the door to the tiger anyway.

Get Your Hands Up

Tell you what - if your phone hasn't been tapped by U.S. and British intelligence, you get a cookie.

Well, Ed, I Did Not Know That

We're still paying Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Given that they did such a good job before the war, it's well deserved.

It's not so much a "scapegoat" as a "realization that you told the American government a bunch of stuff that had no basis in reality for the purpose of getting your desired military/political outcome". Slight difference...but important.

And Bush will make Chalabi fall on his sword just about as soon as he incorporates the phrase "we were wrong" into any aspect of his stump speech. Even that part that talks about predicting the Panthers in the Super Bowl.

Bigger, Better, Stronger

Paul Bremer: On June 30th, we're going to be taking the brave step in Iraq from a provisional government controlled by Americans to a provisional government controlled by Iraqis...who are controlled by Americans.

You know, I respect the fact that a transfer towards a representative democracy in Iraq is going to be a long and arduous process. But what the hell does the June 30th date mean? Will the Iraqi police force be ready (doubtful at all, virtually impossible as a stand-in for the American forces)? Will the American forces leave in any sizable number? It seems like the June 30th date is simply a symbolic target at which point we'll really affirm our commitment to handing over power...but not actually be the date at which any real power is handed over.

Maybe we'll get a proposed trip to Jupiter on June 29th.

Switchback

It's becoming rather obvious that the important date isn't the June 30th switchover of power in Iraq, but rather which date Bremer and Bush push that June 30th target back.

Paul Bremer: "Look at all the complicated things we're doing! That's democracy-like!"

Kofi Annan: "Fool, please."

Buy! Sell! Trade!

If anyone's looking for an extra buck, the CIA's willing to shell out big money (or in-store credit) for WMDs or WMD information.

We Have Our Answer

A lot of us have been wondering what would happen if the Iraqi people decided on a system of government based on sharia, Islamic law. Would it be allowed? Would it be disallowed?

Well, now we know.

It's a bone of contention, and one of the hard prices of bringing democracy in any way, shape or form. It was obvious from the get-go that no matter how much sovereignty we were willing to give the Iraqis, certain ideas would be intractable with the American vision of democratization, and it turns out sharia was one of them.

The question now is how large the role of Islam will be in Iraqi law, and how flexible the constitution of the country will be on this issue. For instance, even if Bremer won't allow sharia to come law, what's to prevent the first Iraqi legislature from simply amending the constitution to make Islamic law the basis of the law?

I also have to wonder how political parties in Iraq will form. It seems fairly obvious that the major political divisions in the country are explicitly based on religion, and as such, even if religion is not allowed to be the core of the Iraqi constitution, it seems it will be the core of Iraqi governance, which is likely going to be much more important than the wording of the constitution.

Hell, ours doesn't say that Christianity has anything to do with our system of governance, and we still have a political party that governs like it.

We Won Cuz You're DUMB!

After having read this article, and some of the attendant responses, from "our intelligence wasn't this bad" to "deterrence doesn't work because Saddam was stupid", I notice that every reaction I read misses the major point: Saddam was not planning for an invasion.

Why is this important? If Saddam wasn't planning for an invasion, it makes it much less likely that he would have done anything to his WMD or his WMD programs, if he had any. Why would he have moved or hidden whatever stockpiles and production facilities he had if we weren't going to invade? The question, then, would be how Colin Powell could sit in front of the UN, make his presentation, and say, "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries"?

That, to me, would seem to be the relevant question.

That Durned Intelligence Panel

The high-stakes Iraq intelligence panel (Investigating the issue that's barely relevant since two weeks from now!) has its final two members, Charles M. Vest and Henry S. Rowen. Rowen is also a member of the Defense Policy Board and PNAC.

Not that I'm saying there any such thing as a neoconservative.

Saxamaphone

Stephen Hayes, who's already certified his journalistic credentials by running Doug Feith's "Crazy List O' Wacky Iraqi Threats", is back with what he considers ironclad evidence that Bush never, ever portrayed the Iraqi threat as "imminent".

Well, I'm going to be double-dog definitive up in this piece.

That's George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Scary, isn't it? And a little bit tittilating, in that "mass panic and hysteria is just around the corner" sort of way. Makes me want to get some scented candles and some World War II London-raid war recordings, and love a woman in the harried, slightly awkward way that I was always intended to.

Now, Bush declares "imminence" as the full and sudden emergence of a threat.

Assuming that we're breaking this down legal-style, I would assume that imminence would, in any meaningful sense, be constituted of motive, opportunity, and means. The verifiable presence of all three, even if the act hadn't been committed would constitute imminence - a full and (potentially) sudden emergence of a threat.

So, did Bush argue that Saddam was imminent? He certainly argued that Saddam had the motive, and is continuing to argue it. Bad man, no good will towards American, tyrant, madman, demagogue, the world's biggest Creed fan. He certainly argued that Saddam had the means (existing stockpiles of WMD, connections to terrorists) and was developing further, more deadly means (nuclear weapons) with which to threaten us.

The claim of imminence, then, rests on opportunity. Was Bush arguing that we needed to go after Saddam before he had the opportunity to attack, or was he arguing that we needed to go after Saddam because he had the opportunity to attack? This is the main disagreement, and the main reason that it's so controversial is because Bush constantly contradicted himself.

In his first paragraphs, Bush argues that Saddam could (and, in fact, likely is) consorting with terrorists. Terrorists who were and are plotting attacks on America could, at any time, be armed with Saddam's WMD. In that respect, Bush constructed a claim of constant imminence - it was Saddam's intent to attack us whenever and wherever he could, which meant that all active terrorism was, de facto, Saddam's opportunity to attack us. Bush then turns around and says that this isn't what he's saying, which is where the claim of the "Imminence Myth" is coming from.

