Maybe it was this guy's car.

Just my $0.02

Normally, when I've had personal conversation with people that think like this, there are various types of assertions that they are the ones who deeply love the "real America." When questioned, there is no hint of comprehension as to what that "America" might look like or where it is.

Free association can be an amusing form of entertainment. It is not a reasonable substitute for reality.

Vaughn, perhaps not, but it does point out that the Sound is a microcosm of real world goofiness.

I suspect many of them feel this way, but know they are way off the deep end and will not publicly admit it.

His attitude toward the Iraqis and the courage displayed by ordinary people in going to the polls to vote is nothing short of a dogmatic refusal to be swayed by facts.

Instead of recognizing that those fingers dipped in purple ink and bravely displayed showed that ordinary Iraqis are doing what they can to choose their own form of government and their own leaders, he wrote:

At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.
...
The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington’s “demonstration elections”.

His dogmatism leads me to think he suffers from a belief in a political religion such as socialism or Marxist-Leninism.

He may not consider himself to be a follower of such an ideology, and indeed he may not be. He may simply suffer from an excess of ego.

But, note how it seems to bother him that the socialist structure has been demolished for now. He places the elimination of state ownership and control of large parts of the economy alongside what he claims to be brutal acts of repression:

Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day, according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq’s publicly owned industries, banks and resources), an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, “the return-in full force-of Saddam’s Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services.” (Pepe Escobar, Asia Times)

SP is doing the right thing by exposing this loony-toon!

This war's all about oil and you know it. When I look at my 17 year old and think: "Is it worth them dying in Iraq over this oil?" I have to say ,No. You're nuts for wanting to be there on the specious Monday Morning quarterback reason that all you ever wanted was freedom for the Iraqis. And the left wingnut is just as bad for supporting the insurgents.

For some reason when Clinton goes into Yugoslavia etc. to help people it is all good, when Bush helps people it is for the oil. I know that it wasn't the only reason we went in there. To preempt the worn talking point of WMD, if that were truly the only reason, we would leave now.

Some problems:

1. We aren't even really sure who the insurgency is so we don't even really know who we would be supporting;

2. There is a difference between a unified movement for independence, such as the American Revolution, and religious and ethic factionalism, as we have in Iraq;

3. Leaving Iraq would be really, really bad for the United States and the entire middle east, regardless of whether staying somehow "vindicates" the initial policies;

4. It is immoral to create or contribute to the lack of stability, and then leave the Iraqis to deal with the consequences.

I hope he's not a party leader. The 44th show bad judgment by posting his views so frequently.

I somehow doubt that his views would really contribute to actual and lasting world peace in the long term.
Now that I've gone over there and actually looked at the site, I think I have to wash my monitor out with soap...

And I'm damn proud of it.

We always have been. Forever young, sticking it to the authority -- Europe, Asia, stick it to them all.

Oh, phoo, maybe the 60s boomers weren't originals, just following our Founding Fathers.

As soon as I read this, I thought of David Horowitz's book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

The reason this guy supports the "insurgents" is because they hate America. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What happens in this world when you find someone who is totally worthless? The simple answer is you use that person as a 'bad example'!. So that means that no one is totally worthless including the leaders of the democratic Party.

The lefties want to do the same thing for Iraq they did for SE Asia; snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The South vanquished a much bigger invasion from the North in 1972, thanks to weapons, ammunition and air support from Richard Nixon.

We won the Vietnam War in 1973 (as, astonishingly enough, even the NY Times is admitting), but after Nixon resigned over Watergate, Frank Church, Ted Kennedy, and the other liberals refused to fund assistance to the South when the North violated the Treaty of Paris in 1975. Had they not done that, the South would have survived that invasion too.

It's still 1975 for Democrats, and their moral vanity requires that the U.S. turn over another people to the tender mercies of totalitarians.

Can someone explain why it would be wrong to have the writter "disappeared" in accordance to the political structure of regiemes he so obviously prefers?

It's really quite simple, maybe even obvious, why it would be wrong: It wouldn't be the right thing to do.

It's good to know who's on the loose in our neighborhoods...

