I’m not sure what the point of this poll question is:

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans say that President Bush is more responsible for starting the War with Iraq than Saddam Hussein. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% take the opposite view and believe Hussein shoulders most of the responsibility.

First of all, Saddam started the “War with Iraq” fifteen years ago, way back in August 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. That war didn’t end until March, 2003, when he was deposed, because there was never a peace treaty from the first Gulf War, and he was in continuous violation of almost all of the UN resolutions that were put in place as conditions of the truce.

Now certainly, the president does have responsibility for taking action to finally end (not start) the war with Saddam. But I don’t really know what it means to say that someone started a war, or what value it has in assessing whether or not they were right to do so. Technically, one could say that Israel started the 1967 war, because they had to preempt what would otherwise have been a devastating attack by Arab forces massed on her borders.

So what?

Why is Rasmmussen even asking this question? The issue is not who “started the war,” but whether the war was just, and necessary for the purposes of national security. Talk about “who started it” is the mentality of the playground, which seems to be where the minds of many of our so-called opinion leaders reside these days.

Lileks explains:

Q: What is Gitmo?

A: Contrary to what some suggest, it does not stand for “Git mo’ Peking chicken for Muhammad, he wants a second portion.” It stands for “Guantanamo,” a facility the United States built to see if the left would ever care about human rights abuses in Cuba. The experiment has apparently been successful.

It gets better.

Armed Liberal has a good post on the fantasy world of perfectionist war critics:

…in the reality-based America where I live, we do bad things all the time. The good news is that we tend to do a far better job of self-correcting (note that the Abu Ghraib folks were already or about to be indicted when the story broke – the military justice folks had received the info, acted, and were busting the perps – one of whose lawyers released the imagery as a negotiating tactic) than, for example, the Greenpeace-killing French DSGE do…

…All actions and systems involve mistakes, are imperfect, have undesirable unforeseen consequences. We’re human, and fallible. We have imperfect information, we often act out of fear or prejudice or laziness or greed. This has been a part of the human condition as long as there has been a human condition to have. It is the root of tragedy, the most human of art forms…

In an imaginary world in which we were omnipotent, yes, none of this would happen. We could identify our opponents with perfect accuracy, and disarm and restrain them without harming anyone. Once restrained, our procedures would be firm, gentle, and correct in every degree.

It’s funny, but I pretty much think that’s what we’re doing now, with a massively narrow span of error.

Well, you know the old saying about no honor among thieves? It seems to apply to terrorists and Ba’athists as well. The native Iraqi “insurgents” don’t seem to be getting on that well with their foreign “allies”:

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels…

…Capt. Chris Ieva, a fast-talking 31-year-old from North Brunswick, N.J., said he could tell whether an area was controlled by foreign insurgents or locals by whether families had cellphones or guns, which foreign fighters do not allow local residents to have for fear they would spy on them. Marines cited other tactics as being commonly employed by foreigners. Sophisticated body armor, for example, is one sign, as well as land mines that are a cut above average, remote-controlled local mines, and well-chosen sniper positions.

A “Palestinian” prisoner threw pages of the Quran in a toilet.

I’m sure that this will be the headline in the New York Times tomorrow. Right?

What? You mean it’s only news when we’re alleged to do it? Not when the people who supposedly revere the book do it?

A “Palestinian” prisoner threw pages of the Quran in a toilet.

I’m sure that this will be the headline in the New York Times tomorrow. Right?

What? You mean it’s only news when we’re alleged to do it? Not when the people who supposedly revere the book do it?

A “Palestinian” prisoner threw pages of the Quran in a toilet.

I’m sure that this will be the headline in the New York Times tomorrow. Right?

What? You mean it’s only news when we’re alleged to do it? Not when the people who supposedly revere the book do it?

Here’s something that we’re not worried about enough. At least not enough to actually be doing what we need to do about it.

[Update at 10:45 AM EDT]

A commenter asks if Scuds could reach Kansas City from outside US territorial waters. I suspect that a North Korean No Dong (range of about a thousand miles) might be able to come close to it from the Gulf of Mexico.

Many look at the rising casualty figures in Iraq and assume that this means that the “insurgents” are winning. Of course, the casualty figures rose dramatically in the Mekong Delta during Tet, but all it meant was the the Viet Cong were on their last legs there, and lashing out in desperation. Similarly, there was a huge increase in American casualties during the Battle of the Bulge, but that didn’t mean that Germany was winning the war.

Smart stock pickers don’t rely on past, or even current performance, or buy into an up and overvalued market. Similarly, the terrorists in Iraq aren’t a good bet at this point. Amir Taheri explains why, in fact, they’re doomed.

Many look at the rising casualty figures in Iraq and assume that this means that the “insurgents” are winning. Of course, the casualty figures rose dramatically in the Mekong Delta during Tet, but all it meant was the the Viet Cong were on their last legs there, and lashing out in desperation. Similarly, there was a huge increase in American casualties during the Battle of the Bulge, but that didn’t mean that Germany was winning the war.

Smart stock pickers don’t rely on past, or even current performance, or buy into an up and overvalued market. Similarly, the terrorists in Iraq aren’t a good bet at this point. Amir Taheri explains why, in fact, they’re doomed.