Hayes argues as if Bush's contradictory interpretation of his own words is the final say. It ignores the fact that Bush creates an interpretation of "imminent" that is either so vague or so meaningless that his assertion in relation to the characterization of the Iraqi threat isn't really worth listening to.

Unless Bush can give a coherent explanation of what a "fully and suddenly emergent" threat is, and why, especially in lieu of his argument that September 11th redefined Hussein's threat into an "immediate" and "urgent" one, his definition of imminence doesn't apply, then apologias and revisions such as this one are mere distortions. He argued that it was a fully realized threat. He argued that it was a suddenly realized threat. He then argued that it wasn't an imminent threat, because an imminent threat was one that was fully and suddenly realized.

Ladies and gentlemen, the world's first Dadaist presidency.

Bang And Blame

Bush, for a man who doesn't govern by polls, sure does tend to govern in reaction to his, ah, polls. Which is what makes this Military.com article all the more disturbing.

Bush has a problem, which the article lays out in a later section - he's stuck between two difficult electoral rocks, and both choice are net losers for him, as is inaction. He's an increasingly unpopular president, stuck on the one hand with a war that Americans are losing patience for (and a switchover in July that's likely going to be more expensive than what's currently budgeted), and stuck on the other hand with a ballooning deficit (and, at some point, he's going to have to admit that the extra billions he didn't include in the budget is actual money).

The election year engineering of Bush's own crises is going to be interesting - if and when Bush has to request extra money, look for it to be announced right before he announces a major "soft" initiative (expanding NCLB, pre-natal care, a National Hug Your Mother program).

Bush: Fresh Republican Weakness in the '04.

How The West Was Won And Where It Got Us

I'm on an REM kick, and the fluish-type sickness that I've had for a few weeks is on the verge of boiling over, so let me post this before I go sick-crazy.

Mario Cuomo tells Democrats to adopt a "conciliatory tone" towards Bush on Iraq, declaring that everyone was fooled by the intelligence.

With all due respect, this is only slightly more wrong than an Anne Geddes photo shoot with Sun Myung Moon ("Can you make the little Moonie baby spray the baptismal fire hose a little to the right? It's not coming off well on film."). It's only the drumbeat of Democratic criticism to this point that's driven Bush to admit that there's something someone needs to be blamed for.

What Cuomo is suggesting is that we either accept Bush's line, that we were fooled by intelligence agencies (a contention that's unraveling as we speak), or else we risk Bush a.) apologizing, b.) admitting a mistake and c.) being remorseful over having done both of these things. I respect Mario. I respect his years of public service, and his dedication to the Democratic Party.

But if I ever run into a worse set of political instincts outside of Dick Morris, I'll be surprised.

George W. Bush does not admit that he was wrong. He does not apologize for having been wrong, in large part because he never has to admit he's wrong. At this point, he's shown his hand: blame other people, talk about the fact that other people agreed with him (thereby absolving him of the responsibility for his actions), and repeat over and over again, "dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world".

The odd part is, Cuomo's version of Bush's hypothetical apology gives ground to Democrats. By saying in any way that anything about the Iraq war was mistaken, Bush would immediately cede all future interpretation about the validity of the war to its critics by admitting that any part of his influence on the decision was mistaken.

If Bush put "mistake" and "Iraq" anywhere near each other in any public statement, Karl Rove would immediately shed his pudgy exoskeleton as his state-of-the-art robot frame leaped onstage and slapped the living shit out Bush for having even thought it, let alone said it.

In fact, if Bush is going to negate criticism of his misrepresentation of the Iraq threat, he would be better off admitting that he exaggerated the threat, because it fits with his overall position on the war. Bush has consistently maintained that those things which did not support the war simply didn't count, whether they be Democrats, the U.N., Europe, or the State Department.

"Did I overstate a few specific threats? Maybe. But whatever I did, Saddam was a madman, a murderer, a dangerous tyrant, and a threat to us. I can't possibly overstate that." (He would still never do this, as it would admit some weakness. But it's a lot more likely than the alternative.)

So long as Democrats can successfully portray this as an issue of Bush's trustworthiness and competence, it is an effective strategy, not to mention a truthful one (which helps). Cuomo asks that Democrats either capitulate to the CIA scapegoating, or else force Bush (however improbably) into admitting that he made a mistake, even though he would still maintain that he didn't lie.

I'm really not seeing the benefit of that whole "blaming the intelligence community" deal here.

Note The Implications

I want you to keep in mind that this man was one of the architects of a massive military experiment to start a tidal wave of democracy and peace in the Middle East through the occupation and democratization of another country.

Doesn't this seem not only self-defeating, but also remarkably relativist for anyone advancing the Bush Administration line? What would the response be if a Democrat, talking about the insurgency in Iraq or international terrorism, declared that terrorism and political murder occured because "human beings are human beings"?

P.S. - Isn't it also weird that we've heard about how wrong it is for the Democrats to treat the "War On Terror" as a law enforcement matter, and then Rumsfeld turns around and excuses the loss of life from a terrorist insurgency by comparing it to the pitfalls of law enforcement?

Links to Al-Qaeda

I'm trying to decide whether or not I buy this:

People...People Who Need Terrorist People...

Does anybody remember when the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties were first being alleged by nuts such as Laurie Mylroie and relatively respectable folks like the President of the United States of America? Anyone remember how the almost uniform response from the doubters was that there was no real Iraq/al-Qaeda connection now, but the second you invade the country, there's going to be a lot more collusion, if not outright recruitment?

Bingo.

The Most Persuasive Case Not To Listen

Victor Davis Hanson lays out in excruciating vagaries why we should have gone to war with Iraq. I'm only going to bring up what I think are his two major rhetorical problems, and let you all intuit from there that when his entire argument is derived from these points, there's a problem.

