finknottle

And vice versa. He was a nationalist, and the militant groups he supported in Palestine and Iran were nationalistic rather than religious in character. He wanted to be seen as the leader of Arab nationalism, and theocratic movements represented a philosophical threat.

On the contrary, I think you have bought into the habit of knee-jerk pontification. I have never said that Hussein had an AQ connection. In fact, I have argued to the contrary from the very beginning. The assassination attempt was offered as evidence that Hussein could not be relied upon to be a responsible member of the international community once he obtained WMD. For many, this was the clinching argument - not whether he had them in 2003, but what happens three years after sanctuions are lifted. And for the record, yes AQ was ragtag (but well-funded) group in 2001. But they accomplished some pretty spectacular things up to 9/11 - a dozen bombings, hitting the WTC twice and destroying them the second attempt, attacking a navy ship... It just goes to show you how vulnerable the world is to motivated individuals. Perhaps reading comprehension is the issue, for the topic was pre-emptive action to prevent the acquisition of WMD by unstable players. There was no change of subject. As an aside, you are a walking billboard for my first post - thanks! Ignore the many motives, agenda's and arguments for the war and just keep insisting that all those who supported it did so because they thought Hussein was behind AQ. He obviously wasn't, ergo there was no reason to go to war.

And what do his conventional forces have to do with his being a threat? AQ had nothing compared to that prior to 9/11. Were they neutered in the 90's? What about the IRA or other terrorist groups? And what about state-sponsors of terrorism with relatively weak militaries, such as Libya during the 80's and 90's. For a neutered threat, Hussein knew how to play the game. He was always pushing the boundary in the 90's - blocking inspections, moving troops in contravention of the cease-fire agreement, targeting and firing upon UN planes, sponsoring proxy-fighting among the Kurdish groups... For a guy supposedly under the UN thumb, that's chutzpah. And the smashing of Iraq's military didn't stop the regime from attempting to assassinate Bush in Kuwait in 1993. Or do you believe that Clinton fabricated the whole thing? Maybe neutering doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me.

I disagree. As far as the public goes, sure. But within the USG it was a different story. Iraq was consistently a high priority in the Clinton Administration - being the intersection of a US deployment and non-proliferation (the defining thrust of the Clinton foreign policy) - and significant amounts of political capital were quietly expended in cajoling the UN security council to maintain the sanctions. Hussein was buying the French and Russians off with post-sanction concessions, the left was organizing protests arguing that we were starving the Iraqi children, and it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the UN sanctions were removed and Saddam would have freedom of action. And that he would - what president could move against Iraq following the lifting the sanctions? IMO the education gained from this experience explains both Blair's and Hillary Clinton's relative hawkishness. They knew bottling Hussein up was a losing proposition.

Off topic a bit, but I was reviewing presidential assassination attempts on wikipedia and found this entry amidst otherwise serious ones:

What do you mean he was neutered?

I think you are dead wrong but at least (to the point of this thread) you are consistent.

The problem with the selling of the Iraq War was that a million different arguments were allowed to float, regardless of their veracity, each resonating to a different segment (Saddam gassed his own people, Saddam has WMD, Saddam has AQ or 9/11 ties, Saddam will cause mischief when the sanctions are lifted. etc). This allows the detractors to pick the strawman argument, even those that were patently false such as involvement in 9/11. (IMO this was a PR miscalculation whose fault lies squarely with the administration.) Nevertheless, the logic behind the war as a war of pre-emptive action was *not* that Saddam's current stockpile of WMD was a threat. It was that - he had the means and desire to reconstitute his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted (no later than 2004 thanks to pressure from the left and the Europeans); - we would have neither the means nor the political will to prevent him developing nuclear/biological capabilities once sanctions were lifted; - given the provocative actions he engaged in while under UN sanctions there was no doubt that if free to do so he woiuld use every tool at his disposal to create mischief; - and once having acheived WMD deterence he would enjoy the geo-political immunity that comes with it. Consider - he carried out an assassination attempt on a former US president *while actively under UN sanctions.* Are we to assume that his behavior would be more peacefull, civil and rational if he were fortified with an effective deterence? Remember, nukes are a bogey man in all of this. You don't need an intercontinental missile to start a plague in NYC or Tel Aviv. You only need a diplomat and his pouch.

It's not. The anti-war pro-GW crowd is just as hypocritical as the pro-preemptive war GW-deniers. Roughly, the democratic left and the republican right. Those closer to the political center (McCain and Clinton) held more consistent positions. Why does this suprise you?

My favorite canard is that the military is supposed to be able to sustain two major land wars simultaneously. IIR during the Clinton Administration they (I don't remember if it was the JCS or the Admin) got a lot of heat when they tried to update the doctrine to a more realistic one-and-a-half (half being a sustained insurgency/peace keeping scenario) and had to back off. Anyway, by today's criteria the military was broken all through WWII. That is, if by breaking you mean soldiers unhappy because they are not rotated home for 50% of the time, or that the swimming pools where they are being deployed are not being built fast enough. Or even if they aren't getting equipment fast enough - if the trucks are being repaired and the ammunition is being delivered on time, it's not a war. It's an exercise.

