In mid-April I decided to make a some temporary lifestyle changes, some of them economic, some of them psychic. I haven't had a beer or watched TV for nearly two months. And I've been reading more, and mostly fiction!

I haven't cut myself off completed. My daily lunchtime walk around Greenlake allows me to soak in all of the BBC News through headphones. I did read some threads like Bitt's earlier thread on WMD, but didn't respond. For a while I felt like I had developed a hectoring frame of mind with respect to the Great Iraq Deceit. I said "wait a little while, Jim. You *never* know! They might find a shred of evidence! Take a break. Wait until June."

So, it's June. I haven't been hectoring Shrub for a while. Time to get going, isn't it?

Contrary to my previous feelings of inevitable Republican doom, I am starting to think that there is a *chance* that Frat Boy may be another Bush one-term president. Why? Well, the biggest reason isn't a happy one.

OK, so maybe it is slowly dawning on "average" citizens of this country that the WMD previously trumpeted as "fact" on whitehouse.gov were primarily the fictitious alarms of self-interested Iraqi exiles looking to ride an American tank back into power in their hometowns. And for how many of the months between now and November 2004 will W yell at the press pool "We'll find 'em! We'll find 'em!", looking more and more the moron?

Still, looking like a moron does not absolutely preclude election to high office. So, what will? Well, here's where we get to the unhappy part, and it is not a situation that I am rooting to get worse, but I think it may not get better.

An Army officer interviewed by NPR noted today that the attacks on US forces appear to be getting *more*, not less, organized. OK, so this captain/major/whatever is only feeling one part of the elephant, but he's a lot closer to the elephant than me. I think they said that the count of soldiers killed since the "main" part of the war concluded is 29, with the number of wounded not noted. A lot in any event.

Sadly, I think that the country as a whole might conceivably sigh briefly, but then continue to go about its business, if we accrued one death a day for the next six months in Iraq. It's only on TV, after all, isn't it?

Where am I going? Well, let me keep going for a minute.

While many of the people watching the death toll on TV are middle-aged, well-insulated folks like myself, the people getting killed are in the main very young and many, like the She-Warrior Jessica Lynch, entered the all-volunteer forces from an unrepresentative slice of economic America for often very pragmatic economic reasons. Getting killed in a very foreign country where the population is progressively frustrated and unwelcoming was not part of the plan.

W lost the popular vote by a very slim margin and arguably lost the election by an even slimmer one. Tipping the apparent balance were absentee military votes. Absentee ballots are available to all members of the military over 18, not just lifers.

So, my thinking is that if the situation in Iraq does not improve dramatically from both a casualty and quality-of-life perspective between now and November 2004, W may well be unseated by the military. Oh, I don't mean just the votes of the troops really. All of those troops, like my dumb had-to-join-the-Marine-Reserves nephew, have a constituency at home who vote. Army censors notwithstanding, a progressive drop in morale and risng disillusionment will filter out of Iraq to the moms, dads, sisters and brothers back home. And as mindless and slavishly subservient as the electorate in the US sometimes seems to me, it is likewise impressive how fickle it can be. George H.W. Bush's one term as case in point.

Anyhow, I'm starting to feel a little different about November 2004, but the reasons are regrettable.

Leaving aside issues of protest/indie votes next year, other reasons I am thinking that the outcome is not preordained are that 1) the economy continues to suck and 2) there seems like a 14 percent chance that the Democrats may cough up somebody who is credibly distinguishable from Bush (and from Clinton ghosts of Democrats past).

I've heard Howard Dean a few times lately. He seems smart and articulate. Good Grief! Could Dean be the Son of McGovern that I have been looking for? OK, somebody go ahead. Burst my Dean bubble!

The major problem with not reelecting Bush is the Democrats actually finding someone distinguishable to run. The ancillary problem is that we haven't had a liberal in the White House since 1979, and I think that spells bad news for Mr. Dean, who I like, but who won't get nominated. I potentially like Kucinich even more, but, unfortunately, I don't believe that anyone with a name like ``Kucinich'' has a rat's chance of getting elected to the Presidency. A man with a name like ``Dean'' is much more likely. (God, the American populace sucks. Then again, I didn't figure out how to pronounce the man's name until I stopped overlooking that first `i'.)

So, for the record, here's the official (?) list of Democratic nominees with my commentary (A tertiary point is that you can't find an official list on the DNC website. The RNC is nice enough to, though.):

Dick Gephardt: Run for President more times than John Anderson, Dave Barry, and Pat Paulsen combined. As the RNC so succintly puts it: ``Expired''
John Edwards: The closest thing to Bill Clinton: a younger man from the South with populist, moderate-to-conservative bent. That whole talking-to-the-dead thing doesn't help, though
Al Sharpton: Come on. Can you say ``Out of his depth'' and ``One-trick pony''? Does he even have a platform?
Carol Moseley Braun: An intelligent black woman. She'll never win. Also, a candidate from the ambassadorial service? We could use it, but weird
Joe Lieberman: A Jewish Republican. Who does he represent again?
Bob Graham: I have less of a good handle on him than the rest, and that says something. Something about him just creeps me out, though
Howard Dean: One of the few liberals on the ticket
Dennis Kucinich: Another one, but he seems to have more of an independent mind
John Kerry: Massachusetts democrats have traditionally not done well in nationwide elections since '60. Reasonably solid liberal, though

See? None of them really stand out, and the DNC is doing basically nothing to promote any of them. The primary is still more than six months away, but it's almost hard to find information. At least the DNC website features popup ads.

Hmmmm, I may end up being in a far worse position than you come election time. I supported going into Iraq from day one, and I never thought WMDs were the real issue. I thought Saddam was evil and his regime needed to be stopped. Because of this, I’m glad we went into Iraq. My uncle is a USMC officer and he sends emails back regularly to family back home, and he has been very supportive of the effort and feels that he and his company were doing the right, upstanding thing.

I’ve also been a strong Bush supporter, and being very conservative I’ve agreed with a lot of his stances on various issues. Though I’ve been frustrated at times with some of his political maneuvering, I’ve come to grips with the fact that any politician is going to have to embrace political strategy, even if it frustrates me a lot of the time.