The following website provides an "internal" cleaning for computer monitors. Really. Check it out.

http://www.clean-your-screen-for-free-now.com/

I have rarely heard of an American (citizen) spew while domiciled in a backwater, jerkwater third-world slop-hole.

They seem to like the reliable flush toilets and 500 brands of breakfast cereals that us "fiends" have imposed on them.

They also make generous use of OUR legal protections when assailed by "The Evil Right."

"His dogmatism leads me to think he suffers from a belief in a political religion such as socialism or Marxist-Leninism."

I propose every parent of a collage student ask "what they have learned about socialism in school?". If the first words out of their mouth aren't "Socialism had good points." then they were not paying attention in class.

I would add educational religion to the system.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant. If so, liberals should to give me money to be ed-u-kate-ed.

It's not the Declaration that gives us the right to be free. It's the metaphysics of human nature. The fact that we are rational beings with volitional consciouness. The only proper form of government is one that respects our right to make our own choices and live our lives the way we see fit. The Declaration was merely a formal statement of this metaphysical realization by our founders.

Quite obviously, the Iraqis under Saddam were about as far from this reality as a people could get. As such, any dictatorship is simply illegitimate. Any form of government that is tyrannical or oppressive in nature is illegitimat. The USA as a government with proper legal respect of individual rights, reserves the right to disband any such illegitimate governments any time that it suits our needs. Not because it suits our needs, but because such evil governments have no right to exist in the first place.

On the plus side, now Ward Churchill has at least one person in the country who agrees with him. ;-)

And for the record, insurgent is a left media coined term that is purposely euphemistic. These people are not insurgents, they are fanatical religious terrorists.

"When I look at my 17 year old and think..."

Two things come to mind,
1) Oh crap she's breeding, someone stop her.

2) "I'm trying to think and nothing happening" (Curly)

Headlice: I picture her with flaming red hair, recycling everything, vegetarian, member of E.L.F., A.L.F., PAWS, Sierra Club, with a rape whistle around her pale skin neck, mad at everything, especially men, no bra, aaahh...I have to stop this....

What I find the most interesting about your article is the fact that you take every liberal/left/democrat talking point at its face value and discount absolute every conservative/right/republican argument.

Now I agree that there was plenty of misleading information. But the leftist argument also always fails to listen to its own hypocrisy. How many times did we hear, “Our sanctions are starving Iraqi children.”, “Our sanctions are keeping medicine from Iraqi sick.” Etc.

What is never said is that through diplomacy and inaction The World allowed Sadam to starve and sicken his own people by obfuscating the sanctions that were imposed by the almighty UN.

What is this hypocrisy? Calling for our govt. to do nothing and “let the sanctions work.” This way the left can have it both ways. We are EVIL because we imposed sanctions and we are EVIL because we actually removed a wicked, awful man who degraded and tortured his own people.

When you actually bring to the table a cogent argument for dealing with a despot like Sadam then you can shoot your mouth off. But as it stands now you are a hair’s breadth from being seditious. If you feel so strongly that we should lose this war I encourage you to go to your nearest military base (by yourself) and express your opinion. It’s one thing to spout off behind print or the internet. It is a wholly separate action to go out and try to sell your wares in person to people who believe differently. There is this thing called freedom of thought (aka thinking for yourself) that you have a serious lack of. I can go to any leftist blog and read the exact same article that you posted here. The exact same. What I will find is an absolute lack of an alternate solution. That goes for just about any issue currently.

Social Security – Democrat leaders for years have been screaming we need reform (even in one of Bill Clinton’s state of the Unions where he advocated for partial privatization and received an ovation) yet when somebody propose to do something democrats run screaming.

Homeland Security – Another polyp on the dem derriere. Every citizen in the US knows we need better security but democrats across the nation are constantly fighting against. Especially border control. Even old Bush is singing the PC tune when it comes to the southern border.

Education. Health Care. US jobs. Taxes. Economy. Every single one of these current issues is a Democrat screaming point yet there isn’t one cogent democrat plan out there to help fix these perceived problems.

Some facts:

You -- At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

The truth – it has been proven over and over that the current “insurgency” is being funded and directed by people that are not in Iraq. How are these people fighting for independence? They are currently killing Iraq citizens by the scores in market places, mosques, other public gathering places. Effectively alienating, even more, the average Iraqi citizen to the Suni viewpoint.