Number One:

One should be careful when attacking thinking as "fuzzy" not to justify your clear-headedness by tying together the Cold War, September 11th, the War on Terror, Saddam Hussein and Tony Blair into what is supposed to be an intellectually consistent argument.

Simply put, bad intentions and no capability do not a threat make. During the Cold War, we were responding in large part to the military threat that the U.S.S.R. and Soviet client states posed to us. Say what you will about warring economic and political ideologies, in large part our actions during the Cold War did revolve around the technology and military that the U.S.S.R had, and what they were and were not willing to do with it. In fact, every conflict and interpretation Hanson mentions are explicitly influenced about the nature and scope of the threat each of those entities pose or posed. We aren't worried about terrorists merely because they're bad people who don't like us. We're worried about what those bad people can do to us.

Long story short, it does matter whether or not other states or entities can threaten us, both ideologically and materially. To pretend as if this isn't the case is more than foolish - it's dangerous.

Number Two:

Well, V.D., unless "most of us" is a phrase conveniently shortened from "most of us in the Bush Administration who were publicly making the case for the war and related those reasons to the American public", this is as far beside the point as what color socks I'm wearing.

Also, that's a trick. I'm not wearing any socks.

That Zarqawi Is Poison

The discovery of a block or blocks of cyanide salt brings up an interesting question.

Found in the home of Abu Musab Zarqawi, it's unclear whether or not what the purpose of the cyanide was, or if it was even weaponized/weaponizable. But, the curious thing is that Zarqawi is suspected of having a hand in several attacks in Iraq. I don't know whether the cyanide was a weapon, what its intended use was - but the issue here is that groups could be bringing weaponry and agents into Iraq, yet it will be cited as ex post facto evidence that Iraq had WMD before the insurgency ever started.

I'd also point that the name Ansar al-Islam, the Kurdish Iraq-based al-Qaeda cell, has come up again, but I think Pandagon readers are more than astute enough to make the connection.

How To Prove A Point Without Really Trying

Paul Crespo writes the silliest piece of war rationalization since Doug Feith's grocery list of terrorism charges made the rounds in the Weekly Standard.

What's so funny is that he attempts to prove that Saddam was behind 9/11 and/or the sugardaddy of Islamic terrorism, because many terrorists moving in and about the Middle East were either Iraqi or in Iraq at some point. Any bit of evidence he tries to offer above and beyond this point is largely hypothetical and/or conjecture - the only real evidence he has is that a Clinton-appointed (read: left-wing, anti-American, borderline socialist judicial activist who loves him some Hillary) judge named Harold Baer found a link between Saddam and September 11th - a link that Baer himself said was based on circumstantial evidence.

But, you see, there were terrorists moving through Iraq! And Saddam killed one of them because the guy wouldn't train more terrorists he wanted to clean up the proof that he was training terrorists!

The best thing about having Bush out of office - no more three-card monte with national security.

The Emperor Has No Armor

But if he did, this would be a dent in it.

Israeli intelligence is now claiming it knew before the war both that the "45 minutes" claim and the claim that Saddam was actively maintaining WMD were false.

Amazingly, the further you go with this intelligence brouhaha, the more it starts to sound the same.

Start Up The Band...Again

Once again proving that the British are ahead of us on this whole intelligence flap, one of the intelligence officers involved is getting to the true heart of the matter: regardless of accusations of "sexing up" the intelligence, or whatever other sundry accusations are flying around, Blair and Bush used intelligence over the warnings of advisors and experts.

This is the issue. Use whatever words you want, debate however many other issues you want to bring up - there were strong and consistent voices warning both of these leaders that the case they made for war was based on potentially faulty (or even absolutely faulty) information.

I'm also surprised that none of the major candidates have tied this into a commentary on Bush's leadership. Plain and simple, there wasn't an institional intelligence problem. The people in charge are not showing the wisdom necessary to assess and confront the threats that face us, and the voluntary conflict in Iraq is proof positive of that.

It's simple. Use it!

Bipartisan

I'm watching this guy parrot all of the brand new, shiny conservative talking points on Iraq - including the contradictory viewpoints that we moved the WMD to Syria because it's buried in the desert in Iraq.

The blatant historical revisionism of war supporters is mendacious, dishonest, and dangerous. More than that, however, it shows the overwhelming desire to reclaim rhetorical control over the entire issue.

The current line is that despite all the complaints of the pro-war camp about the obstructionism and reticence of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, they were the ones who led those in charge to believe that Iraq posed a threat. It's another contradiction in terms, but these are par for the course.

What's interesting is that this is quickly (although failingly) moving towards the same line of justification that buffetted George Bush through the first few months of the War on Terror: WMD, like terrorism, could theoretically be anywhere at anytime. Since we can neither prove they exist or don't exist, we must assume that they could exist and that they could be...anywhere.

I'm really curious to see where this whole defense of the Bush team goes. At this point, contrary to reality, the contention seems to be that the problem, which really isn't a problem yet because we can't be sure, is actually everyone else's fault. It's transparently silly...but so was the case for the war even when they were contending it was 100% accurate.

Lethal As Ever

This story paints a depressing operational picture of the Iraq theater. Even after the capture of Hussein, the insurgents have actually gotten more efficient and deadly, and on of the officers brings up a rather poignant question: how are we going to know that we've "won" in Iraq, now that the fight is against a loose and anonymous insurgency?

Critically Wrong

Glenn Reynolds:

He quotes a Melanie Phillips article that makes the same point Charles Krauthammer did a few days ago. As I pointed out then, and as I'll remind everyone now, the ricin in question was produced in an Ansar al-Islam plant in Kurdish-controlled Iraq.

There was ricin in Iraq...but Saddam didn't have it.