However, I am beginning to feel lied to, and that is not a good thing. I still don’t think Bush went into Iraq to fulfill some “manifest destiny” concept, but it’s sure hard to have faith in what he says if he talked about having “hardcore evidence” and it turns out it was all very speculative. Again, I supported the war effort, and I think it was the right thing to do. But if Bush and his people had to manipulate or overlook information to get us to buy into his plan, that makes his administration untrustworthy. I suppose I’m mostly just naïve about politics, but I believe in honesty and integrity, and I fear to say that these traits seem to be lacking. Perhaps I’m getting a wrong sense from all the information that I’ve seen (which is very little), but at what point do I ask if perhaps we were lied to?

That is my dilemma. I don’t want a liberal in office (sorry guys, I just don’t agree with your views), but I don’t really feel good about voting for a dishonest republican either, especially one I’ve stood up for time and time again and now am feeling betrayed by.

The major problem with not reelecting Bush is the Democrats actually finding someone distinguishable to run.

Agreed. And I guess my subject line is just to ask how much worse things would have to get before 51% of voters would vote for anybody other than the incumbent. (Oh, and win, too, electorally!) The fact that I perceive some Bush vulnerability now may just be an illusion, but it would be interesting to drive to a place like Fayetteville and take a monthly poll over the next year...

The ancillary problem is that we haven't had a liberal in the White House since 1979, and I think that spells bad news for Mr. Dean, who I like, but who won't get nominated. I potentially like Kucinich even more, but, unfortunately, I don't believe that anyone with a name like ``Kucinich'' has a rat's chance of getting elected to the Presidency. A man with a name like ``Dean'' is much more likely....

I don't think that Kucinich's name would be an absolute show-stopper, but I would agree that "Dean" is an adavantage!

So, for the record, here's the official (?) list of Democratic nominees with my commentary (A tertiary point is that you can't find an official list on the DNC website. The RNC is nice enough to, though.):

Dick Gephardt: Run for President more times than John Anderson, Dave Barry, and Pat Paulsen combined. As the RNC so succintly puts it: ``Expired''

Yup, if nominated, this would be a stupid triumph of paralytic party politics.

John Edwards: The closest thing to Bill Clinton: a younger man from the South with populist, moderate-to-conservative bent. That whole talking-to-the-dead thing doesn't help, though

I'm missing something here...don't tell me he's as loopy as Bob Graham???

Al Sharpton: Come on. Can you say ``Out of his depth'' and ``One-trick pony''? Does he even have a platform?

Does anyone have less of a chance?

Carol Moseley Braun: An intelligent black woman. She'll never win. Also, a candidate from the ambassadorial service? We could use it, but weird

And maybe not pure enough , either.

Joe Lieberman: A Jewish Republican. Who does he represent again?

Aside from the specter of another, different, "The Pope will call the shots!" campaign subtext, I think sometimes that this guy would make a better Republican. School vouchers? I won't forgive/forget.

Bob Graham: I have less of a good handle on him than the rest, and that says something. Something about him just creeps me out, though

We should all be creeped out. Minute-by-minute compulsive diarist of events like "rewound videotape, 7:12-7:17"? Be very creeped out.

Howard Dean: One of the few liberals on the ticket
Dennis Kucinich: Another one, but he seems to have more of an independent mind

I haven't heard that much of Kucinich on radio/TV, so I may not be comparing fairly, but what I like about Dean is not only that he is articulate but that he seems ready to be combative.

John Kerry: Massachusetts democrats have traditionally not done well in nationwide elections since '60. Reasonably solid liberal, though

I don't dislike Kerry, and would rate him as one of the 2 most likely to get the nomination, but he seems to have developed more and more of a dispassionate, senatorial demeanor that I think can be interpreted as noncomittal or even slippery. Not sure if that's fair...

See? None of them really stand out, and the DNC is doing basically nothing to promote any of them. The primary is still more than six months away, but it's almost hard to find information. At least the DNC website features popup ads.

So, I'd say no-hopers include Sharpton, Mosely Braun and Graham: (if nominated, the Republicans will dig up Lee Atwater to make fun of him), with Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kucinich sitting not much better, and maybe Edwards, Dean and Kerry having the best shot.

One of my big questions is who, of the more credible contenders, will be dumb enough to do photo ops with Bill Clinton during that campaign (I won't even mention Hillary!)

John Edwards: The closest thing to Bill Clinton: a younger man from the South with populist, moderate-to-conservative bent. That whole talking-to-the-dead thing doesn't help, though

I'm missing something here...don't tell me he's as loopy as Bob Graham???

I think he's talking about the other famous John Edwards, who claims to be a psychic, has a TV show, and is obviously a phony (and I mean as opposed to anyone slightly convincing). If you watch some of his show, I highly suggest viewing a particular episode of South Park

Hmmmm, I may end up being in a far worse position than you come election time.

Jeff, I appreciate your ability to get past my hefty dose of wise-ass W mockery. What you have to say here I find quite illuminating.

I supported going into Iraq from day one, and I never thought WMDs were the real issue. I thought Saddam was evil and his regime needed to be stopped. Because of this, I’m glad we went into Iraq.

An evil guy certainly, but when we start to think about "needs to be stopped' I wonder why we aren't presently landing Marines in the Congo. It'll be interesting to revisit this every few months to see what the condition of average folks in Iraq is like...

My uncle is a USMC officer and he sends emails back regularly to family back home, and he has been very supportive of the effort and feels that he and his company were doing the right, upstanding thing.

Key word is "officer". I have no doubt that there are many military in Iraq right now across all ranks who believe in the mission and are still pleased and proud to be there. In general, though, officers and senior NCOs have the job of convincing the rest of the troops that the cause is just, thoughtful, and worthwhile and that their morale should remain high. That morale maintenence effort won't succeed for too long among the privates and corporals unless there are some signs that they are welcomed rather than resented. Never mind the prospect of getting shot and killed by people who pretend to ask for your help. Other than being generally unpleasant, I don't know what the daily relationship is like between troops and Iraqis is like, but it doesn't sound very good.

I’ve also been a strong Bush supporter, and being very conservative I’ve agreed with a lot of his stances on various issues. Though I’ve been frustrated at times with some of his political maneuvering, I’ve come to grips with the fact that any politician is going to have to embrace political strategy, even if it frustrates me a lot of the time.

