Hey, my cunning plan of having a controversial hed worked! :-)

Seriously, though, you make some good, thoughtful comments. I'll be linking to this post at my site.

One thing here: the issue about guerrillas is not semantics. We are involved in a guerrilla war, just like in Vietnam, where suicide tactics were also used. It's not just me saying this--the folks at the top of the military call this a guerrilla war.

What I object to about Bush's statement is that he is trying to paint all of this as part of the "war on terror", and he can't do that unless he calls the insurgents "terrorists". By creating a false connection and trying to fuel Americans' fear, he is lying. It ain't the same as saying "green men from Mars are invading," but it's still a calculated deception.

I did not accept Clinton's lying about his penis, and I do not accept Bush's lying about his war.

I don't disagree with your post, but I do find this quote disturbing:

"My measure is that there have been no follow-up attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001."

Will a domestic attack then cause you to conclude that we have done no good? It's hardly fair to the men and women working to stabilize Afghanistan, or to those working for our security at home, to deny they have done any good if one attempt slips through the net.

Nor is it fair to assume that, as long as we do not suffer from a successful attack, that we have "done good." I believe we have done good in Afghanistan, but I fear that many of your conservative colleagues follow this line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion: since there has not been another domestic attack, the war on Iraq has contributed positively toward a peaceful state of the world. This hold no more reasoned weight than asserting "the economy seems to be recovering, and we have been watching more reality television. Hence, reality TV is good for the economy."

[I don't mean to imply you subscribe to said absurdity, just that I'm afraid of the "the ends justify even tangential means" stance I see gaining popularity.]

> You are correct that the people who are attacking our soldiers are not a direct threat to "the American people." Why? Because right now they're in Iraq! We have no way of knowing the outcome and occurrences of the last 8 months had we not engaged in war.

Most of the people attacking our soldiers and allies and aid workers right now in Iraq were not a threat 9 months ago either. They had no reason to attack America or Americans, and no opportunity to do so. Nor did they have and WMDs to sell to the real terrorists.

Now we've (a) kicked out of power a lot of Baathists, who now have nothing better to do than attack Americans, (b) killed, injured, humiliated and oppressed thousands of formerly docile average Iraqis, some of whom have joined the Iraqi resistance, and some of whom have joined the real terrorists, (c) put thousands of American soldiers and aid workers (not to mention our allies and friendly aid workers) right in the thick of things, (d) invited the real terrorists in to take a shot with "bring it on" rhetoric and practice.

So of course we can't say for sure what would have happened had we not invaded, but we can make some pretty good guesses:

* Baathists would have remained in power (and thus had no reason to attack us)
* average Iraqis would have continued to live under the oppressive yet relatively stable Saddam regime (and thus had no reason to become either anti-American guerillas or terrorists)
* Al Qaeda would have remained persona non grata in Iraq (remember, there was no love lost between Saddam and Bin Laden), and would have had to keep organizing in shadowy places with few American targets, and would have had many fewer new recruits

It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which either a Baathist loyalist or any average Iraqi would have even come up with the idea of attacking Americans, let alone having the werewithal to do it, a year ago.

Can you see the difference between Iraqi resistance guerillas and the real terrorists?

And can you see that the real reasons for this war were to line the pockets of military contractors, and to realize the geopolitical fantasies of a few radical neocons?

Actually, Alex, your entire argument hinges on your assertion that

Al Qaeda would have remained persona non grata in Iraq (remember, there was no love lost between Saddam and Bin Laden), and would have had to keep organizing in shadowy places with few American targets, and would have had many fewer new recruits

I think you're focusing too narrowly on Al Qaeda when we need to fear not just a single band of merry ambulatory improvisational explosive devisers but any number of them.

Considering that Saddam Hussein gave refuge to too many high-ranking Abus while he was in power and that he paid bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers, he was an eligible target. He wasn't going to stop his pro-terrorist practices on his own.

NTodd - 1. Did you "not accept Clinton's lying" before or after he admitted it? Prove it.

2. I have yet to see/hear one shredd of proof with regards to Bush lying. You would think that a President who lied would be in a bit more trouble than...than what?...nothing? It must be that Bush is having all of the ones who know the truth murdered...Really people, I am so damn sick of hearing this Bush lied mantra without any proof/repurcussions for the president.