Today...Is Our Independence Day

George Bush has agreed to an independent inquiry of Iraq intelligence. Small problem: he wants to choose all the members of the panel.

"I'd like to announce that this coalition will be made up of a majority of Democrats...Max Baucus, Zell Miller, John Breaux, and Ben Nelson. Along with Placeholder Number One, Token Intelligence Guy, and the rest of the Get-Along Gang, I hope this panel will accurately investigate the specific allegations that we pressured people at the CIA to give us specific information on Iraq's biological and chemical weapons programs, and that we knew before we went into Iraq that there were no WMDs anywhere in the country or the whole Middle East.

"I am confident that the CIA will be found innocent of all such charges of us pressuring them."

The Great Obfuscator

Hey! Dangerous man in a dangerous region of the world!

Well, that certainly makes the line on WMD the past nine months...fucking dishonest.

Saddam Drops The Dime

Can I point out that this list reminds me a great deal of the various bits of intelligence we've heard bandied about by various reporters since the Iraq war began. Convenient, remarkably encompassing, and logically deficient.

"Hey! Everyone we don't like got oil contracts from Saddam Hussein! Even if the people involved had no real use for oil contracts..."

Taranto And Du Toit, Sittin' In A Tree

See if you follow this train of thought, via James Taranto's Best of the Web.

1.) There is a discussion on Iraq and the War on Terror.

2.) After numerous questions to Dean, Clark, Kucinich and Sharpton about Iraq, Brokaw references the "nation of Islam" for the first time, goes to a commercial break, and asks Kerry about whether or not he agrees with "Europeans" who feel that Bush has exaggerated threats in the War on Terror.

3.) Kerry brings up a bunch of things which he feels Bush has exaggerated as terrorist threats, all of which are involved with Iraq.

4.) James Taranto, evidently sharing the bong with Kim DuToit, doesn't get it at all:

Yes, flower, it is. However, the question was about whether or not Bush had exaggerated terrorist threats. Kerry listed a bunch of things that he believed Bush had listed as terrorist threats which weren't. Taranto is pointing out a take on Iraq that supports exactly what Kerry said. Democrats don't believe that Iraq has anything do with the War on Terror. Bush says that it does.

Therefore, if I say that the threat level is 1, and you say that the threat level is 10, then my believing that the threat is low would, by extension, lead me to believe you're exaggerating when you say the threat level is high. Do we expect Taranto to understand this?

Well, sadly...no. But we must at least quarantine the ignorance to a small and manageable area of infection until we figure out how to eradicate it.

Feaver's Rising

Peter Feaver pens an opinion piece in the WaPo so utterly disingenuous that Jonah Goldberg approves of it.

This canard keeps getting thrown out, and it keeps getting stomped to the ground. There is a difference between thinking that the threat exists, and claiming you KNOW the threat exists, and subsequently acting on it. Of all of those sources, only British intelligence felt it was worthy of being acted on - other sources saying that Saddam hadn't verified the destruction of his WMD, and so it was possible that he had them isn't the same thing as the claim that he, with all certainty, had WMD and was going to use them. That required a systematic series of deceptive statements that went above and beyond any of the general or even particular claims any of the other sources made.

Why is everyone else responsible for George Bush's actions?

The issue was that the Bush Administration's specific claims about the production and distribution of WMD claimed to prove things that were never true. The Clinton Administration didn't make Colin Powell stand up in front of the U.N. and say to the world that the slides and images he was showing were concrete proof of Saddam's WMD, it didn't make Powell point to evidence and say "this is a WMD facility" and "that is a transport truck for chemical weapons". The French didn't make George W. Bush and Tony Blair claim with certitude that Iraq could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given. Why did Bush in particular seek out intelligence that proved his point while simultaneously ignoring the loud and consistent voice within the intelligence community telling him that he was peddling snake oil?

Was it the Germans' fault?

First, we're supposed to be better than that. "They're lying about the threat to us" doesn't explain why Bush put out that Iraq was obtaining items crucial to WMD that it either wasn't, or weren't suitable for WMD programs. The simple fact of the matter is that George W. Bush as the Commander-In-Chief systematically and consciously created a threat that he did not have the evidence to create. He is responsible for what he said and what he asked the United States to do.

Of course, that's not the issue at all, and to claim it is...well, that's sort of disingenous. Again. Intelligence was cherrypicked. The course was predetermined. We have not gone to war with any of those nations at any of those times, and I highly doubt if you could find a credible national security expert who would recommend going to war with any of those countries. All of a sudden, it's good policy in Iraq?

Funny how he quotes...nobody.

The issue was North Korea under the spectre of Iraq and the "Bush Doctrine". We were told for months that ONLY way to deal with Iraq and regimes like it was preventative war. Bush routinely sets concrete standards which he's contradicting even while he's speaking - and saying that war with Iraq was the only way to deal with the threat the country didn't pose as a shorthand for the overall case ignores the fact that it seems to have been the "only way"...only for Iraq.

Bush set what he declared were consistent principles for the protection of American interests and the confrontation of threats to American security in the wake of Iraq. Those principles appear to apply nowhere on Earth but in Iraq. Bush rightly receives critiques for attempting to justify Iraq through the prism of a new dynamic in foreign policy, and then discarding the dynamic at every given opportunity.

The case "rested on multiple pillars"...but WMD was the central pillar. Of the reasons cited, two come back to the WMD justification (the WMD problem becoming unmanageable, and the lack of trust for Hussein in the long run), and two come back to al-Qaeda ties that are also nonexistent. Truly masterful.

Their Waters Were Mingled

At the poker table of life, it's obvious that George W. Bush is more concerned about when they're going to bring him his next drink than the cards on the table:

Of course, Bush was "abused" by the intelligence community, so it wasn't his fault. And it happened in the mid-1990s, so it's Clinton's fault. And it happened in Iraq, so it's Saddam's fault. And Iraq used to be Babylon, so it's Apsu's fault. And if George Bush is anything, it's not Apsu.