However, I am beginning to feel lied to, and that is not a good thing. I still don’t think Bush went into Iraq to fulfill some “manifest destiny” concept, but it’s sure hard to have faith in what he says if he talked about having “hardcore evidence” and it turns out it was all very speculative. Again, I supported the war effort, and I think it was the right thing to do. But if Bush and his people had to manipulate or overlook information to get us to buy into his plan, that makes his administration untrustworthy. I suppose I’m mostly just naïve about politics, but I believe in honesty and integrity, and I fear to say that these traits seem to be lacking. Perhaps I’m getting a wrong sense from all the information that I’ve seen (which is very little), but at what point do I ask if perhaps we were lied to?

That is my dilemma. I don’t want a liberal in office (sorry guys, I just don’t agree with your views), but I don’t really feel good about voting for a dishonest republican either, especially one I’ve stood up for time and time again and now am feeling betrayed by.

Like I said, I find this illuminating. While there is a lot that we would disagree about, I appreciate that you have a very principled, consistent approach to all of this. This fact that you have questions about Bush at this point I find both 1) very interesting and 2) healthy.

It's hard to know how far to push arguments about the motives of Bush/Cheney without treading into conspiracy territory that detracts from credibility, but the administration has no credibility with me. Their primary interests are in feeding the wealthy, they expose basic contempt of government and democracy, they are very arrogant, and, when it comes to foreign policy, they are directly influenced by far-right hawk philosophy.

I just finished reading John "Rick" MacArthur's Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. Pretty readable. Only about 200 pages. I expect, unfortunately, that MacArthur is presently gathering material for a sequel. MacArthur is publisher of that wonderful liberal magazine, Harper's wherein the vocally anti-war Lewis Lapham offers a few quotes this month's issue that I had never seen before:

"All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. it works the same in every country"

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"

This latter quote is from a contemporary quarter that I think could be argued has some influence with the current administration. It's from Michael Ledeen, resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

The former quote? Harder to draw a connection. Hermann Goring.

Since we're talking about John Edwards, I have to post this comic. Kurtz did about a week and a half of strips poking fun at Edwards and I thought the payoff was really great.

I supported going into Iraq from day one, and I never thought WMDs were the real issue. I thought Saddam was evil and his regime needed to be stopped. Because of this, I’m glad we went into Iraq.

I can't make that disconnect between stated reason and outcome. I'm glad Saddam is gone, too, but the replacement is likely to be bad, and forcing our way of life on others is unethical and likely to backfire, given past experience. Hell, we helped put him in power in the first place.

My real problem was the way the administration went about it -- that they lied to us and the rest of the world -- when they could have said ``Saddam is bad'' and gotten everyone to help, or at least go along with it. I'll bet that pointing out the repression of the Shiites and making that a cause might have gotten a large portion of the Middle East to get on board, or at least improve their option of the US, which is something the US could deperately use. But maybe that wouldn't have suited their ulterior motive, whatever it may have been.

But this is off topic. It's a foregone conclusion that W will be the nominee for the Republicans next year. As a conservative who (apparently?) would like to get rid of Bush, not for his politics, but for his ... ethics? demeanor? (I can't come up with a good word) ... would you be willing to vote for a Democrat? Say a Republican wannabe like Lieberman or Edwards?

Since we're talking about John Edwards,

It is *obvious* I am not watching enough TV!

I have to post this comic. Kurtz did about a week and a half of strips poking fun at Edwards and I thought the payoff was really great.

That was funny, esp the celebrity appearances, You've convinced me, though that I just have to break down and try to get DSL on my new home afloat!

"If you had DSL you'd be laughing by now!" Right!

As a conservative who (apparently?) would like to get rid of Bush, not for his politics, but for his ... ethics? demeanor? (I can't come up with a good word) ... would you be willing to vote for a Democrat? Say a Republican wannabe like Lieberman or Edwards?

Jeff can say whether you have overstated his current position ("get rid of"?) but I am wondering if maybe you have just asked *the* question.

(The answer, from a Dean/liberal standpoint, might not make me happy, but it is a helluva question.)

I'm not going to argue the "outcome" vs "stated reason" point because it hardly matters now. I'm glad that the reign of Saddam is over, but then again aren't we all?

My real problem was the way the administration went about it -- that they lied to us and the rest of the world -- when they could have said ``Saddam is bad'' and gotten everyone to help, or at least go along with it.

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

As a conservative who (apparently?) would like to get rid of Bush, not for his politics, but for his ... ethics? demeanor? (I can't come up with a good word) ...

Integrity would be the right word. People should be what they claim whether it be religion, politics, business, or everyday life. And to be truthful, I'm not totally against Bush yet. Maybe the maniplation has been overstated or I've been getting infomation from bad sources. However, you can see the kinds of questions I'm asking now, which is an indication of my loosing faith. I'm not willing to simply back Bush because he's on my "side." That is the worst kind of support a person can give a politician.

would you be willing to vote for a Democrat? Say a Republican wannabe like Lieberman or Edwards?

Like I said, this is my problem. Apparently I fall into the "ultra" conservative camp (or so I've been told here) which means that Lieberman and Edwards both are very liberal to me. So if I do ultimatly decide the Bush administration has lost its integrity, my vote becomes a question of integrity vs. politics, neither of which I'm willing to give on. I'm afraid I have no answers at this point.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here at all -- I really want to understand your opinion (in hopes that I can beat you -- ``enemies closer'' and all ).

Can you tell me what about Lieberman's policies you find liberal? Here's a link to his platform positions. Some other stuff here. Or rather, there are some (recently) traditionally liberal policies there, but they seem minor, really, and fairly innocuous. I guess, what is it in his policies that you're opposed to?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here at all -- I really want to understand your opinion (in hopes that I can beat you -- ``enemies closer'' and all).

