If you’re feeling love, it’s time to put your hands on the keyboard and leave them there. Better yet, put then on the table and leave the keyboard alone.

I couldn’t help notice that you have taken the well-worn path so often used by genus Leftus Dimwitus when confronted with the task of explaining, clearly and logically, what their yammering actually means…”Look it up”. Well, there really isn’t much to look up because the ‘difference’ to which you allude is little more than a rhetorical device intended to impart an aura of thoughtfulness and knowledge that doesn’t actually exist.

You may think saying things like

Failed states provide a nurturing habitat for terrorists that run of the mill dictatorships don’t (dictators tend to frown on alternative power bases).

can get you a respectful hearing around here, but in fact it fails, and fails badly, the standard laugh test for anyone remotely acquainted with the USSR’s extensive efforts throughout the Cold War organizing, arming and financing terrorist organizations throughout the world, and most certainly in the Middle East. If you wish to argue that the USSR should be considered a ‘failed state’, by all means do so. It can’t be any more embarrassing than what you are arguing now. The simple fact is that there is no particular reason to believe that ‘failed states’ and ‘dictatorships’, in and of themselves, view the sponsorship of terrorism in differing terms. Your rationale for stating so is beyond nebulous.

And Alan, please don’t start in with the ‘I never said it” routine. It also constitutes another well-worn path for Leftus Dimwitus. The simple fact of the matter, on explained quite well in one of Roger’s posts several days ago, is that we do not have enough meaningful information to properly assess whether US involvement in Iraq has been competently managed or not. Those without initiate and detailed knowledge of all the facts and the specialized training to evaluate those facts, such as yourself, do not make claims of incompetence by the Bush Administration out of knowledge or good faith. They make the claim because they have in the past, and continue to now oppose all efforts by the US and the Bush Administration to combat the intertwined evils of terrorist organizations and the governments (dictatorships and the war lords of ‘failed states’) that enable those organizations.

The reality of the matter is that you have neither the courage of your convictions nor the inherent honesty to declare yourself. On the one hand you claim to support the overthrow of the Taliban and the removal of Saddam, and on the other you condemn and damn those who have done the deed for not meeting a standard in excution that is wholly the making of your own imagination. Do you really think this is the first time we’ve had an Anti-Liberationista try this particular dodge on us?

You remind me so much of the US Sandalistas who so vocally supported ‘democracy’ in Nicaragua until the day came when the Nicaragua people used their new-found democratic prossess to evict the Sandinistas from power. Magically, and overnight, the Sandalistas lost all interest in Nicaragua, the Nicaraguan people and Nicaraguan ‘democracy’…because to them democracy was only interesting when it worked their way. In the same vein, Afghanistan and Iraq interests you only to the extent events in either country can be used to criticize and condemn the Bush Administration. That is as transparently obvious as any song of praise given Daniel Ortega by any Leftus Dimwitus those decades ago.

Shinseki and others called it right prior to the invasion so the “hindsight” arguments don’t work. The reality is that this Administration went into Irag with a bunch of best case assumptions and an inability to deal with a reality that failed to conform to those assumptions. This isn’t planning it’s wishing.

What Shinseki actually said was that he thought it would take 250,000 troops to invade Iraq, and about the same number to maintain order. Since his estimate for the invasion was wrong, why do you think the other estimate is right?

Your whole argument presumes the assertion that the way the Iraq War has gone has been an unmitigated disaster. There just really is no sensible evidence for that if you have any sort of historical perspective about what wars are like, from Zama to Kosovo. This is all predicated on the notion that Iraq is unusually unstable — but if you look at actual data or at the reports of people on the ground outside of the Bagdad Sheraton, it turns out not to be true. Most of the country is quite stable; several pockets of resistence have been eliminated, Sadr City is rapidly cleaning up as al Sadr decides he’d rather be a politician than a corpse, and it’s rapidly becoming a high-risk occupation to be an “insurgent” because the Iraqi people have about had it with them: they keep turning up dead in places like Fallujah.

Oh, nonsense.