3. As for the al Qaed/Iraqi link, who knows for sure? You say to-may-to, the Telegraph says to-mah-to... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

4. Time will tell with the WMD, too, now that we have Saddam...maybe it's there, maybe it's in Syria, and maybe it was never there. But, if it was never there, it sure fooled the rest of the world...

Alex - 1. war and occupation is full of risks. We definitely underestimated the reaction of the end of Saddam's regime.

2. In theory, I agree somewhat with your last two points (the somewhat is because I think you have a weird definition of stable and I seriously doubt that average Iraqis are attacking Americans). Plus, you could say the same thing about any war in which we invaded a country...were the Germans killing Americans daily before we landed in Normandy?

3. I disagree with your point on al Qaeda being persona non grata in Iraq. We already know that Saddam harbored one of their leaders and we know that he allowed one of their cells to operate in Northwest Iraq.

4. Grow up and post your real email address if you want to be taken seriously.

As for the guerilla vs. terrorist comment, I prefer terrorist. You all that label them as guerillas give them some sort of legitimacy. Do you think the resisters are average Iraqis fighting for freedom or are they paid by the Baathists or Baathist loyalists who stand to lose everything? Really, they are fighting because Saddam was the Iraqi George Washington? Puh-lease. Terrorists.

American Heritage Dictionary definition of Terrorsim:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

1. Did you "not accept Clinton's lying" before or after he admitted it? Prove it.

Exactly how am I supposed to do that to your satisfaction? I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. No matter--you either believe me or you don't. I care not a whit.

2. I have yet to see/hear one shredd of proof with regards to Bush lying.

Then I don't believe you've been paying attention for the past several months, and my rehashing all the old evidence will do nothing to convince you.

3. As for the al Qaed/Iraqi link, who knows for sure?

Exactly why you don't go invading other countries on "darn good" intel. Preventive war is dicey business, which is why it has been universally condemned ever since the Axis powers got their asses handed to them.

4. Time will tell with the WMD, too, now that we have Saddam...maybe it's there, maybe it's in Syria, and maybe it was never there. But, if it was never there, it sure fooled the rest of the world...

Time will tell. Just as the inspectors said. But I'll note I was not fooled. After years of sanctions, inspections, and intel that directly contradicted BushCo's assertions, it was pretty clear that there was no WMD.

And even if I am ultimately proven wrong, it matters not: my arguments against the war don't rest on the existence of WMD.

We already know that Saddam harbored one of their leaders and we know that he allowed one of their cells to operate in Northwest Iraq.

You mean in the Kurdish controlled area, in which Saddam had no power? Riiiiight.

As for the guerilla vs. terrorist comment, I prefer terrorist. You all that label them as guerillas give them some sort of legitimacy. Do you think the resisters are average Iraqis fighting for freedom or are they paid by the Baathists or Baathist loyalists who stand to lose everything? Really, they are fighting because Saddam was the Iraqi George Washington? Puh-lease. Terrorists.

It doesn't matter what you prefer. The insurgents are guerrillas by all classic definitions, and according to the military folks in charge.

Nice strawman about Saddam = Washington. Nobody has claimed anything of the sort. I echo what many "experts" have said: the resistance has little to do with Saddam at this point. Check out my blog, or Juan Cole's, or a myriad other sites that offer a more realistic, nuanced view of the insurgency.

Well, Ntodd, I guess time will tell if you are genius or a fool...
1. If you don't care, then don't spew about how bi-partisan you are about lying presidents.
2. If memory serves, the last one got called on it. Don't know why this would be different.
3. I guess I will spell it out for you. We'll have to wait and see because there are media reports about the connection which I posted. That is unless you are really the director of the CIA...are you?
4. You were not fooled, but everyone on the security council, every nation's intel services contradicted the great Ntodd.

Intel is never perfect and it is always a gamble. And if there is WMD, "it matters not?" No, it matters (wasn't it one of the supposed lies?) and it just shows that you were a debater in high school who learned the classic bait and switch technique. You address half of what I queried...and still no proof, links, grand juries, etc.

Congrats, you egomaniac.