I don't think you're being argumentative at all. If I hadn't wanted this discussion I wouldn't have posted. Believe me, I’m the worst of your worries! (as I fear there are a great many people who just vote how their church /friends/ TV tell them to)

I must admit I don’t follow politics as well as I should, so a quick skimming of a web site where everything is stated in positives leaves me with only a few I can mention without further investigation. And before I list these, please, let’s not debate them! I’m just trying to give you a fair understanding of where I stand on the political scale and these reasons are hastily written:

Specifically from Lieberman’s site:
-I’m against hate crime legislation.
-I’m for racial profiling (as long as the presumption of innocence remains intact).
-I’m against affirmative action now (though I’ll concede it once was necessary
-I’m for Drilling the ANWR.
-I’m Pro Choice

There are some other, generic stances as well that I won’t go into because I didn’t see anything about them on the web site, however I’m sure that Lieberman adopts them (or most of them) as well. Of the above items, though, the only really strong one that would make or break my vote is the “Pro Life/ Pro Choice” stance. That one is very hard to reconcile.

Admittedly I’m still talking out of my nether regions a little bit because (as I said) I haven’t really been following the specific issues lately. I’m pretty firm on where I stand on various principles, though, and I’ve rarely met a Democrat with which I can agree on the big ones. (Actually I've rarely met a Democrat with whom I can have a pleasant, non-explosive conversation, but I'm sure you can say the same about Republicans).

I don't think you're being argumentative at all.

I meant in the following question. I didn't want it to sound as if I was attacking you negatively.

a quick skimming of a web site where everything is stated in positives leaves me with only a few I can mention without further investigation

I understand that. But those are still his basic issues.

I’m against hate crime legislation

As am I. I think it's retarded. The fact that Lieberman picks that out as one of his planks is one of the reasons I don't like him as a candidate

I’m for racial profiling (as long as the presumption of innocence remains intact)

I don't think that's possible to reconcile. If you assume that someone might be guilty based on the color of his skin where you'd assume that someone else is not, then, to me, there's no difference between assumption of possible guilt and assumption of guilt. There are other better ways to determine suspects than picking out every black person in the room.

But I wasn't supposed to debate. Sorry. Nevermind. I can't delete it now that I've written it.

I’m against affirmative action

So am I. Equality means equality to me. Penalizing those who determine things based on race makes more sense. Determining things based on race is abhorrent.

I don't get, though, how you're against affirmative action, but you're for racial profiling. I don't know you, but the only conclusion I can come to based on those facts is that you're racist and interested in keeping white folks on top. Again, I don't know you, and I'm probably wrong, especially since you conceded its necessity in the past, but I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation.

Drilling the ANWR

To reduce dependence on foreign oil, potentially? I can understand that. I have qualms letting the current administration, with its huge ties to the oil and energy businesses, determine how to do it. Teapot Dome, anyone?

Pro Choice

Most people are so set into their ways here that there's no point even bringing it up. I do have to wonder, though, how that sort of thing makes a difference to a presidential candidate. Stacking the Supreme court? We are at a contentious point with that, I suppose, as several justices are ready to retire.

I don't think that's possible to reconcile.

A definition of terms may be in order, here: If a cop sees a black man doing something illegal and reports him, it makes sense that they'd look for a man matching the description, including the fact that the suspect was black. However, it is my understanding that in some places this is considered racial profiling. This is not protecting anyone's race, it is reducing the police's ability to use available information to aprehend a suspect. I have heard policemen talk about these kinds of restrictions, though.

Now if a crime is committed by a black man, and every black man is rounded up and put in jail for interrogation, this is wrong and clearly violation their civil rights.

Perhaps that explination will convince you that I'm not a racist, I was trying to decide whether or not to include a description in my initial post. Suppose I should have. Maybe what I should have said is, "I think restraints against racial profiling have gone too far in some places."

That may perhaps be so. In my mind ``racial profiling'' means ``we're going to stop every Arabic-looking person at the airport because they might be carrying a bomb'' or stopping any black person in a mostly-white neighborhood. Or, as MST3k put it, ``You're rich and white; I don't see a problem.'' Simply relaying a description of a suspect is not ``racial profiling'' as long as it's based in fact and not assumption. Anyway, that's what I'm using as my definition as to whether or not I support it.

I have a problem with this, as I've been pulled over any number of times based on the fact that I live in or near reasonably affluent neighborhoods and have long hair and don't bother shaving that often. That's very closely akin to racial profiling to me, and it bothers me, as my hair is something I can actively control, if I wanted to. Being black or middle-eastern isn't.

What you describe sounds more to me like "racial harassment" than "profiling". However, our definitions aren't what truly matter, it's what the politicians themselves mean. Unfortunately that can be difficult to ascertain (all across the board).

It is interesting that you and I seem to disagree with Liberman on the same issues. I have no idea what that means. The implication is that there are some ideas on which polar opposites will agree that much of the more moderate population won’t. Of course 2 isn’t a very big sample size . . .

It means that I don't necessarily toe the Democratic line. I consider myself to be largely more liberal than the majority of the Democratic Party, but it's the best I can reasonably do. However, my conclusions from my liberal beliefs can occasionally not be the same conclusions reached by other liberals, for a variety of reasons.

What price a new president?

I don't know, but if you can get it to $100 or below then I'd paypal it right over.

In reply to:

---

Other than being generally unpleasant, I don't know what the daily relationship is like between troops and Iraqis is like, but it doesn't sound very good.

---

Well, considering that the TV pictures I've seen lately of US miltary patrols in Iraq, show shouting and hollering at Iraqi citizens in American English, by the "ground forces" on patrol - 'cos thats all the Americans know how to speak, then I would have to say that there is not a very good relationship at all.

The fact that the US miltary personnel in Iraq assume that shouting your orders in a (to most Iraqis) foreign language (and accent) is going to be understood and acted upon, is not going to make the local citizenry feel really happy towards their "liberators". I suspect the only real language understood between the locals and the US forces is the fact that the US has guns and waves them around a lot - and that gets the message across.

At least the British patrols appear to have local translators and therefore are able to communicate with the locals in their language.

Most of the US patrols I've seen footage of don't have anyone with local knowledge of the language or customs with them (or if they do, its only becuase the camera crew filming them bought one).
Because of this the chances for simple misunderstandings on either side to have serious or even fatal consequences seems very real.

Seems to me that the US military has overlooked this sort of "day to day" situation which occurs when a army switches from fighting to occupying. Just look at what mistakes happen in Japan and Germany now with US forces, and this is after nearly 60 years of "occupation".

I thought Saddam was evil and his regime needed to be stopped.