See, this is once again the “blindly repeat the meme” behavior. The 9/11 and Senate Intel Committee reports — as well as any number of stories in the press and other reports — clearly establish that there was (1) an open connection between Saddam and terrorism, such as Saddam’s harboring abu Nidal and funding the terrorist factions among the Palestinians, and (2) clear connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. What the actual reports said was that there was no operational co-ordination between Saddam and al Qaeda.

It’s not like the reports are hard to find, hard to read, or, for that matter, hard to search if you don’t want to read the whole thing. (Although the 9/11 Commisssion report is actually a pretty good read.)

But Terry McAuliffe says “no connection”, Carl Levin repeats is, and we get this firing rule established that says “iraq war” ⇒ “no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda”.

Do you believe we invaded Afghanstan to stop the execution of women? Women are currently on line to be stoned in Nigeria. Do you advocate invading that country? If you do with what army? Ours is currently tied up. Would you share with us your record of advocacy for Afghani women prior to 9/11? Were you even aware of the situation in that country?

You also assume too much. I supported Afghanistan and am happy to see the Taliban gone (and dead to the extent that has been accomplished).

Failed states provide a nurturing habitat for terrorists that run of the mill dictatorships don’t (dictators tend to frown on alternative power bases). We, of course, have the right to go where we are threatened. I don’t believe I ever said anything to the contrary.

Given the link between the Taliban and AQ, they needed what they got. It is now well established that no such link existed with Iraq. Hence Iraq was optional and as the costs in blood and treasure rise it is no longer sufficient to justify the war by the removal of Saddam alone.

Now before you go on another round of assuming. It is a good thing that Saddam is gone as well as his two worthless sons however the world is full of unpleasant dictators and we aren’t going to get rid of all of them.

It is clear that our invasion of Afghanistan resulted in a net saving of lives. As the death toll of Iraqis rises the benefit of a premature removal necessarily falls.

The latest complaint seems to be “Well, Bush didn’t do the war well enough. We could have done it better.”

Isn’t this a dying gasp?

Could it be that it is dawning on these people that all the carping, goal-post-moving, bad-mouthing, wolf-crying, history-revising really isn’t taking them anywhere?

Maybe, now that Karzai is elected, and Iraq has a prospect of having successful elections in January…maybe, just maybe, it is starting to dawn on these defeatists that they were wrong?

Jamie Irons

Though Hitch is certainly a gifted writer, I’m not sure that a Pommy journo is what I’d call a subject matter expert on the US Constitution and impeachable offences thereunder. I’m pretty sure that the constitution was designed so that the “crime” of incompetence would be punished at the ballot box. The framers were a smart bunch of guys, and your candidate, JF’nK should give thanks every day to the god that may or may not exist, depending on the audience, that those framers set an incredibly high bar for treason (perhaps too high…)

Oh, and the problem with the initial looting wasn’t a lack of troops or the lack of a plan- it was a lack of will. Shooting a few dozen pour encourager les autreux (sp?) would have done the trick nicely, but probably would have resulted in impeachment proceedings. Absent the will to do enforce a harsh martial law, it would not have mattered how many troops there were standing around with their thums up their ass. You lefty types want a bloodless war fought with beanbags and nerf bats – as well as instant and overwhelming victor – and it ain’t gonna happen.

Now run back to the daily Kos and complain that you can’t get laid because the Bushitler and Heinrich Ashcroft have created a “climate of fear in this country.”

Geez, what a moron.

Is there a lawyer in the house? Not a setup for a joke, I’m afraid. Powerline has a story of Ted Kennedy campiagning in a back church in Florida, urging people to vote for Kerry. Includes pics of people in pews with Kedwards literature in hand. This cannot be legal, can it?

While you people were playing with the dumbot, I’ve been having a chat with that rarest of birds, the well intentioned lefty, on the Stolen Honor thread. He actually attempts to make arguments, and responds to those made to him. Totally freaked me out.

Guilty as charged. And so is every other ethnic group in this country. That’s what’s so great about America. Why on earth should we all be melted down into some grey pea soup? My culture is beautiful and deep and gives my soul great sustenance, and is available to anyone who wants to join. There are lots of “Intro to Judaism” classes in any city, open to all, usually at local synagogues or JCCs. Check us out sometime.