...people died.

No, really.

This is more important than alleged lies over WMD.

Rand,
Yes, there is pretty good evidence that FDR lied us into WWII. And yes, Bush can probably get off of the accusation of lying on a technicality. He didn't actually lie because while his statements were false, and while he could have and should have known that they were at least dubious if not outright bogus (and he had sufficient sources of dissenting opinions that if he really wanted to know he would have at least realized his case wasn't as rock solid as he claimed), that doesn't actually make it a lie. It makes him a gullible dupe. Even though it isn't an impeachable offense (and hasn't gotten anywhere near as many people killed as FDR's lies have), it sure does bring into question his competency to hold as high an office as he does. But alas, apparently the majority of the people would prefer either a president like Bush, who ignores any data that doesn't fit his preconceived notion...or his opponent in the last election who didn't really seem any better...

~Jon

They way I figure it, ol' Saddam managed to convince everybody that he had 'something'. Ignored every useless UN resolution not to mention actively trying to shoot down allied planes during the hiatus between the Gulf Wars. It's even quite possible his intel services put one over on everybody else's.

Now he's paying for it. Ah, well.

CJ,
Well, not *everyone* believed the tales about WMD. I didn't, and many other people didn't either. Most of the democrats who are doing most of the most audible whining believed those tales, but there were many of us on the right who didn't buy it for a second. The other thing is that if it really were just Saddam that paid for the error, I think I wouldn't be complaining at all. It's innocent third parties that are affected by this whole mess that I think is what makes it so disgusting. How many civilians (killed by either us, by terrorists, or by illnesses due to deteriorating infrastructure) would still be alive today if it weren't for our intervention? When all is said and done, many years from now, will historians say "well, they did get rid of that Saddam jerk, but other than that it was a rather pyhrric victory" or worse "man, they bungled that so bad that they managed to get more innocents killed unintentionally than the brutal dictor they replaced had intentionally killed".

No biggee. Anyway, I better get back to space blogging before I drive off all my readership.

John says...
But alas, apparently the majority of the people would prefer either a president like Bush, who ignores any data that doesn't fit his preconceived notion...

As opposed to our last illustrious president who did nothing but pour over poll data to figure out what he should do.

John says...
Well, not *everyone* believed the tales about WMD. I didn't, and many other people didn't either.

With no belief that Saddam had them and no belief in the FACT that he used them, I sure hope your ostrich hole is warm and comfy. His entire government was a WMD. Take into account the vast size of nothingness over in Iraq and the fact they have found entire airplanes buried there...leads to the great possibility that they buried what they needed to, hoping to continue to baffle the UN...which my four year old could do. C'mon John, the facts are evident, just requiring a wee bit of extrapolation for a high degree of probability. There will never be enough proof for most people, but in the case of war, probability is good enough in this case...at least for me.

It's innocent third parties that are affected by this whole mess that I think is what makes it so disgusting.

It's hard to take your complaint seriously, when you seem indifferent to the "innocent third parties" that Saddam was murdering and imprisoning, and starving, every day he was in power. Many more are alive (and free) in Iraq today than would have been the case had he remained in power. If you think that it was none of our business to remove a brutal dictator from power, fine, but please spare us your faux concern about the Iraqis.

How many civilians (killed by either us, by terrorists, or by illnesses due to deteriorating infrastructure) would still be alive today if it weren't for our intervention?

Ok, as long as we're fabricating what ifs...

A lot would still be alive, to be raped, tortured, killed by Saddam's people.

Back to fact...democracy is taking hold in Iraq, the plan is working. The Iraqis are taking more and more authority and responsibility for their country and we are reverting more to counselors every day.

I believe we have accomplished something great that was never imagined, planting democracy in the Middle East. This seed will sprout and grow and good things will be harvested.

Rand,
If one could actually do the "how many would have died under Saddam between 2003 and the present compared to how many have died during that timeframe" calculation, I think they might very well conclude that more people have died on our watch due to our incompetence than would have died with Saddam still in power. Now, that doesn't justify Saddam staying in power any more than it would justify our invading if the converse was true.

Even if you feel that the calculation would come out in your favor now, the question I have is this: if at some point in the future it was provable that more people have died on our watch than would have died during a comparable amount of time under Saddam, would you reconsider your position? Would you admit you were wrong? For some reason I doubt it.

Anyhow, as I said, back to space posting. Dealing with rationalizations like this just makes me sick.

~Jon

'You can't handle the truth!' is a great line because, although the bad guy said it, it's true of all of us to some extent. Get off the WMD's. It never was about that and Bush didn't lie to you or anyone else.

Politics by it's nature, regardless of party, is about getting support for actions. 3000 people died in less than a day which finally caused the American people to get angry enough and take seriously the war against us that's been going on for decades.