Once again, it becomes obvious that we should use Bill Clinton's rhetoric on regime change and WMD to justify a course of action that he never advocated.

Wolf Blitzer Reports, I Shake My Head

Wolf Blitzer: "But the U.S. invaded German and Japan to change their regimes!"

Apparently, Wolf was too busy thinking about his very first beard and mustache trimmer to pay attention during 8th grade American History. You see, we went to war with Germany and Japan for the following reasons:

1.) Japan attacked us.

2.) The Axis declared war on us.*

World War II comparisons rarely work with Iraq because the situations are so incredibly dissimilar.

I understand that "gotcha" moments are like the sweet reduced-price cabernet of political reporting, but it helps if they're at least somewhat informed.

*Nod to Menshevik

Pump...It...Up

The Iraqi exile group that gave British intelligence information relating to the "45 minutes" claim (Saddam could have the Magical Mystery WMD Tour up and running in 45 minutes from his order) now says that it might have been false.

This, of course, is simply further proof that everyone else in the world but George Bush (and, by extension, Tony Blair) was wrong, and he was simply acting in America's best interests with the systematically incorrect information he was getting. Strong leadership and all that.

WMDRPAPDBNFY

(That's Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities Potentially Discoverable But Not Found Yet, for anyone following along.)

In some rather interesting news, the White House is retreating from even its tepid statements that WMD might be found in Iraq, instead opening up the door to "learn the truth".

Keep in mind that above all else, George Bush is popular, and therefore untouchable. Except that a new Newsweek poll has Kerry beating him, and the rest of the major candidates five points or less behind him. A man so invincible...yet so vulnerable. He makes all the middle-aged conservative women swoon.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, No More at 11

Reelection is starting up nicely:

Oh, What A Feeling

The revelation that Dick Cheney was the political architect behind the war in Iraq isn't news, but the extent of it continues to be surprising.

How powerful does a vice president have to be for his concerns to override those of the leaders of the two most powerful nations on the planet? What power structure is in place over on 1600 Pennsylvania, and why is this man the architect of our national security?

Crazier'n Mel Gibson At Easter Mass

Dick Cheney's really not that great of a salesman, at least when it comes to Iraq.

Perhaps the "established relationship" had something to do with Yasin living in Iraq since the 1960s? I'm just thinking that his "house, safe harbor and sanctuary" might have come from living in the country for 30 years...maybe? By the way, read Jason Burke's Al-Qaeda:Casting a Shadow of Terror for background on the 93 WTC bombing that wasn't written by Laurie Mylroie.

Let's get this straight: Wesley Clark and Howard Dean get in trouble for talking about the neoconservative influence in Washington and conspiracy theories they don't believe (respectively), and yet Dick Cheney peddles disproven theories that go against what every government agency says...and he's not a whacko conspiracy theorist?

Stop the train, I'm getting off.

The entire article is great, if only because it adeptly summarizes why every single thing Dick Cheney is contending is not only wrong, but manifestly irresponsible. Truth? Whussat?

It's Only Civil Because Of Tradition

Small problem on the Iraqi path towards democracy: CIA officers believe the country may be headed on the path towards civil war.

You know, there are times where I have to wonder what it would be like to be a conservative blogger in situations like these. My first response would be to take rapid and decisive steps towards ending the insurgency and restoring/improving the economic infrastructure of the country by bringing in an international coalition of economically involved countries that help build up Iraqi businesses by working alongside rather than around them to rebuild the nation.

But if I look over at the diaspora of crazy on the right side of the aisle, I could get likely responses as diverse as the insistence that we let the war happen in order to find out who the dominant group in the country is (Mr. Yoshida), a 15,000 word treatise on the history of Mesopotamian struggle, all of which leads to the final, mind-numbing conclusion that war is good because it solves things (Mr. den Beste), the conviction that we find out who these CIA agents are and out them (Mr. Reynolds), or the surefire tactic of pointing out that Bill Clinton once said something about America's Civil War which proves that he'd support an Iraqi Civil War (Mr. Taranto).

Us liberals really need to work on our breadth of ideas and step out of this "real-world pragmatism" and "common sense" that have us lagging so far behind in the marketplace of fucked-up ideas.

WMD Update

Not to push down Ezra's post, but you remember those shredded wheat-looking shells that the Danes found in the desert? Not only are they not even particularly relevant to the ongoing WMD search...but they didn't even contain decayed chemical agents.

I was a fan of this passage:

So, we're still going to be looking for them...but the people who would actually deal with them when they're found are gone. Sounds like an effective method of dealing with weapons of mass destruction.

Competence And Prudence

More proof that the stewardship of Iraq is in good hands:

Perhaps this explains why we couldn't get the Germans on board...

Iraq! Yellowcake!

Uranium! Europe! Hidden!

Mmm...gimme some more...

Oh God...that hits the spot...bombs and nukes and shit. Keep it up...

Oh, man...just...a little...WHAT?!?!?

God, that just ruined the mood. Thanks a lot. Guess I'll just go watch SportsCenter.

When You're Right...

...you're a Democrat.

By the way, this is the sort of thing that Gen. Wesley Clark was actually talking about in his testimony. I'm glad the Bush team is finally getting around to what they should have been worried about a year ago (even France is coming on board), but it says something that it's taken this long, and this much work to get back to where we should have been nearly a year ago.

The inevitable response will be that Bush is doing what all of us anti-this-war folks were talking about - to which I reply, it shows little good, except a desire to not ultimately screw everything up. Realizing that your planning was poor and that you made several fundamental mistakes is a good thing - but the fact that your ideology drove you to make those mistakes over the din of those who warned you about them is incredibly troubling.

