Hey, don't apologize to me. I come here to be enlightened, and occasionally evangelize my own viewpoints in the hopes that I cause others to think about something in a slightly different way.

And that's the magic of this unusual BBS...

(I should issue a standing apology for how I deal with some of these off-topic threads....I tend to "dump" some overly-long post, fail to do a great job responding to specific follow-ups, then come back and "dump" again. Oh, well, what can I say? I can't keep up! Went to the driving range, then book club last evening, and, Wow, this topic is now like 200 posts!)

A week or so ago, the venerable Helen Thomas (late of UPI, now with Hearst) asked (my memory/paraphase) Ari Fliesher "So, what do you think of those in the administration who have suggested that we should 'keep going' to deal with/democratize other countries (like Iran, Syria)? " Ari said "Who in the administration?" Helen Thomas: "Richard Perle" Ari: "He's not in the administration. He's not paid/compensated by the government."

So, Ari's response rested on what I would call a technicality.

About that time, I listened to part of an installment of another KCRW program called "Left Right, and Center". Arianna Huffington, who I hadn't really heard much of before, seemed to do a pretty decent job of upholding the "Left" anti-war position. What was most interesting about that episode was the comment of a politico representative of "the Right" who (over a phone link) said something like "and now the anti-war movement is resorting to conspiracy theories, some of them with clear anti-semetic overtones".

A while back in another thread , Jeff was nice enough to offer some insight into eschatological thinkings that answered some of my questions about relationships between US (evangelical) Christians, Israel and Middle East policy (and this war). I try not to get into a conspiratorial mindset on any of this, but, I have to say that, when I heard that commentator's remarks about "conspiracy theories....anti-semitic overtones" I was really steamed. It was, IMO, an attempt at the worst kind of demagoguery. Yes, there are clearly anti-semetic conspiracy theorists out there, but the case this guy was trying to put on the table was that if you are anti-war, anti-administration, and start asking questions about Richard Perle, Halliburton contracts, or our Israel/Palestine position, you must be dragging around a dog-eared copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like I said, I was pissed. I'm still pissed.

I've tried to catch back up on this thread as best I can and am picking this spot to respond because I think your overall position is an interesting one. I haven't seen a position yet that is without some contradictions and yours is no exception. I think your position is more "trees" Saddam oriented, while others, including mine advance a more "forest" position. I'll try to expand on this and then you can maybe legitimately argue that I missing the point or that my forest/trees argument is incorrect

(also, I earlier dropped the ball in responding to some of your responses, but, rather than go back over there and re-fork the Iraq threads, I'll to work them back in here as best I can).

On some level, I think the war on Iraq began on November 8, 2000. On that day, in the realization of an ambiguous election result, George W. Bush's generals strapped on their armor, got on their horses and took no prisoners. Al Gore's generals changed into women's clothing and slipped away in the night. I sometimes wonder how events would have unfolded had the ballot in Palm Beach county been different. One can only guess, but I can't see what would have been different that would have prevented 9/11; I would also guess that a "Gore administration" would have undertaken a similar post-9/11 campaign in Afghanistan, but would likely have been more "wishy-washy" on things like incommunicado incarceration of people at Guantanamo. I don't think they would have invaded Iraq.

Enough of alternative history. By the time the Supreme Court delivered their controversial decision on December 12, 2000, the Bush team had had plenty of time to plan staffing of the new administration. History will show this to have been one of the most polar, partisan executive branch transitions on the record. There was an element of vengeance to this: years of visceral hatred for Clinton were finally channeled into Republican power.

George W. Bush is not patently stupid, but he's not extremely bright. Biographers already have shown, and will show in the future, that his dominant trait, from an intelligence standpoint, is incuriosity. Whatever W already knows is "good enough". In terms of intercourse with the media, Bush's administration if the most tightly-controlled and scripted that anyone can remember -- fewest press conference, very little ad lib interaction with the press, and highest proportion of speech-written content delivery. As many others have said, those words are carefully chosen and that a cigar can be more than a cigar. There is a deliberate aspect of "throwing our weight around" in the carefully-chosen wording and what I heard a BBC commentator describe as a "hectoring tone" that is increasingly unpopular with our erstwhile allies.

Our actualized policy does not flow from the brain of W, but from the key members of his administration who were probably all identified by spring of 2000. Beyond Cheney, the political track records and thinking of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others was well understood. With respect to our current situation, there is little that is unfair in describing it in one word: hawkish. Oh, make that two words: extremely hawkish. After 8 years of suffering Clinton in a state of rage, these folks are in the seats of power and "on a roll". Feeling their oats. Behaving arrogantly toward interests other than their own whether those are US foreign interests (as defined by them) or internal policies (environment, privacy).