I don’t expect a reply because you are cowards, as are your legislators. If you weren’t cowards than you’d putting down your pen/keyboard and start proposing some meaningful changes. Until then you can shut up and let people who are willing to act do something about it.

Your unfounded allegations are bogus. Republicans voted to increase the death benefit fro military members to $100,000. Under Clinton it was $9,000. Clinton gutted the military and loathed them. Moral was extremely low in ou military under Clinton.

As for war for oil, it wasn't. But what of a war for oil? What exactly do liberals think fuel the jets that bring them their cocaine?

"You're nuts for wanting to be there on the specious Monday Morning quarterback reason that all you ever wanted was freedom for the Iraqis." Listen and listen close, ______ (fill in the blank)--I have a brother over there in Baghdad right now. I am proud of him and we BOTH trust that God will bring him home safely. And he is proud that he is helping to free the world from pinheads like you that think we need to just turn away and go back to our knitting and the bullies will forget all about us. Buy a clue, Vanna! I was ready to get a rifle and go over there myself when the towers were destroyed (along with 3,000 lives you would like to forget and Ward Stalin Churchill would like to demonize). What I hope is that they never come to YOUR town and do to your son what they did to the sons and daughters of thousands of "world citizens" from many countries that are our friends. Thank a Vet you have your freedom and send in $5 yourself--it might make that heart of yours start beating again.

"...insurgents". They are not 'insurgents' or 'freedom fighters' or 'patriots' or anything of the sort. They are in most cases Syrian lunatic cold-blooded murderers who wouldn't know what caring for another Muslim meant if it bit them in the buttocks. And don't worry, I am sure your son will do the right thing and run off to Canada before he has to worry about getting drafted (our guys are all volunteers, remember?) Go haunt some other bridge, troll.

... and stinks unbearably of rot and decomposition.

What is being Left is a toxic poison that is attempting to feed itself to humanity by force.

I give you, modern Liberalism!

This is a perfectly appropriate subject for SP.

These people and their mentality are not just poxes on our national security. They are indicative of the broader ideological problem in our country, and they are at the heart of the elections problems in our area. One cannot escape the interconnection without losing a grasp of the real scope of the problem. The greater Seattle area is a prime place for terrorists to attack, and this is because there is no ideological separation between the flights from reality of those in our country that acquiesced to al quaida before 911, justify them afterwards, and those who continue to assist the destruction of America and freedom around the world today. All of our current problems can aptly be lumped together – liberalism, which says in effect: So long as conservatives are in power, and they don’t accept unconditional responsibility for all violence directed against America – liberals will assist those who pursue our destruction.

These are not fringe elements of liberalism either. As a Republican observer at the King County Elections Recount last year I listened to liberal observers spout a lighter version of the sort of sludge Whitney does, and the message was clear. They are still out there supporting whatever subversive measures that liberals can pursue to “take the country back.” This includes seeing to it that America adopts a hybrid (bastardized) liberal socialist economy and social fabric, opens its borders, loses the war on terror, and becomes an apologetically multi-lateralist one world nation. This also includes doing WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO PLACE LIBERALS into positions of power in Washington State.

I know of two people who are working at the State Department today who express the same ideas as Mike Whitney and there are many, many more like them. They are entrenched onto the functions of government, and they actively seek to undermine and neutralize GW Bush and the current administration. We cannot do anything about this except to be aware of the fact that it exists, expose it whenever possible, and counter the mentality with thoughtful reason and sane sensibility.

The last thing we should do – anywhere in America – is ignore this mentality or underestimate its potential for harm.

Ted Kennedy, Mike Whitney, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Jim McDermott, Christine Gregoire, to name a just few are all in the same ideological boat. You will notice that they acquiesce to the sharp edges of the Mike Whitney/Ward Churchill style rhetoric, and only distance themselves from it when absolutely necessary, and only in parsing, legalistic terms. This is because lies like these work to their advantage, stirring hate for conservatism and reason. Please make no mistake – do not underestimate the harm that can come from the efforts of these people. While the extremists gradually embarrass the decent portion of their constituency, they are only more effective when it appears that we won’t air their views. I say . . . put them on parade!

