I thought this was so obvious from the beginning. Only someone blinded with hate couldn't see it.

I can believe so many people speaking with fear of de-"stabilizing" the ME.

All the terrorist attacks up to and including the Madrid bombing are a result of the effort to pretend stability in the ME through the 80s and 90s.

The high cost of "peace," as you say.

but this is where we fail to get it. Of course we could have basically cared less about their wmd's, but were glad to have used them as a red herring.

The problem is simple, without the wmd's the liberal mindset will pounce on Bush for invading Iraq, regardless of the obvious reasons. They got us. They are caddy, petty, small thinking...

Of course we could have basically cared less about their wmd's, but were glad to have used them as a red herring.

By saying we COULD have "cared less," you're screwing up your own point.

A curious situation. On the one hand, Orrin posits a desire by everybody for democracy, citing people like Khadafi's son. But Khadafi's son cites the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia as saying democracy is not congruent with Arab lifestyles.

They cannot both be right.

Along comes, today, Sadr, most popular representative of the branch of Arab Islam that, according to Orrin, is the vanguard of democracy. Is he a democrat?

Obviously not.

I don't have any problem with going into Iraq -- although we need a competent proconsul there, Bremer isn't up to the job -- but Bush's strategic vision still lags reality. It isn't just Islamic extremism. It's the entire project of the religion.

Until a huge majority of the religion's adherents reject the project of eliminating the infidels, the most active believers will continue to make war against mankind. That's the root cause.

What is non-democratic about telling the occupying power to get out?

What IS democratic about telling the occupying power to get out? Seems to me the determining factor about whether or not someone is democratic is, well, whether they advocate democracy or not. Sadr is in serious need of killing.

And what makes you so certain that Sadr speaks for all Shi'ites, either? The fact is that he's an anti-American, anti-democratic radical who has been locked in a serious power struggle with Sistani and other more moderate Shi'a clerics, that a large number of other Iraqi Shia's reject him and have fought his thuggish "militias" in the recent past, that his right-hand man was arrested the other day on strong suspicion that he was involved in the murder of a moderate Shi'a cleric right in the middle of the Shi'a holy city of Najaf (this arrest, in fact, along with the closure of Sadr's rabble-rousing newspaper, was the trigger for what's been going on), _and_ that Sadr's thugs started the shooting yesterday when they attacked Spanish and Central American troops at their base near Najaf. Army M-1's had to use 120mm canister shells to disperse the armed and violent rioters in Baghdad yesterday. (Incidentially, the Marines have started their operation to clean out Fallujah. Observers in Baghdad are reporting lots of smoke, continual explosions audible from 36 miles off, and several huge - and actually visible - explosions from the direction of Fallujah. B-52's and B-1's have been spotted overhead.)

I would recommend Karl Zinsmeister's article in American Enterprise to anyone who wants to understand the scope and complexity of what the military (with some help from State) is trying to accomplish in Iraq. It is a combination of full scale assualt, law enforcement, community building, peace corps, infrastructure development, juniour achievement, civic seminar, etc. The reality is that you have to do all of those things simultaneously, and that often the same people must be the ones doing them. The rewards for plodding through this 20+ page article are that you get a real sense of the accomplishments (the article focuses on efforts only in the Sunni triangle, the assumption being that this is as hard as it gets). You also see the degree of professionalism that the boot on the ground have shown, and their ability to learn from experience.

I can not believe more people do not know what is going on behind the "bad headlines".

This is what the smart folks fail to understand when they rage about President Bush making a joke of the missing WMD--they never mattered, nor did a potential al Qaeda connection to Iraq. The point of the war was to replace Saddam Hussein's regime with representative governments.

Well maybe folk wouldn't be raging if he'd said so from the start.

The al Qaeda connection is there and was there. Look at what's happening in Spain. al Qaeda needs us to fail in Iraq and they are investing heavily to ensure it. We couldn't have a much better playing field. Bush was criticised for saying "Bring em on", even by Kerry, who doesn't really get it. Apparently he would prefer they continue their previous M.O.O., choosing when and where to engage us to their advantage. We're turning the tables on them in Iraq and we're just taking our gloves off now. Sadr needs an accident or jail.

Ali:

He did. Read his UN Speech.

Here's something else I don't get about Dick Clarke. He insisted that blowing up the pharma plant in the Sudan was the right thing to do because Iraq was helping AQ manufacture and/or store bio/chem weapons there. Isn't that a connection?

Ali -- He spoke about WMD's to the extent he did for Tony Blair's benefit.

Uh, Pedantic--it's irony.

It may be irony, but my point is that the expression is "couldn't care less." Not "could."