OK, fine, let's call them all terrorists. But let's distinguish between

* terrorists who plot acts of violence against civilians outside their own countries

* terrorists who were all set and making plans to attack the US a year ago

* terrorists who would have loved to attack the US if only we made their job easier by transporting a couple hundred thousand troops and aid workers to within a few hundred miles of them and their explosives caches

* terrorists who are trying to expel the occupying force which just expelled them from power

* terrorists who would have lived normal(*), non-terrorist lives if it weren't for an invasion and an occupation that pushed them over the edge

* terrorists who were inspired to come from a neighboring country to help the previous two types of terrorists

and then, just for argument, let's call the first three types of terrorist "apes" and the final three types "gorillas"

I think that Todd's and my argument is that the war in Iraq created a lot of brand new gorillas, and didn't really reduce the number of, or risk from, the apes.

As for documentation of Bush's lies, that's a whole other conversation. But if you like I'd be happy to buy you a copy of Franken's book, or Ivins', or any of the lefty screeds, for Christmas. (And most of them don't even cover Q3-4 '03!)

(*) The premise here is not that "the average Iraqi" is truck-bombing hospitals, but that many new terrorist recruits were until recently in the ranks of normal, albiet possibly emotionally unstable and borderline disfunctional with bouts of raving, non-terrorist citizens.

- Alex yes really at stinky dot com

Alex - it all goes back to the title of the post. A difference of opinion. We're focusing on different things, and we all call them "facts." Blackfive likely isn't going to want to purchase Franken's book until it's out in paperback. 'Round here, that's a better idea because paperback screeds from the opposite side do less damage to the walls when you throw them. And, typically, you will. At least once.

And, really, do you buy all that just because they said it? I'm reading Laura Ingraham's Shut Up and Sing right now. I can't stomach it without filtering some and saying in my head, "no, you're wrong" on about every other or every third point. I can assure you, I'd do the same with one of those books. We don't have a Franken book in the house, but if I wanted my dose of Ivins, I could life Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She? off of my husband's "read" shelf. I'll pass, though. Too many other things much further ahead in the to-do list.

I don't see Blackfive spouting off other people's obviously slanted books as his proof. Your evidence of evidence is not going to wash with someone who has a difference of opinion. At least do me the honor of quoting your proof from said book, seeing as it might be another year or so before it's part of the library.

hln

RE Ntodd: First Post " I do not accept Bush's lying about his war "
Ntodd: Second Post " I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. " Either keep the cake or eat it.
In reguards to Iraq; it is my belief that the invasion was picked as a set piece battle. The U.S. is in a war with militant Islam and it's Arabic exponents. Merely persuing bin Laden's ghost through the mountains of Afganistan was an insufficient response to 9-11. The average, would be terrorist needed to see that America would fight and win in a campaign against a regime that was still considered formidable in the Arab mind. The international frame-work, already existed for military intervention in Iraq. It was, in some respects, a road apple. We needed a major operational theater, central staging area, and a reason; the Bathist regime provided all of these.
In the present era of P.C., our President would have hit a wall, both political and diplomatic had this plan been outlined bluntly. So, the occassion had to be met in less than straight foward terms. We made the war about WMDs and democracy both of which are valid goals in the long term but... we needed action in the short term, and chose to stress these issues. It often makes sense to handle the easy issues 1st, even if they seem tangential. Was Iraq planning to sell sarin to Alqeda this year maybe so, maybe no.The point is: Iraq is part of a larger strategy a stepping stone or pressure point.
The ultimate objective is taming the Islamo-Facist movement in the mid-east. We must realise there exist no common ground between occidentalism and wahhabbism. The muslims have decided correctly or not that Israel and the U.S. are the source of there pathetic situation. They are unambivalent in a desire for our fall. They delivered the terms of negotiation on 9-11. Anything other than a forcefull response, will simply reinforce their belief in our weakness. The only way to deal with a man who fundamentally wants you dead, is to fight and win. And never let him hold out any hope of victory. Be fierce and decisive. They want us dead and worship their own deaths, I want to live and enjoy life peacefully. There is no moral equivocation, no happy median.
Final Note: Could we drop the specious B.S. about the war being a ploy to enrich some of Bush's friends. I would not accuse Clinton/Gore of such evil, inspite of their questionable dealings with the Buddhist, Red Chineese and the timebomb they left in N.K.. America has never had a president capable of such evil as sacraficing his own citizens/soldiers for nothing more than a little personal enrichment. When someone suggests this they loose much credibility in my estimation.
J.W.