I am not comfortable with this outlook.

Even if it could be proven conclusively that Saddam Hussein regularly fornicated with animals and ate babies for breakfast -- he was nonetheless the legitimate head of a soverign nation and for the United States to unilaterally decide that "..his regime needed to be stopped..." is arrogance (not to mention illegality) of truly staggering proportions.

Had Iraq actually attacked, or even threatened to attack this country or its interests, my viewpoint might be different. But as things stand now, I am embarassed by the actions of my government.

tanstaafl.

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

thought Saddam was evil and his regime needed to be stopped.

---

I am not comfortable with this outlook.

---

Nor are the rest of the world comfortable with that outlook.
Because that path leds to a place that we'd all rather not go to.

In fact many previously "pro-US" citizens around the world are now coming to the conclusion that maybe Bush [and by implication, the US] is now part of the problem set and not, as was generally assumed, the solution set.

So that therefore Bush and his regime need to be stopped...
...so, what we need is "regime change" at the Whitehouse.

Even if it could be proven conclusively that Saddam Hussein regularly fornicated with animals and ate babies for breakfast -- he was nonetheless the legitimate head of a soverign nation and for the United States to unilaterally decide that "..his regime needed to be stopped..." is arrogance (not to mention illegality) of truly staggering proportions.

I disagree completly. This is not a matter of our arrogant outlook. It is wrong to murder people in front of their family members. I don't care what you're the soverign head of anything when you instill that kind of terror into people. He was a murderer and deserved to be stopped.

What's more, if we stand by while those kinds of things happen then we remove all hope from those who have no recourse. The family that has been tortured under Saddam's reign has no hope of freedom in this life, and yet we have the power to give them that chance. I believe we do have that responsiblity as such a strong nation, whether we like it or not. If we went in for a land grab, then we were wrong. If our administration lied to the public to get permission to invade another country, then that was wrong. But to stop and evil dictator when we have the power to prevent more murders is not wrong. No we don't have the capabilites to thwart every evil dictator in the world, but we gave people a chance who had no chance, and that is a good thing.

In reply to:

---

I disagree completly. This is not a matter of our arrogant outlook. It is wrong to murder people in front of their family members. I don't care what you're the soverign head of anything when you instill that kind of terror into people. He was a murderer and deserved to be stopped.

---

Hmm, let me see.
So you're saying if a country routinely kills people in front of those peoples family members, then thats wrong/terrorism and that country should be invaded and the head of the government replaced?

Isn't that what the US does now with death penalties imposed against convicted felons?

So if thats true then I have to say that you have also convicted your own country with your words.

Ok, now I hear you saying, "but thats different"

- But is it really?

And so where do you draw the line between the US death penalties for convicted felons and [legal] regimes like Saddams who practise(d) much the same?

Hmm, you say - well only those sorts of regimes like Saddams need to be dealt with by force - the other ones are elected and people can vote them out.

But Iraq had elections regularly so the regime was no less legal in that sense than say the current US one is.

Hmm, maybe - lets let than one ride for a bit and not go there...

... okay, so you say, "I meant only "really bad" countries need to be sorted out".

So why then has the US not sorted out North Korea & Iran already [to name the "Axis of Evil" countries mentioned post 9/11]

If anything those two countries represent(ed) a much bigger threat to the world and their people than Saddam ever did/could - even with WMD.

North Korea is actively starving its people to death and has admitted openly wanting to build WMD to "protect itself" from the local bully [the US] and also to lower its arms bill by being able to get more deterrence for their dollars or Yuan or whatever it is they use for money in North Korea.
North Korea has probably killed more or its population than Saddam ever did even with Chemical weapons and mass graves everywhere - noone knows for sure as no-one is allowed in to verify whats going on in North Korea.

Iran is also accused or wanting to pursue such a policy with WMD as North Korea does/is.

Then I say what about the Congo situation right now, what about Zimbabwe - isn't that another [African] Saddam in the making - whats your government doing about them? Not a lot? [heck where the hell is Zimbabwe anyway you may ask and why do I care what happens there?]

What about Burma or anyone of another half dozen "bad" countries you can name?

Why isn't the US invading them or openly discussing "Regime Change" in front of those countries faces like they did with Iraq?

Yes maybe as you said, the US can't be the worlds judge, jury and executioner, and maybe thats no bad thing either - few of the countries "judged" by the US as "bad" are really that much worse than the US or their "allies" have been in the past - its really a case of the pot calling the kettle black in many cases.

And therefore to try and draw a line in sand between the good guys and bad guys is getting harder by the day.

In a sandstorm everyone starts looking the same shade of grey no matter which direction you look in.

This is not a matter of our arrogant outlook. It is wrong to murder people in front of their family members. (...) No we don't have the capabilites to thwart every evil dictator in the world, but we gave people a chance who had no chance, and that is a good thing.

Okay. Take this thinking a step further.

I think it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to thwart any number of other evil dictators on this planet. So if stopping the reign of an evil dictator was the motive behind the war, why specifically this one? You've said so yourself: We can't go doing it everywhere, so we had to pick one. So. Why this one?

If we're going to get into the rationalization of reasons behind the war, then we have to rationalize it all the way to its logical conclusion. What was the ROI for ousting Saddam specifically? What made it better than liberating any other country with an evil dictator?

Heh, the one time I choose to post in a political thread, I'm beaten to the punch.

the one time I choose to post in a political thread

I was gonna say....

Heh, the one time I choose to post in a political thread, I'm beaten to the punch.

Don't feel bad, as you've asked an imprortant question:

What was the ROI for ousting Saddam specifically?

...to which I get to fart in the submarine:

Who says Saddam is *really* ousted?

-I’m for racial profiling (as long as the presumption of innocence remains intact).

I do want to respect your wish not to argue the points you have laid out as example, but, among the many, this is one that I feel a need to comment on.

Basically, i don't think this works this way. i've spent some time working around police and I will generalize by saying that they suffer from a collective us vs. them social inbreeding that often takes a racist form. I don't know *that* many black men but know some mostly through work and I can't think of one who doesn't have stops for "driving while black" in their past. The whole term of racial profiling wouldn't have made it into the popular lexicon if it weren't for (bad) police behavior.