The issue here is that correcting your mistakes isn't the same thing as learning from them - and the Bush team has a long way to go before they accomplish the latter.

Liberation for Whom?

The Iraqi Governing Council has decided to roll back women's rights:

I guess this is the problem with Democracy. Americans equate it with freedom and human rights, but it often means something very different in other nations, particularly when Democracy is foisted on them. Fareed Zakaria made the point that it is not Democracy that we need to export but freedom and situations like this just prove him right. However you look at it, this is a very sad decision and an occurrence that all Americans, and Iraqis, should be ashamed of.

We've done a decent job exporting Democracy, but we're failing completely at exporting our values. And they, not our system of government, are what the developing world is most in need of.

Reasons Why

The main reasons why the shells we found in Iraq which aren't WMD could be:

1.) We don't know that the rusty shells aren't simply a coordinated put-on by Ba'athist elements who took the real shells that were buried there in the 80s and are, as we speak, preparing to send them on an improbable trip to Syria.

2.) Hamlet. When your prince is all melancholy, how can we trust the people who didn't elect him to office? Danish science will stab you when you hide behind the curtain of American righteousness!

3.) Did I mention we're going to Mars? MARS? Who wants to be the first straight people married on the Red Planet?

The Europeans

A leader of a European nation has called George W. Bush an "emperor". Is he French? German? Russian? Belarussian?

None of the above. It's Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, silent partner in the Coalition of the Willing.

Veddy, Veddy Worried

Sometimes it starts to look like the Bush/Blair alliance was simply a giant geopolitcal game of chicken, designed to see who would break first as it became obvious that neither of them had any idea what they were talking about.

Well, Blair loses.

See, he hasn't learned the key lesson of this remarkably struggle against...whatever we struggled against - which is that whatever opponents of the war have the least ammunition against is the real reason for the war.

Why is it that this is an actual debate in Britain, whereas the world's most obvious strategic assessment (that guy that we caught in that hole didn't make America much safer, what with the lack of hole-based terrorism on the domestic front) is somehow a sentiment worthy of greater furor?

Liberal Hawks

I highly recommend Slate's feature reassessing the liberal hawk position. It's a series of letters between Jacob Weisberg, Kenneth Pollack, Tom Friedman, Chirstopher Hitchens, Farred Zakaria and George Packer mulling over how the reality of the Iraq War stacks up to the pre-war hopes and rationales liberal hawks held. Being a liberal hawk who was scarily close to Jacob Weisberg's stated position and well-convinced by Kenneth Pollack's book, I find this particularly interesting, but I think it's a good read for everybody. There were, and are, good reasons to be for the war. The big question is if they are trumped by the failure to find/prove the pursuit of WMD's. I tend to feel that the greatest obstacle to righteousness has been Bush's shameful diplomacy and inept planning, but many see the imminent threat argument as the only important point, and that one seems to have collapsed (though few people ever thought it true).

Anyway, check it out.

It's All Good, Except For Not

Headline: Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture.

Story:

Less attacks, same great bloodshed! Mm-mmm!

The rate of attacks doesn't matter if the number of wounded and dead doesn't drop, okay?

Trickeration

That fucking Saddam. He tricked us again. He had the weapons of mass destruction...but he and the U.N. Axis Of Beezle used their magic anti-Americanism to force the Earth to rotate on its axis several thousand times in between when he had the weapons and when we decided we cared about them.

Now, more than ever, we must go to war with the Axis of Axis and stop the dangerously pro-Saddam rotation of the planet.

Your Non-Imminence

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has declared that the Bush team systematically misrepresented the case for WMDs, and therefore the case for a threat, in Iraq.

Of course, it'll be discounted by many war-supporters because it's not from the Arms Reinforcement Coalition or the Center for Huge International Cajones. The Carnegie group likes peace - obviously they're a biased group.

Oh, Lawdy

We've found the WMD plans for WMD order for materials for WMD moldy bread crude drawings about WMD ideas that Iraq had neither the material nor the opportunity to build.

By the way, this is a sample of the most advanced weapons research:

Yeah, well, they never said "imminent".

We Really Do Need John Edward

(The psychic one, at least.)

Jackson Diehl writes in today's WaPo about pre-war predictions for the human and monetary cost in Iraq.

Much like the Condi Line ("Nobody could foresee terrorists flying planes into buildings."), the line on this war was that nobody could foresee the reconstruction being so long and so costly - except for Larry Lindsey, soon fired for his statement that this war whose cost is apporaching $200 billion would cost $100-200 billion, and a bevy of other folks.

If anything, the administration is culpable of a mixed metaphor - putting on rose-colored glasses and then sticking their heads in the sand.

If anything, this was the major problem with Iraq, from top to bottom, whether it be in the rationale for war, its prosecution, or the reconstruction. They found the sources that told them what they wanted to hear, steadfastly refused to listen to dissenting voices, and based virtually the entire exercise on a tautology: they wanted what they wanted because they wanted it.

Diehl wraps up the column by arguing that the consensus predictions from these experts predict stormy waters ahead, and that the administration would do best to listen to them. However, it seems dead-set on the slapdash cut-and-run strategy by July, and given the sterling way the rest of this plan has turned out, it's probably not going to result in an outcome that anything more than marginally better than what existed pre-invasion.

Regardless of whether or not you supported this war, can you really support the institutional attitudes towards it, and what they mean for our foreign policy?

Not So Bad

You know, more people will die in all of California today. And since we sent 34 million troops to Iraq, what's the problem?

There Goes The Lott-Iraq Hypothesis

Bomb goes off in Baghdad, causing "many casualties". In an attempt to maintain the thesis that Baghdad is safer than NYC, John Lott will argue that this doesn't count, because when he read the Washington Times, the only line they had about it said "No American soldiers were killed in the attack." Hence, no murders.