If mentioning the guiding role of these ideologues and the track record of people like Perle qualifies critics for the label of "conspiracy theorist" then the political discussion, more or less, ends right there. Some critics have been nailed for raising issues such as selection or rebuilding contractors in Iraq or for saying that the war was initiated to facilitate Halliburton gains. I think some of that quibbling diminishes other legitimate points and, while I don't view the invasion as based on money to be made, it is bloody convenient that Halliburton *will* make that money and that they wouldn't have made that money had we not invaded.

Resignation notwithstanding, Perle and kin will remain guiding lights for this administration as will strategy documents written during the frustrating "wilderness years" of 1992-2000. Perle's 1996 realpolitik treatise on a A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is, I think, a good example.

I just finished a second reading of the Washington Monthly piece that CanuckinLA posted in another thread. With respect to hawk/neocon posture, I thought that overall it was a pretty effectively reasoned attempt to posit what the heck is going on. Sadly, it seemed pretty credible to me.

From that piece there was a line "But that's what the hawks are setting in motion, partly on the theory that the worse things get, the more their approach becomes the only plausible solution." that really resonated. In some respects, it seems to describe (to me) the place we have been maneuvered to: Get congressional approvals for invasion with manufactured evidence? ... How can they later back down without accusations of being unpatriotic? Start the invasion? ...How can we then all not "Support Our Troops"? From all that I have read of your positions and posts, Tony, I come away with a feeling of this type of contradiction -- really mad at the way we started this, but pretty vocally supportive of it while underway. Maybe that's not legit, but it is the impression I've formed.

Yikes, I have gone through a whole bunch of typing without mentioning Saddam, how bad he is, how bad and sneaky his supporters are, and how much nicer the world would be if he were gone. Oh, on some level I will just stipulate to bunch of those things, because they are not the main focus of my concern. "Operation Irqui Freedom" is tactics; my main concern is with the underpinnings and implications of our overall strategy as it relates to a list of things:

- It's a big marble cake of a world, much of it from Stockton, California to Islamabad is Muslim.
- To oversimply Lewis' "What went wrong?" book/essays, the Muslim world is suffering from one huge inferiority complex with respect to that world's very poor current position as compared to revered past glories.
- This "complex" helps explain very conflicted opinions of both envy and moralistic disdain for the rich, sinful west.
- Grievances have become so deeply ingrained as to be unreasonable (as in: it was the Mossad that planned 9/11) but remain pretty fixed.
- A grossly unbalanced Israel-Palestine policy fuels grievances and conspiracy theories

So, into this very precarious pot we throw an invasion of Iraq. Saddam, last week reviled by most of that Muslim world, *now* stands a chance of being rehabilitated -- whether dead or alive -- in that world as the brave leader who stood up to American Zionist Imperialism. The "coalition" touted by Rumsfeld is a joke -- support on a grudging, economic basis rather than any earnest, heartfelt support. To top it off, a 3-star corps commander on the ground in Iraq observes that this isn't really the war we planned for as the CNN KIA list passes the 50 mark and other generals back bite Starry-War-eyed dreamers like Rumsfeld for the inadequacies of "Rolling Start". Along the way we have managed (is this gratifying to the hawks?) to alienate much of both "east" *and* "west, throw a wrench in NATO, and injure the UN.

Tactically, it looks like we've gotten into a bit of a pickle since Iraq's troops won't form ranks and allow us to mow them down and as of today (was this a surprise, people?) are even resorting to suicide car bombs. *Strategically*, I think our situation can be summed up by this Man-On-The-Street interview in Cairo:

"I used to think the US is a just country...but not anymore".

I've said it before, but part of the major contradictions I see rest on a conflict between short-term and long-term views, and between the Iraq picture and the bigger picture. Focusing on "but Saddam hit me first!" while in fact that whole table *is* (in the words of that Joshua Marshall) being rolled (and that Al Quaeda recruiting numbers are probably way, way up). If we just manage to get the 1st infantry there in time, we just may be able to subdue Iraq before the CNN KIA counter passes 200, but my biggest sense right now is that we can't predict what the casualty numbers for combatants and non-combatants will be.

I am trying to think of some bookmark phrase I could put in this post so that I could come back in 3 months, 6 months, or 1 or 2 years to compare how current-day realties wound up comparing with past anxieties, but it is my opinion that we are going to be asking why we thought this was a good idea.

I would think that I was a radical, conspiracy-theory left-winger if it weren't for the fact that so many experienced observers who I would consider established moderates echo the same concerns. Take for example the Middle East Editor, Christopher Dickey for Newsweek (not exactly a left-wing organ).

In an earlier thread, I asked "...What would have been the negative consequences if we had delayed this 6 months....?" and you, Tony, responded "Turning the question around, why did it have to take 6-12 months for Saddam to fulfill his obligations under 1441?" That didn't really address my question. My question was about what *my* country should be doing. On this particular Saturday, I think we have probably made an historically big mistake.