Brian, I am glad that you posted this piece and hope that you keep-on because we need to continue to be aware of and shed light on the insane liberal socialists and their effect on destructive events in our area.

Thanks for the effort.

"Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

I give you, modern conservatism.

This type of thinking, although free in America, is dangerous to our long-term survival--for kooks, conservatives and all in between.

Remember your childhood playground lessons? The bully will continue to prey on the weak until stopped with force. Reasoning with him does not work. Unfortunately, years later as adults and as a nation, the stakes are extremely high and critical.

As for the liberal elite, they are insulated from the front-line effects of their ideas. We the people pay for their noble and "enlightened" thoughts and intentions here in Seattle and in the nation. Example: How many Tent Cities has Ron Sims hosted in HIS back yard?

The point is that several prominent conservatives including George Will, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved among others immediately criticized Robertson for his remarks. Rather than choosing to misrepresent Robertson remarks as you have, they focused on the important remarks he made about the efficacy of Muslim candidates for the high courts. No matter how you slice it, Robertson’s remarks were foolish but not treasonous – Whitney’s are treasonous.

Robertson was wrong and overstated his point, but when he spoke awkwardly about “the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country,” and the “out-of-control liberal judiciary,” he was completely correct. As is to be expected you mis-quoted him, but I’ll take your customary sloppiness as-is. What he meant by his remarks was that the liberal left is so bent on re-gaining power that they will acquiesce to any statements, and any tactics including treason, to bring the Republican party down, and this significantly weakens us “here at home.” The liberal judiciary is completely overstepping their constitutional bounds, and one simple proof of it is the Liberal-Democrat leadership screaming stupid prevarications about the so-called nuclear option restoring constitutional advice and consent. They are afraid of an up-or-down vote because it would break their liberal judicial monopoly. If there is no liberal over-reach through judicial activism, why worry?

We have already been regaled with your self revelations of neutrality and unique status as truly a real-liberal amongst liberals. Good for you there you good feller you, I’m sure we are all very impressed with your independent-liberal ideological bona fides. With that said – as usual – you are full of crap.

No one said that Whitney speaks for all liberals, but even if they had, you cannot cite anyone in the liberal leadership who is openly decrying either his statements or the statements of Ward Churchill. To the contrary, John Kerry strikes a neutral pose (like you) and even though he voted for the war, proceeds to underscore the sentiments of Whitney’s remarks. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reed, and many other liberals (indeed every one that could speak except Joe Lieberman) have openly made statements that support those of Churchill and that lean toward the sentiments in statements made by Whitney. Even Joe Lieberman doesn’t openly condemn them, because his party will separate him from positions of power even more than they already have.

The reason why liberals do this to Lieberman – is because Mike Whitney is the voice of liberals and people like Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Jim McDermott, Al Gore and Teddy the swimmer speak for all liberals. Leiberman doesn't tow the liberal line enough. If you had any power your fellow liberals would do the same thing to you.

"As is to be expected you mis-quoted him"

You mean he didn't say those exact words? Well then I must be mistaken then.

"No one said that Whitney speaks for all liberals,

Well, actually Michelle, John W Nelson, Patrick Bell, James, ShannonK, Patrick R Sullivan, Splatter, Eric, Soundcrossing, VCWR, Steven O'Dell, and Mr Altos all alluded to that very thing.

"but even if they had, you cannot cite anyone in the liberal leadership who is openly decrying either his statements"

I would hope anyone in the national liberal leadership would consider this guy beneath commenting on.

"or the statements of Ward Churchill."

You may have a point there, I personally have no idea if anyone on the left has denounced that guy. And you are sure all of those high profile Dems openly made statements in support of Churchill?

"No matter how you slice it, Robertson’s remarks were foolish but not treasonous – Whitney’s are treasonous."

Whitney is/was a small town political hack. Robertson was a GOP Presidential Candidate and an influential leader of the American Right. I do not remember saying Whitney's comments weren't or Robertson's comments were treasonous.