If you want hypocracy, run this argument past the Obama base: Rising costs and unemployment are at a 4 year high. For 20 years the cost of higher education has consistantly outstripped inflation. And yet, with working families finding it impossible to pay for education of their children, the endowments of our most elite institutions continue to set records for growth, outstripping most for-profit institutions. I propose a windfall profit mandate on private universities, requiring that increasing endowments be offset by a reduction in tuition and fees. The threat of a windfall profit mandate is just a shot across the bow of the elite institutions to remind them that their days of excess are numbered, and if they don't lower fees to help the families while still increasing their endowments, then steps will have to be taken. At the very least the first step should be to end their tax-exempt status.

Nope, not while McCain struggles with the traditional republican base, while drawing disporportionately more independents and disaffected democrats than republicans typically do. I'm pretty sure Lieberman didn't vote for W twice... I'd put the the number closer to 60%

According to the Paulites, there are no homegrown terrorism threats. This whole story smacks of a media conspiracy against the constitution.

It will be less than Bush, but pretty close. Revenues will drop more than his administration plans for. But heck, every kindergartner will have new crayons and every illegal immigrant will have free health care, and the rest of the world will now respect and admire us for our social programs. Especially Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and all the places who don't like us now.

Thanks - interesting links.

Hey, I'm just trying to lay out the thinking behind McCains approach, not endorse it. My point is *precisely* that it is all moot if you don't ensure everybody. If nationalization is what it takes, so be it. Although frankly I don't see anything wrong with simply having a federal mandate to get insurance from an accrediated entity, and then staying out of it (like car insurance is typically done at the state level). But as to disparity in a capitalistic system, I think you miss my point. There's nothing wrong with people getting better or worse deals. The problem is when the federal government influences the choice and payoff via tax policy. If you want to influence behavior, you reward one option with a tax break. And if you are going to interfere with the free market, you ought to have a compelling reason. The current policy effectively nudges people away from getting insurance on their own and towards either taking employment with companies large enough to offer a good health plan, or forgoing it entirely and passing on the costs to others. Is this really a desirable economic policy?

Extra points if they start off wearing skimpy pirate outfits. (My favorite part of the Church teachings.)

I agree - no substantive discussion. I think it might be a hangover from early in the primary when Obama and Clinton were going at it. Regarding your points, put it another way. Anybody who does not have insurance through their employer is screwed right now because they don't get the same tax break that companies do. Why should they pay more for the same plan as you? I believe that the thesis underlying McCains approach is that companies should get out of the business of providing healthcare. The argument is that providing them a tax write-off maintains the current approach, which hinders plan portability and forces many people to stay with an employer that they might otherwise leave. It makes the disparity between individually purchased insurance and employer-provided insurance so great that individuals choose to go uninsured. To me this is the crux of the problem with health insurance, and is the reason why I think Obama's plan will fail. The uninsured are guaranteed medical treatment by law - that's why our emergancu rooms are flooded. Hospitals and doctors recoup their expenses by charging higher premiums to the insured and fees to those paying for service. As those rates rise, even more drop out of the system, and the effect snowballs. Untill you make coverage mandatory for treatment - which Obama pointedly does not, the issue on which he differentiated his plan from Clintons - the rates on those who have it will continue to spiral out of control. In fairness to Obama I don't think McCain addresses this either - I havn't bothered to look. I'm assuming that both plans will fail.

Clearly nothing as potent as what you're lapping up from Obama.

Clearly you are either a racist or a spitefull feminist. Any right-thinking person would have nothing but admiration for Obama and his transcendence of politics as usual.' His new way of walking will only bring people together, and your suggesting that it looks unprofessional just shows how tied you are to the backwards and discredited mindests of the past. Change you can believe in, Yes We Can!

My mistake - yes, if you count Michigan and estimate Obama's caucuses, Clintin wins by 180k. (His not being on the ballot was his tactical decision, much like it was Clinton's choice not to contest many of the caucuses. He could have stayed on with Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich, but he and Edwards chose to avoid the appearance of a loss even if an uncontested one. They wanted instead to embarrass Clinton with an 'uncommitted' win - and instructed their supporters to vote accordingly - but failed.)

Curiously not reported by the media amidst the Obama lovefest: As I predicted to boos and catcalls when she was down for the count after Mississippi and ridiculed for staying in the race, Clinton did in fact win the popular vote in the Democratic primaries. More people voted for her than Obama. Even if you don't count Michigan. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...vote_count.html

In fact, he predicted in a Jan 07 interview that a surge would lead to an increase in sectarian violence. The difficulty with saying he was wrong on that point and moving on is that it tarnishes the simplistic mantra - used to shore up his non-experience in foreign policy - that he was right about Iraq. Saying he was right about one Iraq issue but wrong about another makes him seem ordinary. It deflates the whole messiah image which is the cornerstone of his campaign. He isn't running on specific issues, he is running as the Answer to our Problems.

I think this puts it well: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._statesman.html

People are more willing to take your money if they think they'll live to keep it. Without the surge you couldn't buy the support of anybody not already comfortably ensconced in the Green Zone.