That being said, I won't say that I completely disagree with you in pure principle, based almost solely on the ridiculous spectacle of watching airport security guards search 85 year-old grandmas.

One other reason I replied to this point specifically is that I think there are some parallels to the main thread of the thread. I expect that some of the troops in Iraq are very likely developing a hardened cop mindset... some serious profiling there....

The "Why Saddam?" question is a good one, and I understand that it must be asked. I'm not sure I can argue the point well here, so I'll punt a little. Perhaps there were better targets, and this one was chosen for bad reasons. Since I (the formerly very hard-core Bush supporter) am having integrity questions I really can't say.

However, when it comes to any other country right now, we couldn't possibly do anything to anyone, both because of our military presence requirements in Iraw and because we wouldn't allow our president to start another war. So that's kind of moot point, given that we've already attacked Saddam.

My point was that the U.S. judging Saddam for his evil acts was not arrogant, it is a rational, reasonable viewpoint based on what he's done. But again, I'll conceed that there our other evil dictators and I really couldn't say if Saddam was the best target for us.

Isn't that what the US does now with death penalties imposed against convicted felons?

But our criminals are not innocent people, and that makes a difference. You might say that Saddam's people were guilty in his eyes, but that's not enough. We do not execute people for idle crimes.

So why then has the US not sorted out North Korea & Iran already [to name the "Axis of Evil" countries mentioned post 9/11]

I don't know, though it's clear we can't engage in another war. However, I'll conceed this point (see my above post).

And therefore to try and draw a line in sand between the good guys and bad guys is getting harder by the day.

Yes it is, and the U.S. has supported some very bad things. This is moot, though, in my overall point. Saddam was without question evil, no matter what we have or haven't done. If you think that badness is relative, or that what Saddam did was OK because he had the right title then you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I just disagree and believe we can call what Saddam did evil.

I do want to respect your wish not to argue the points you have laid out as example, but, among the many, this is one that I feel a need to comment on.

Actually it's fine. The only one I really don't want to get into is the "Pro Life/ Pro Choice" thing. We haven't once discussed it here to my knowledge, and I don't want to start now.

But actually, If you'll read my other posts it does look like I commented too quickly on that one. I've heard stories from cops about racial profiling being taken too far, where they are being hampered in their jobs unreasonably. That is what I'm against, and I will agree with you that the "us vs. them" racist attitudes have no place in our police departments.

As far as who you search getting on an airplane, I'll actually go ahead and say that the selections should be totally random. If they aren't, then the next time someone wants to hijack an airplane they'll find an 85 year-old grandma to do it. There's got to be one sympathizer out there somewhere who'd filter through the "profile". Random checks aren't really trying to find people who are going to hi-jack a plane, they're a deterrent for those people who now have to think twice whoever they are. This really stinks for the 85 year old Grandma, but unless she has an equal chance of being selected for testing, we give any potential terrorists an advantage.

In reply to:

---

What was the ROI for ousting Saddam specifically? What made it better than liberating any other country with an evil dictator?

---

In a word, OIL

No other "evil dictator" regime I can think of currently has the reserves of oil that the US requires. Despite previous statements in this regards in this BBS and elsewhere I have read - the US is NOT self-sufficient in oil and has not been for some time nor will be ever again (at least while SUVs in particular and internal combustion engines in general, roam the planet)

Therefore the US has to obtain long term external sources of oil to keep its citizens in the style to which they have become accustomed...

...North Korea has nothing the US wants [except maybe a common border with China], Iran is pretty much in the same boat as North Korea..

So the conclusion you reach after considering everything, is that yes, oil is a large part, if not the root, of the problem here.

Saddam had so much of it, he could therefore use it to fund his regime indefinately through smuggling operations - something he has done for 10+years.

Having a "pro-US" regime in Iraq for the forseeable future, will give the US preferential access to Iraq current oil reserves, and more importantly, will allow US energy companies to explore for and then develop/exploit Iraqs untapped oil reserves.

Remember, you said it. I only asked the question.

In reply to:

---

But our criminals are not innocent people, and that makes a difference. You might say that Saddam's people were guilty in his eyes, but that's not enough. We do not execute people for idle crimes.

---

A small but significant portion of US convicted criminals [in particular those on death row] are wrongly convicted (and are/have been proveably innocent) and therefore have been and no doubt will continue to be killed unlawfully...

...This is a problem with the US justice system.

Any country with death penalties faces this problem. Its a major reason why death penalties are no longer practised in most "1st world" nations. The US being a notable exception here.

So if you say the conviction makes the difference, then criminals in the US are convicted and killed [wrongly] - no less than some "criminals" in Iraq were.

This is merely flip-sides of the same coin. If you routinely kill people as part your justice system, you're going to make mistakes.

In reply to:

---

Saddam was without question evil, no matter what we have or haven't done. If you think that badness is relative, or that what Saddam did was OK because he had the right title then you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I just disagree and believe we can call what Saddam did evil.

---

Evil is a value judgement. Not a statement of fact.

However, if you assume that there is a ranking/relativity of "good" and "better" countries/regimes - and by your previous statements/comments I assume you'd agree with that.

Then you must also agree that the same goes for "bad" and "badder" countries/regimes.

So, yes, maybe we can all agree Saddams regime was "bad" - but the $64,000 qeuestion is was it actually a worse regime than any of the (many) other "bad" regimes out there? [say the Teleban?], how about North Korea? Iran?

And if so, why was it "worse" than the others? And also, is it the "worst"? If not, then why is it being singled out for "special attention"?

These questions I have yet to see anyone answer properly.

What about the 99.9% of the criminals rightly convicted? If somebody kidnaps your five year old daughter, rapes her tiny little virgin hole, slits her throat, chops her up into pieces, leaves her in the desert for the birds eat, then gets convicted by a jury with "no reasonable doubt" of his guilt, are you gonna plead for this man's life because you think there is a slight chance he was wrongly convicted? Hell no. You want the son of a bitch to die. Just like he made your innocent daughter die. Oh, he's mentally retarded too. I guess since he was obviously too much of a dumbfuck to realize what he was doing, he should be given leniency. After all, the killer shark that killed and maimed people shouldn't be killed either since it's IQ is much lower than a retarded human's and it didn't realize what it was doing or the full consequences of its actions..