"What he meant by his remarks was that the liberal left is so bent on re-gaining power that they will acquiesce to any statements, and any tactics including treason, to bring the Republican party down, and this significantly weakens us “here at home.” The liberal judiciary is completely overstepping their constitutional bounds, and one simple proof of it is the Liberal-Democrat leadership screaming stupid prevarications about the so-called nuclear option restoring constitutional advice and consent. They are afraid of an up-or-down vote because it would break their liberal judicial monopoly. If there is no liberal over-reach through judicial activism, why worry?"

How exactly do you know what he meant?

"We have already been regaled with your self revelations of neutrality and unique status as truly a real-liberal amongst liberals."

You're right. As matter of fact, I am going to vote for Sims just so I can personally cancel out your vote in the next election; that will be my sole reason for voting for him. Thanks for helping me see clearly.

Now go on, prove you are a last-word freak and type out how I am full of crap, etc... and you can get back to Limbaugh so you can form more ideas.

(Alphabet soup): Well, I wouldn't put words in Amused's mouth, but I think that I can say that, in my own opinion, you are full of crap (as in right up to your eyebrows).

"No one said that Whitney speaks for all liberals"

Your "allusions" are entirely in your head (along with all the other voices that seem to propel you along).

You are a phony, a chameleon that seeks to mask your true personae, believing that you are able to conduct yourself in whatever climate you find yourself, but, truth is, you don't fool anyone here.

Go ahead and vote for Sims (I wouldn't have expected any less of you). You get what you "pay" for......

There are children in the world who posture and play around with things, and there are adults who are responsible
to make things happen so America thrives and survives. You are a child – go say your prayers and hope your silly dumb a$$ friends
don't undo the things that must be done in order to protect you from those who would cut your dumb a$$ throat.

Thanks for providing everyone with a near-perfect example of "the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together."
You’re proving that Pat Robertson was pretty accurate after all – Jackass.

I never confuse anything to do with you Candr. Any doubts I may ever have, you promptly remove.
Being a liberal and proud of it, you are the one that is confused and your ego is getting the best of you.

Defend the liberal movement with childish tactics, stand with liberals who nearly all put their party
above national security, or repudiate your liberal comrades' reticence like a man.
Any way, I couldn't care less. It's your problem, and everyone but you recognizes it.

By the way, anyone seriously comparing Pat Robertson’s comments with those of Mike Whitney in this context,
then hairsplitting about the comparison, is a wheedling cupcake that lacks the cajones to take care of himself.
Your pitiful attempts to justify by small measures the actions and words of those who
directly threaten your own survival are ludicrous.

Wonderful, the classic hysterical liberal neener-neener retort.
Candr says: “I am going to vote for Sims just so I can personally cancel out your vote in the next election.”

Better yet Candr, why don’t you do like you did with McDermott and leave the space blank. That way you can claim a
mature neutral superiority no matter what happens? Quite amusing indeed.

Tell us Candr, what'll you do next? Hold your breath until you turn blue too?

Uh, you did that, see below.

"No matter how you slice it, Robertson’s remarks were foolish but not treasonous – Whitney’s are treasonous."

"Better yet Candr, why don’t you do like you did with McDermott and leave the space blank. That way you can claim a
mature neutral superiority no matter what happens?"

No, I am going to stick with the cancel-your-vote plan. Neener-neener?

"Tell us Candr, what'll you do next? Hold your breath until you turn blue too?"

C'mon, you're more creative than that. Hey, did you hear about Spokane's mayor?

It doesn’t matter how hard you try to justify your comments, they speak clearly for themselves. You are about childish tactics rather than arguments, and the most fun part is that it appears that you actually believe your own stuff. You tacitly support undermining our national security because you lack the moral courage to unequivocally denounce the likes of Whitney or – in the alternative – simply leave it be. Instead you engage in comparisons and mis-direction by attempting to attribute your silliness to me when you made a comparison and I merely clarified it.

The central issue is the potential effect of remarks made and direct or unstated support for them. Most liberals are just like you – shameless niggling sycophants to partisan power. So long as you attempt to strike a neutral pose (see John Kerry) you will continue to tacitly underscore the sentiments of Whitney’s remarks, thus proving my point. There are democrats who are sickened by your shamelessness and they are coming over to my side.