Hence, the operation in Iraq is a complete success, we're ready to leave, and then come back a month later to use it as a staging ground for the Iranian incursion. Ain't statistics grand?

Hearts and Minds

Via Tapped we find this critically important op-ed by a Marine Lt. Colonel on the tactics and results of winning hearts and minds. I tried to find what I wanted to quote and ended up trying to quote the whole two page piece. It's that good, and beyond that important. Just go read it.

Reachin' More Than Mr. Fantastic (Made Of Plastic!)

What do you do when the L.A. Times prints an article talking about a Syria-Iraq weapons connection that explicitly declares there's no proof of WMD sales or transfer?

You find one line about "nerve agent antidote" and declare that it was a WMD connection. Oh, and the Order Of The Keyboard has granted official redemption (in part) upon the errant newspaper's former stance against desperate reaching for proof for the Iraq War.

The utter mendacity is stunning. Stunning!

Precautionary Note

This article is discussing conventional weapons storehouses, not WMD. Therefore, we can safely skip the next two days of crowing, followed by egg-on-facing, followed by Howard Dean "scandal"-ing, and simply malign the loss of Monday Night Football like proper Americans while we try to figure out why the hell everybody does love Raymond.

Murder Rates

According to the military and John Lott, murder rates in Baghdad are lower than those of some major American cities.

Problem the first: statistical analysis as done by John Lott. Sends me from "doubtful" to "fuck, no" - sort of like "Score Composed By Fred Durst".

Problem the second: The military has an incomplete scope and is not functioning wholly in a law enforcement and criminal investigation capacity. Iraq has little in the way of a standing internal police or military presence, which makes any crime rates suspect, John Lott's or not.

I hope the murder rate in Baghdad is this low. But I can almost guarantee you that it isn't and that, more importantly, any information we have on it is imcomplete at best.

Shorter Bush Doctrine

Because of our unfailing nonpartisan pragmatism with regards to the democratization of other countries, we're dumping all but the least ambitious plans with regards to Iraq so that we can get the hell out.

Hold Up, Wait A Minute...

Paul Bremer says that Tony Blair said something that:

Tony Blair said that the Coalition had "massive evidence" for a long-range missile program (possibly ICBMs). Bremer then changed his tune when he found out Blair said it.

Also, forgive me if I'm missing something in the WMD debate, but the article says that ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction. Where did that come from? ICBMs might be carriers for the WMD, but they in and of themselves aren't WMD unless we're participating in the gradual change of the definition from "biological, chemical and nuclear agents" to "anything that bad people have which could kill people, including bad meat, kitchen implements and the acid tongue of Richard Pryor."

So, Tony Blair says we've found a WMD program that really isn't producing WMD (if you don't have a payload for an ICBM system, you've simply got a really far-ranging conventional weapons program), Bremer says it's bullshit either way you slice it, and I look forward to the Mallard Fillmore cartoon which argues that we've finally found WMD...*again*.

Hearts And Minds

I'm certainly hoping that there's more to this story. Otherwise, we need to work some of that "hearts and minds" mojo post-haste.

Interesting

Ha'aretz is saying that Saddam might be given life imprisonment rather than execution if he tells us where the WMD's are and implicates Syria. This would make some sense, as the poll bounce from his capture is simply not that great, and so the war is currently in dire need of retroactive justification. However, I'm simply not convinced that this is true nor that the Bush Administration is that craven (I think that they really do hate Saddam and really want to bring him to justice). It seems weird to commute such a vicious dictator's sentence no matter what he tells us, and it also might engender Iraqi anger which would be bad for our troops and thus, bad for Bush.

Regardless, it's a definite possibility and something to watch in the coming months.

Safety In Numbers

Apparently, on December 6th, Paul Bremer's convoy came under attack in Iraq.

In other news, Donald Rumsfeld has decided to up the troop level in Iraq for three months.

In this post-Saddam era, is it kosher to mention this? Or are we still in the "let's only mention the good stuff about the war without placing it in any context" stage? It was a fun stage, but I think we've sort of grown out of it by now.

Oh, Abu...I Came And I Saw And...No I Didn't

Remember that devastating Telegraph article that was going to conclusively prove that Saddam Hussein had trained September 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta through known terrorist Abu Nidal.

I'm not going to remark that I called bullshit on it when it first came about. Instead, I'll link to this MSNBC article that conclusively calls bullshit on it, and then call bullshit on the story again.

Forged documents...convenient ties that don't pan out...kind of sounds like the larger justification for the war, eh?

Believe Half Of What You Hear. HALF!

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) reveals that he, along with three-quarters of the Senate, were told that Iraq had the capability to target the East Coast of the United States with WMD in unmanned drones.

As a Republican, my first instinct is to wonder why he's politicizing this. As a lifelong Republican, I take a step back and realize that we went to war on a series of different stories, many of which contradicted each other in order to create the specter of an Iraqi threat.

The main issue with the Iraq war, and one I want to see Democratic candidates articulate more forcefully, is that as Commander-in-Chief, Bush showed that he was and is summarily incapable of analyzing and representing the threats around us in a factual manner. Do you really want a guy in charge of the Armed Forces who can't tell a potential nuclear power from a trailer of mass destruction?

Thoughts on Iraq

I'm going to say something naughty here and reveal that I like Michael Totten. I don't agree with him, particularly his "I'll vote for any Democrat, as long as it's Bush" strand of liberalism, but he's a good place to go for your muscular liberalism fix. On that note, I want to point out his post lashing the Vatican for expressing sympathy for Hussein. We are not treating Hussein badly and he has full POW protection -- for a murderous dictator who ranks as one of the most evil men my generation has witnessed, that is far more than he deserves and quite a credit to our country.