We are at war! They intend to destroy us. All of us. Innocent people always die during a war. You can't make judgements in a moral vaccuum without considering what the result of alternative actions (or inactions) would produce.

Frankly, Bush was a lot more moderate than I'd have been. I would have nuked every smiling cheering face that day. Every damn one of them, regardless of country.

I'm a bit calmer today, but no less angry.

Rand,
If one could actually do the "how many would have died under Saddam between 2003 and the present compared to how many have died during that timeframe" calculation, I think they might very well conclude that more people have died on our watch due to our incompetence than would have died with Saddam still in power. Now, that doesn't justify Saddam staying in power any more than it would justify our invading if the converse was true.

Even if you feel that the calculation would come out in your favor now, the question I have is this: if at some point in the future it was provable that more people have died on our watch than would have died during a comparable amount of time under Saddam, would you reconsider your position? Would you admit you were wrong? For some reason I doubt it.

Anyhow, as I said, back to space posting. Dealing with rationalizations like this just makes me sick.

~Jon

Hmmm, Democrat supported suppression of the Bush administration's handling of intelligence would go a long way to explaining why the Bush administration isn't looking too hard at similar examples of Clinton administration mishandling of intelligence. Eg, why is no one looking into Sandy Bergman's activities or the "Able Danger" warnings that supposedly were blocked during the Clinton era? My suspicion is that everyone has dirt on everyone.

While I think there was fair reason to believe Saddam Hussein would have restarted his WMD program once UN heat was off, basing the invasion on WMD alone was foolhardy.

And I certainly don't approve of the alleged FDR deception to get us to enter the Second World War, no matter how just that war may have been. This just adds to his sins IMHO. FDR is after all also the president who allowed the USSR to annex so much territory and blight the lives of tens of millions of people. And he created many of the programs like Social Security that threaten the future financial wellbeing and security of the US.

If one could actually do the "how many would have died under Saddam between 2003 and the present compared to how many have died during that timeframe" calculation, I think they might very well conclude that more people have died on our watch due to our incompetence than would have died with Saddam still in power.

Not if they did it knowledgably, and objectively.

if at some point in the future it was provable that more people have died on our watch than would have died during a comparable amount of time under Saddam, would you reconsider your position?

While "number of people died" is an oversimplistic measure, of course I would reconsider my position if I thought that both the Iraqis and the world were better off with Saddam remaining in power. But that event seems very unlikely, and ever more so with time.

While I think there was fair reason to believe Saddam Hussein would have restarted his WMD program once UN heat was off, basing the invasion on WMD alone was foolhardy.

Karl, I agree that basing the invasion on WMD alone would have been foolhardy.

Of course, that never happened in this universe. There were many reasons for removing Saddam, of which WMD was always only one. That it was so prominent was partly because it was the one most trumpeted by the media, and because it was the only one that was perceived to be able to get the UN Security Council to go along. The real strategic error was in even bothering to try, given that (as we now know from the Oil for Food mess) Chirac and Putin were on the take from Saddam.

Its not the combat or the overthrowing of Saddam but rather the occupation and nation-building thats sapping our morale. I suspect that the next intervention in this area of the world will be more of a Carthage type outcome rather than an idealistic attempt to rebuild a conquered country into the next Japan.

Tob

I think they might very well conclude that more people have died on our watch due to our incompetence than would have died with Saddam still in power.

The only thing that is concluded is the fact that the media continues to report only those things that are a detriment to the president. The facts are evident that we are succeeding, but I wouldn't expect a sand hog to notice, because it might mean complimenting our armed forces and our president.

How many civilians (killed by either us, by terrorists, or by illnesses due to deteriorating infrastructure) would still be alive today if it weren't for our intervention?

Uh, huh, how many people in the twin towers would be alive if we had intervened earlier? How many of them WOULD STILL BE ALIVE if your glorious Clinton had accepted Bin Laden on the silver platter he was offered on? If you want to be sick, fine, but be sick with your own inaction and tiny vision than the truth.

Hey Jonathan, how's that case against Slobodan going? I know he didn't have oil to let UN and EU officials sell, so I figured the great ICC would have had this wrapped up by now.

Mr. Goff like so many feel that we should never impose our will on others, and the world will be a better place. Here, have a Coke….
The imposition of our will on the idiots of this world is most likely the only reason we still have a world. In the words of my girlfriend, “No balls, no babies.”, and in essence that is it in a nutshell. If we sit back and wait when other wish to impose their will on us to get the upper hand, and then strike back from a defensive posture, we will always find ourselves in that posture. What this is all about, really, is an all out political ‘Blitzkrieg” designed to produce the common perception that all is lost and we need to run from Iraq.
Well no balls no babies.

'Saddam's paying for it'?
No- I think WE are.

Otherwise- politicians lie? This is news?

Wow....interesting firestorm.

Jon is correct on at least one point...it's pointless to try and rationalize this after the fact.