It doesn’t matter in the least if you agree with me, but it is quite humorous indeed that you work so hard to weasel word around the point. Your histrionic declaration of petty “pay back” gives you away completely.

Looks like Soup got it right.

All right then, for what it is worth, I unequivocally denounce the likes of Whitney.

Did you denounce Robertson, or did you just tell me what he meant to say?

Now this is opening up a whole new can of worms, but besides the assassination attempt on George I (around 94?), when did Saddam threaten our national security?

Otherwise, cork it with your hate America thing while sipping a latte in your comfy new car; easy to be an armchair quarterback;

Whatta "man"........

If Pat Robertson openly called for the military defeat of America I would resoundingly denounce him. I said Robertson was wrong and overstated his point about Muslim Justices. Respecting the comments you cited, I believe he is correct. Our Judiciary has run amok. If America were united it would go a long way to straightening out problems here and abroad. Liberal leaders (mostly Democrat but some Republicans) comments and attitudes embolden the enemy. Ted Kennedy, Jim McDermott, and Joseph Biden come to mind.

REGARDING SADDAM’S THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
Credibility of power is the single most effective deterrent to aggression. When Teddy Roosevelt said, “speak softly and carry a big stick,” he meant carefully consider your words and then back them up. Bill Clinton did us a great disservice by practicing international weasel words (See Mogadishu 1994 and Al Quaida) with people who were testing our resolve. Each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole, he talked tough and then promptly backed down. In Mogadishu after our Delta Force survived the battle at great cost (17 dead) and Aideed was on the ropes, Clinton let him off the hook – all right under the noses of the Al Quaida leadership. What a lesson to teach! Thanks to the left leaning MSM, his cowardice didn’t show in America, but it rang out like a clarion call all through the Middle East and Europe.

“Clinton launched more military expeditions to far-flung corners of the globe than any single chief executive in modern history: Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and the Sudan – and these are just the overt interventions.” Antiwar.Com, http://www.antiwar.com/history.php No positive decisive foreign policy objectives were achieved from any of these LIBERAL DEMOCRAT INSPIRED AND APPROVED interventions, but the message abroad was clear – America is shameless, decadent, aimless and weak, and Americans are fat, self-indulgent, and irresolute. Their President turns on his own troops in the feild. The MSM was more concerned with acquitting OJ Simpson, dot-com stocks, and Monika Lewinsky.

In stark contrast, after 9/11 the Bush doctrine said, either you are with us against international terrorism, or you are against us, and those who harbor or lend aid to terrorist organizations beware – your days are numbered. If he allowed Saddam Hussein to thumb his nose at the U.N., 17 U.N. resolutions, America, the members of the Gulf war coalition and the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, Bush would look just like another Bill Clinton – dropping the stick before our enemies and saying, “howdy, open for business.”

Bush put it right just a few months before we invaded Iraq.

"Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations." Even today, Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons that violate the terms of that treaty; he is rebuilding weapons facilities, assembling new squads of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, and continuing to seek nuclear weapons, all clear treaty violations”

We had every right to force the Iraqi regime to abide their commitments under the terms of the Gulf War cease fire and numerous U.N. sanctions. GW Bush understood that he must have the courage to follow through or everything we have fought for is at risk. He must reclaim America’s credibility of power from the pallor of Clinton’s insouciant timidity. In recent developments about the deliberate corruption of the United Nations Oil for Food program, French imprimatur on numerous weapons and hardware used toward the development of Iraqi nuclear weapons, and similar German and Russian involvement with illicit Iraqi weapons activities emphasized the authenticity of threats the Bush administration enumerated.

Aside from Saddam Hussein’s rule, no one single thing (like WMD’s) that was a prime concern, and Bush never presented it that way. The MSM presents it that way to make Bush look bad, but Bush itemized the number of reasons why we were going to Iraq over and over. In some speeches he emphasized WMD’s and the MSM seized that as a pretext to claim it was our only reason for going to Iraq, and yet they still bitch about other nations who have WMD’s (N Korea among others), asking why we don’t invade there as well. The liberal leadership wanted to keep fooling around with weapons inspectors who played right into the hands of Saddam Hussein. And Saddam Hussein was raising more hell as he assisted de-stabilization that directly threatened America. The terms of the Gulf war were only suspended conditionally upon Hussein’s cooperation, and he refused to cooperate. In context, under any rational analysis, that is an actionable act of war.