On another note, I want to point people to the Philosoraptor. I found his blog two days ago and he's quickly become one of my favorite reads. His post analyzing the reactions to Saddam vis-a-vis the reactions to Bush's capture of Saddam should be required reading for everyone on the right and the left.

I am ecstatic that Saddam was captured, I strongly supported going to war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons and he was the cause of those humanitarian problems. But I didn't support lying to the American people about it, and I didn't support allowing ideology to supersede smart planning for the aftermath. We're in a mess over there, a mess that could and should have been prevented, and this Administration should be held accountable for that. Neither the left nor the right should allow the goalposts to be moved in their jubilation over Saddam's capture -- he's been out of power for some time, our objective now is to create a stable and prosperous Iraq. The Iraqi people, subject as they have been to decisions far beyond their control, deserve at least that.

Thoughts on Saddam

First things first. Tacitus has the best take on the capture that I've yet seen, go read it. It's early to be making predictions, but I'm going to put forth a few. This is pretty comparable to Bush Sr. capturing Noriega, bigger, but comparable. I'm unconvinced (but hopeful) that this will do much to break the back of the resistance, I fear this will only make them more amorphous and inscrutably murderous. I think this is a dangerous thing for Dean, though he has struck the right note so far. I fully expect to see a number of Democrats and other leftists shoot themselves violently in the foot over the next two weeks. This is the happiest day of Bush, and Karl Rove's, life.

Above all, I'm quite proud of our country today. We captured a murderous tyrant and we are planning to turn him over to those who deserve to oversee his trial, the people he terrorized. I am proud and surprised that we resisted the urge to get the quick kill and instead captured him, the effect will be magnified 100 fold.

Update: Replaced Pinochet with Noriega. Sorry guys, it's early yet.

A Tangled Web

There's news about Mohammed Atta potentially having been trained in Iraq by Abu Nidal in the Telegraph.

Problem is, the Telegraph printed a story at the beginning of this year that said Saddam killed Nidal because he wouldn't train Al-Qaeda fighters.

Can I also point out that the portion of "northern Iraq" the Telegraph is referring to wasn't under Saddam's control?

Long-Term Impacts Of The Capture

1.) The terrorist/Iraqi insurgency: Now, we'll find out whether they're fighting for a Saddam Restoration or against American occupation. While I certainly hope it's the former (and that a speedy trial of Saddam set up over the next couple of weeks where his various horrific crimes are read in front of him, and he's summarily locked up and interrogated lawfully until he dies), I fear that it's much more the latter.

2.) The hunt for WMD: Given the extent to which Saddam was apparently deluded about his own WMD program, I highly doubt he's going to have any useful information.

3.) The reconstruction: Its progress depends in large part on the insurgency. If there's still one next year, the capture of Saddam, while a huge morale boost, if there's still an anti-American (rather than pro-Saddam) opposition effort, we're talking about the tip of the iceberg rather than the base.

4.) The PNAC plan: As we can see from Bush's stance on Taiwan upsetting the "one China" balance, our ability to democratically remake the world through war isn't going to work the way Bush or the neocons have planned. It's going to be at least a year and a half in Iraq (provided the power transfer goes as planned in July, which I doubt) - these adventures, regardless of how ultimately successful or justified you believe them to be, are harder and take longer than those in charge plan for. It's simply not a coherent or tenable policy in the long term.

By the way - if we're going to report good news, how about a lineup of Iraqi women and children kicking Saddam in the balls? Whether or not we ultimately support the war, I think we can all unify around that.

Bizarre

Saddam's captured...and I think it's a good thing...yet I still opposed and continue to oppose the war.

Which was why I just got an e-mail from a lovely conservative reader who told me to "get aids and die you socialist fag". Brilliant.

I'd point out that this was something we were supposed to do, and one of the points of the war all along, but I have the feeling that if I don't do anything but shit red, white and blue, I'm going to be accused of all sorts of insidious things.

Anyway, it's a great day for Iraq. Hopefully, Bush won't screw it up before the transfer in July.

(By the way - CNN has Communists celebrating Saddam's capture. But it's okay, because they're not American Communists. Don't ask.)

Unequivocally Good News

WE CAPTURED SADDAM!!!

Josh Marshall Makes Me Happy

I assume you've heard the right crowing about the exquisite vengeance Paul Wolfowitz has visited upon France, Russia and Germany by barring them from Iraqi contract. Truly, he wields the sword of justice with a ferocity henceforth unkown. And so on. But Josh Marshall has something of a reality check for them today:

So let us not forget who needs whose help here. We are in anything but a position of power, and minor muscle flexes like Wolfowitz's contract directive only hurt us in the long run. The only difference is that this time the long run came the next morning, and and the Iraqis will pay alongside us.

Damn

I have no idea if I could do this. Brave man.

Lissen Heah...

I understand that it's not an anti-terrorism demonstration, but, eh...around half of Iraq's new army has quit.

The letter cited from Levin (Swarthmore grad!) and Lugar (not one!) raises the simplest, yet most important point - if we're going to be ceding control of things back to Iraq next summer, we need more of a standing Iraqi army than we have now, or than we'll even be able to have if the Bush pace continues unabated.

I suppose we should concentrate on the 400 guys remaining in the army, though. Right?

The Idiocy Defies Words

Yesterday I spoke about how dangerous the Bush Administration's rhetoric towards France, Germany and Russia was. Today, I want you to go over to Josh Marshall's and see exactly how stupid it was. This is bush league shit.

P.S - Pun intended.

Aid And Comfort

Oh, this is gonna help when we go off on the next wondrous neocon adventure. The Canadian reaction is so...Canadian:

Maybe if you added some blue to that maple leaf flag, commie. And if you took back Adam Yoshida.