I have post ths article when folk talk about the death penalty
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030611/323/e222t.html
So what happens to the people who withheld the evidence that murdered an innocent man?

are you gonna plead for this man's life because you think there is a slight chance he was wrongly convicted? Hell no. You want the son of a bitch to die.

Right. Which is exactly why cases are decided by the dispassionate.

On the other hand, wrong. IMO, no one should cause anyone else to die if at all possible. That's the basis for the wrongness of the original murder. I've yet to see how killing him is going to help matters. He should probably be removed from society to prevent him doing it again, but killing him is just the easy and, IMO, wrong way out.

What about the 99.9% of the criminals rightly convicted?

I'm also sure that as many of the people executed in Iraq were rightly convicted. It's just that there were a lot more capital offenses there than there are in the US.

A small but significant portion of US convicted criminals [in particular those on death row] are wrongly convicted (and are/have been proveably innocent) and therefore have been and no doubt will continue to be killed unlawfully...

I don't see how wrongful convictions in the U.S. relate to blatent, premeditated murders in Iraq. I suppose that your case could be that allowing for the possiblity of an innocent person being executed is the same as murdering innocents with full intent, but to me they are two different things.

You could also carry this argument beyond death penalties. Innocent people can receive life imprisonment, which is akin to tortuing them for the rest of their lives. This is unfortunate, but it doesn't put any country that imprisons criminals on the same "level" as Iraq.

Any country with death penalties faces this problem. Its a major reason why death penalties are no longer practised in most "1st world" nations. The US being a notable exception here.

I do understand that you think death penalties are barbaric and there is room for discussion there. I just won't agree that what the U.S. does in it's criminal justice system is the same as what Saddam did.

On the other hand, wrong. IMO, no one should cause anyone else to die if at all possible.

This actually is indirectly one of my uncomforts with the death penalty. I ultimately support the death sentence intellectually, but carrying it out is a different story. I cannot imagine being the person (or persons) responsible for carrying out the execution of an individual because some other people told me it was the right thing to do.

That's the basis for the wrongness of the original murder.

Not quite. The wrongness of the original murder was that the person knowingly took an innocent person's life and displayed a disregard for that innocent life. ("innocent" meaning non-murdering).

I've yet to see how killing him is going to help matters.

Two answers: Justice and deterrent. I feel that you definitely wouldn't agree with the concept of "Justice" in this case, so I'll leave it alone. As far as being a deterrent, it hardly works now because the system is so messed up. It takes so long to execute a person that there isn't any perceived loss attached to the action which receives a death penalty. Even if it were more immediate, there are still reasonable questions to how much of a deterrent the death penalty would prove to be.

For my own part, I do support the death penalty, but not without reservation. The concept of anyone taking another person's life and that person knowing it's coming and being powerless to stop it because the action is protected under the law does bother me.

Well, considering that the TV pictures I've seen lately of US miltary patrols in Iraq, show shouting and hollering at Iraqi citizens in American English,

Yes, standard American tourist communication...

by the "ground forces" on patrol - 'cos thats all the Americans know how to speak, then I would have to say that there is not a very good relationship at all.

Part of it may be a product of my imagination run wild, but as I consider the possible continued attrition and slide in morale and increase in alienation, I can almost hear the change in the chatter among the troops. This includes new pejorative/racial terms for Iraqis
(think: some new incarnation of "gook")


At least the British patrols appear to have local translators and therefore are able to communicate with the locals in their language.

I hadn't heard of any British ambush casulties in this "post war" period and wondered (if true) how much of that was attributed to smaller force size (lower exposed denominator) versus force position (perhaps not sitting on top of Baath stongholds) versus better relationships/communication. It's also conceivable to me that whoever is targeting the Iraqi attacks decided to target US troops exclusively for political effect -- it's not like the British would stay when we pull out....

Most of the US patrols I've seen footage of don't have anyone with local knowledge of the language or customs with them (or if they do, its only becuase the camera crew filming them bought one). Because of this the chances for simple misunderstandings on either side to have serious or even fatal consequences seems very real.

I expect that stories like the killing of 13 Iraqis in Falluja have very long "legs" among the locals and put a pretty bad dent in the US military's ability to strike a credible social worker pose. Added to this and the lack of communication is the strategy of the Saddamists to bushwhack US troops in ways (distressed pregnant woman in car, car broken down, or "we need a doctor") and I think that a situation is evolving where the only communication *will* be shouting at distances exceeding RPG range.

Seems to me that the US military has overlooked this sort of "day to day" situation which occurs when a army switches from fighting to occupying. Just look at what mistakes happen in Japan and Germany now with US forces, and this is after nearly 60 years of "occupation".

To be fair, the most well organized occupier could encounter situations where criminals in their ranks rape and murder, but with respect to Japan/Okinawa/Germany, perhaps you had more in mind?

In a word, OIL.
...........................

Having a "pro-US" regime in Iraq for the forseeable future, will give the US preferential access to Iraq current oil reserves, and more importantly, will allow US energy companies to explore for and then develop/exploit Iraqs untapped oil reserves.

I'm waiting for someone to dispute your contentions on this point, but that may be a little harder to do now that many of the other, less-conspiracy-oriented war rationale are burdened with increasing implausibility.

The announceed withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia, coincident with the "end" of the Iraq war, is no surprize at all. As many billions as Cheney and friends have made through their cozy ties with the Saudis, I think even they have realized that Saudi political society is fundamentally diseased and not a reliable or cooperastive ally.

In this scenario, we might as wll pull out from Saudi Arabia and let the corrupt royal family deal with their radical mullahs in what ever way they choose. If the royal family makes a deal with the mullahs or is overthrown by them (and we perceive a threat), no problem. We can just invade from our new bases in Iraq!

Tipping the table, I think that guy said.

That being said, I won't say that I completely disagree with you in pure principle, based almost solely on the ridiculous spectacle of watching airport security guards search 85 year-old grandmas.

Well, racial profiling in 'war on terror' will only make terrorists' job easier. What better place to hide a weapon than unsuspecting grandma's huge handbag? In pre-1948 Palestine both Jews and Arabs were choosing light-skinned guys to attack British...

Edit: again not reading the thread to the end before responding redundantly....