Many in America are oblivious to Iraqi threats to oil producing countries in the region and the corresponding threats it poses to our national security. They are only mindful of the problem when the price of oil goes up. Imagine what would happen if the price tripled over night. Anyone that doesn’t think a $7.50 per gallon gas price poses a threat to our national security is not thinking. Then imagine a WMD exchange (possibly including nuclear weapons) between Iraq and Israel and a ten fold increase in the price of oil in Europe. Even though UNSCOM has proven and acknowledged that they had an active program of development Iraq doesn’t need nuclear weapons for this to happen. Our national security depends directly on our economic infrastructure. Screw enough liberals when their selfish interests are threatened and you will suddenly discover a bunch of liberal war mongers screaming for resolve.

WMD’s One medium sized U-Haul truck could carry enough Sarin gas and two more the equipment necessary to deploy it to kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq with room to spare. A conventional automobile could carry enough Anthrax to wipe out Tel Aviv. According to UNSCOM these weapons may never be found but they existed shortly after the 1991 gulf war and it is probably in Syria. The best intelligence organizations in the world believed that they would find these weapons, but they didn’t. That in no way means the weapons didn’t exist. Indeed, the assumption that WMD’s didn’t exist is a conjecture for fools.

WMD’s aside, Saddam Hussein routinely threatened America and America’s leaders including Bill Clinton, and Saddam’s military routinely shot at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. He openly paid money to terrorists who murdered innocent people in Israel, and he supported the efforts of terrorists bent on attacking and destroying countries in the Middle East, Europe and America.

GW Bush, his administration, and the United States military did the right thing in Iraq and if we cared about our national security anything short of overthrowing Saddam was not an option. Next is Iran and Syria. Given our credibility of power (even despite the cowardly treason of liberal leaders), we may or may not need to pursue military means to achieve these ends. Our resolve deters foreign aggression on alll fronts around the world more than anything else including diplomacy. Speaking softly and dropping the stick is begging to get beaten to death. Either way we are in a far stronger position now than we were before we over-turned Saddam.

"Next is Iran and Syria."

Now hear me out on this. Wouldn't it be smarter for a Republican President to try and force a detente with Iran ala Nixon in China. They (their normal populace) seem to be the only people over there that do not despise us. That might embolden the people over the Mullahs. Otherwise I would imagine Iran could be pretty ugly. With troops committed in the Balkans, SK, Iraq, Afghanistan and who knows where else, the miltary would be stretched pretty thin. I don't know.

I do not know enough to do more than speculate, but it appears to me that we need to keep the pressure of uncertainty about military action, economic and diplomatic isolation on the Iranian regime because the common people of Iran like us and there is a possibility that they will overturn their own leadership. They still have remnants of the Shahs association with America in their folklore and it was very positive for all Iranians in every way. Eventually the fact that Iranians want to be like America will come to a head especially with a quasi-democratic Iraq next door. American business and lifestyle will entice them further -- we will infect them with a taste for freedom.

As America and Iraq continues killing the terrorists in the area, and stabilizing Iraq, they will establish a strong alliance and possibly American military bases there that will threaten Iran and others. That is all that the current leaders understand. Most of the people in the Middle East want peace and the ability to live their own lives free. They are more culturally advanced than we think, but they are caught up in religious and cultural antiquity. The only thing that will stop the killing is to kill the terrorists -- kill them or they will kill you. That is not popular with liberals but it is a reality that will yield to nothing else.

If we do take military action against Iran there will not be boots on the ground but surgical strikes against weapons caches (especially nukes). They will not use them because they are more afraid of losing power than we are of confronting and destroying them. The only way they would use them is if there was some indication that they can remain intact. I'm sure we have intrenched CIA in Iran and at some point deals can be made. We have a much greater military resource in terms of troops and hardware on reserve than most people think, but we don't need them for this problem. Syria is being neutralized from within as we speak. We can only pray that it works.