reply to Dave

Slim, Good to see you go from celebrating New Years Eve to pointed comments - maybe call the blog Findlay Nation?

Slim,

I've been away having a wonderful end-of-year holiday. Hope all those reading these words enjoyed this time.

Although it may be comforting to justify a mistake by saying, "everyone thought it was true," I just can't go with that idea. I believe there were plenty of people who thought there were no WMDs, both in this country and in Britain, but that wasn't the intelligence either Tony Blair's or W's administration wanted to hear. Once again, the only justification that I remember W giving for invading Iraq was WMDs. I also appreciate that there may have been weapons there that were moved out, the "great deal of evidence" that you propose exists I also haven't seen. Two, three, four, seventeen wrongs just don't make a right. I'm really very glad you promised to say it only once. That means I won't have to read it again. (P.S. the very fact that Ted Kennedy believes something to be true is justification enough to doubt it.)

Your comparison of Japan, Germany and Italy in the forties to Iraq is puzzling and possibly a bit hasty. Iraq hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, nor had it declared war on us as those three nations had. I still stand behind the idea that no matter how strong our country and overwhelming our military, we shouldn't be attempting to spread democracy at the point of a sword. Many criticize Moslems for having spread Islam at the point of a sword (something, BTW, that Christians have done quite a bit in the past as well), but then we think it's okay to spread democracy the same way. A little hypocracy, maybe?

Your response to my comment about W finishing the job his father should have finished was not half-hearted at all. And while I appreciate a good bit of Latin as much as the next guy, I have to admit I had to look up ad hominem. (At first I thought it said ad eminem which is Latin for appealing to the rap arist inside us all.) I really do believe that some of W's motivation for invading Iraq was to stop people criticizing his father. I think I'm fully aware of what the first Gulf War was about.

No one voted the US the protectors or the policemen of the rest of the world. The interesting thing I have noticed about the war in Iraq is that we keep changing our reason(s) for being there. First it's WMDs. When that doesn't pan out, we talk about supporting Al-Qaeda. When that (apparently) doesn't pan out, we talk about oppression of minorities. When that suddenly looks bad (because some of our friends also oppress minorities - come to think of it, so do we), we start talking about invading neighbors, gassing people, and paying families of suicide bombers. So what WAS the real reason?

I mistakenly (apparently) thought this wesite was sponsored by former AG Ashcroft. There was a banner at the top of the page when I logged in that had his picture. My comment was of a more general nature, wondering if whomever "runs" this website would encourage the free speech of someone who doesn't agree with them. I'm fully aware of current administration officials.

The Republic Party in general, and W in particular, have made mistakes that have embroiled us in a really unfortunate situation in the Middle East. Almost no one over there any longer wants the "help" of the US in resolving conflicts and trying to bring some modicum of peace to the region. We are seen as arrogant imperialists at best and stupid screwups at worst.

Although not a Democrat, I was heartened that the majority of the nation (a slim majority, to be sure) feels like business as usual with Republicans in power isn't working any longer. And although W claims he's going to change the way things are being done in Iraq, I have no confidence until I see it. At least in Vietnam, we didn't bring that government down ourselves. When we finally got out, we just let Saigon fall. We brought the Iraqi government down and it's our resonsibility to put something in its place that will stand after we leave. Modern Iraq is an artificial country, born out of the confusion following the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. It's a patchwork of anciently-hostile clans and tribes. I personally don't believe that it ever was or ever will be a cohesive nation. We're trying to put square pegs into round holes. We are going to fail. And the cost of that failure will be American lives. Lots of them.

Slim, you seem to have a rather sarcastic edge to you. Here's something to remember: Those who can't logically argue against a position ridicule it.

Your Buddy Dave