IMO, no one should cause anyone else to die if at all possible.

This actually is indirectly one of my uncomforts with the death penalty. I ultimately support the death sentence intellectually, but carrying it out is a different story. I cannot imagine being the person (or persons) responsible for carrying out the execution of an individual because some other people told me it was the right thing to do.

For my own part, I do support the death penalty, but not without reservation. The concept of anyone taking another person's life and that person knowing it's coming and being powerless to stop it because the action is protected under the law does bother me.

Then you are on good path, Jeff. At least you seriously think about situation where killing somebody in cold blood and not in protection of anybody or anything is for some unfathomable reason declared lagal, and not what it actually is, a murder.

The wrongness of the original murder was that the person knowingly took an innocent person's life and displayed a disregard for that innocent life. ("innocent" meaning non-murdering).

Again, I think that the wrongness of murder is in killing somebody without being forced to do that in order to stop greater harm. So, you can guess what kind of opinion I have of ex-governor of Texas.

Justice and deterrent.

Many primitive societies equate justice with revenge. Civilized society has no business doling out 'justice' with any purpose other that minimizing future occurences of crime. But even there some limits must be observed; e.g, I hope you don't approve of amputations Islamic law prescribes for thieves?

It has been proven pretty conclusively that death penalty is not a general deterent (that is, that it does not lower future occurrence of crimes it was used against).

Well, racial profiling in 'war on terror' will only make terrorists' job easier. What better place to hide a weapon than unsuspecting grandma's huge handbag? In pre-1948 Palestine both Jews and Arabs were choosing light-skinned guys to attack British...

Edit: again not reading the thread to the end before responding redundantly....

Well, thanks, though, for reminding me that I forgot to respond to Jeff's response.

My thought in using the "grandma" example was not to say that some element of randomness is bad, but I think that complete randomness (as practiced by early post-9//11 secondary screeners) is/was bad and pretty hilarious. I *do* have a hard time worrying that Islamist terrorists will recruit 87 and 85 year-old Sven and Shirley Jensen from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to do their dirty work. Not impossible, but likely? Perhaps as the Dept of Homeland Security's brilliant threat analyses identify an uptick in threats from the domestic Timothy MvVeighs, then Sven and Shirley should get a harder look. On the flip side, relying lazily on profiling to just pull all the "Middle Eastern-looking men" out of line for screening is a setup for the kind of unhappy surprise you suggest.

Some element of randomness increases the likelihood that flaws in other screening methods will be identified, but I would say that complete randomness is not effective without cost-prohibitive screening rates.

If the reputation of El Al is to be believed, they have a successful (the most successful?), albeit expensive, system that is multi-factorial.

To your point of working around "profiling" preconceptions with atypical bombers, I would, in a brief tangent, recommend the film The Battle of Algiers to anyone who has never seen it. Great movie.

So, you can guess what kind of opinion I have of ex-governor of Texas.

Why? because of the people executed while he was governor? Do you feel the same way about the very liberal governor before him?


What about the Nazis? Should we have issued handcuffs to the troops instead of guns? Then they could run up to the nazis real fast and slap handcuffs on them. Then we'd just detain them in huge prisons for the rest of their lifes. All without killing anyone of course.

Why? because of the people executed while he was governor? Do you feel the same way about the very liberal governor before him?

According to this yearly summary of Texas executions and this list of Ann Richards' and George W. Bush's terms (and eliding the very slight overlap between calendar year and term), Richards allowed the execution of an average of 12 people per year (which is still way too high), while Bush allowed the execution of an average of almost 26 people per year. (BTW, what's the deal with Bush's 1996's three executions?) Also, Richards administration presided over an average of almost eight removals from death row, while Bush's presided over an average of almost four.

Still, you're right that Richards' administration presided over a dramatic increase in executions, but Bush's rise was ever greater. The four previous administrations had averages of executions and removals in these numbers: 0/1 0.25/12 5/6 4/6 -- The second and fourth ones are actually the same (Republican) governor.

So I guess the governor had direct control over:

a) How many people were accused of committing murderous crimes in a given year.

b) How many of those people were convicted by a jury of their peers.

c) The severity of the punishment given out


What should the governor do? All he can do is let all the criminals off the hook, kind of like Bill Clinton did to all the billionaires on the last night of his presidency.

It has been proven pretty conclusively that death penalty is not a general deterent (that is, that it does not lower future occurrence of crimes it was used against).

Actually, it does stop further offences remarkably effectively, in the special case of the executee.

pca

What should the governor do? All he can do is let all the criminals off the hook, kind of like Bill Clinton did to all the billionaires on the last night of his presidency.

No. The governor can commute death sentences to life sentences. That was part of my statistics above.

And override the justice system? to ignore the will of the people?

The governor appoints judges (at least I'm pretty sure that's the case in Texas), who are the ones who set death sentences. At most, that could be considered changing one's mind.

The bottom line, regardless of what control Bush had over the death penalty in Texas, is that there is a reason he was elected governor of a state with more executions than any other by a factor of more than 3 (maybe even 4). He certainly didn’t make any bones about the issue, so we can assume he was most likely supportive of the number of executions in our state. I wouldn't say that it is out of line for someone who strenuously opposes the death penalty to have strong anti-Bush feelings based on that alone. On the flip side, I’m sure I would have strong feelings against a liberal governor of a state that practiced a different behavior to which I was vehemently opposed.

At least the British patrols appear to have local translators and therefore are able to communicate with the locals in their language.

On this point, the BBC on Friday interviewed military analyst Gwynne Dyer (author of the interesting "War" book/TV series years back) and he noted that British commanders had recently declined/refused to come north and join US forces around Baghdad/Faluja. He didn't say much more than this, but that could explain *part* of the absence of recent British casualties.

BBC also noted US Army officer/spokesman noting that, in the current anti-Baath operations around Faluja, (my best-effort paraphrase here) "all persons are being treated as hostile".

So, it sounds like the plan to turn Faluja street gangs into a summer youth basketball league are on hold.

....the absence of recent British casualties.

Well, Jim, to the extent that you were offering some sort of half-baked theory, it is probably time to revise or abandon it .

No helicopter crash or jeep accident this. Six British dead and eight wounded. Two separate attacks