As I have said from the beginning there are a lot intelligent arguements against the administration's actions regarding Iraq. You have just made exactly that intelligent case, and I thank you for it because that is exactly the level on which this issue should be debated.

I think your characterization of Wolfowitz's white-paper is correct and on point and I would suspect you actually may have read it <s>. The question for history, of course, is whether or not Wolfowitz was right.

I have a lot of questions about Rumsfield's ideas about trimming down the attack force the way they did, and I dont' think the timetables were right and the post-war has been something of a botch. Would have been really nice to have the 4th armored in place at the beginning.

But I am also concerned about a reversion to the PR oriented approach to foreign policy from the Clinton years. I rather liked the ol' rascal in a lot of ways, but his view of the world was too mixed in with his child-of-an-alcoholic personal issues. He could sort of get away with it, since he did not have to face Soviet mischief, but he really missed it on the nature of the growing threat. ( and yeah, Richard Clarke should have been listened to then - I'm not sure how much of his later behavior wasn't generated by some personal stuff between him and Rice )

I'm not a very strong partisan on this stuff. I'm certainly not a Bushy or a Tom Delay Republican butI also don't have a lot of patience with posturing bloviators like Robert Byrd. As I've said before, I'm sort of a P.J.O'Rourke republican. ( I commend to all Republican Party Reptile
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871136228/103-1005252-2604659?v=glance Don't miss the essay 'How To Drive Drunk on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed And Not Spill Your Drink', )

I do think Ann Coulter is hot, but I'm sure she'd have me killed over the nature of the lust in my heart <s> I'm probably more liberal than Kerry is allowed to be publicly about a lot of stuff and if I felt better about the dems on national security issues this election wouldn't be a tough call for me. But I also know there are influences around Kerry that could lead us in a very 1978 direction. I think that would be dangerous. I don't know if Kerry can stand up to them.

Anyway, thanks for making the intelligent case for opposing the administration. It's nice to see somebody really talking about it and not shouting slogans or mouthing talking points.

>Time for me to jump into these political waters!!! Especially after reading John Harvey's comment that he has to comment against "the left's feeling's".
>
>I think the entire reason for the war has been discussed already. It was thrown out there quite loudly by Richard Clarke. However, it was difficult to hear him thru all the noise created by the Rove attack machine.
>
>I heard the reasons discussed again on Thursday when watching a PBS Frontline story on Donald Rumsfeld. They discussed how right from the get-go the neocons, thru Wolfowitz, was trying to get the president's ear to get him to focus a war on Iraq.
>
>The history of this goes back to a document written by Wolfowitz during Reagan's presidency. He wrote a document describing his vision for the middle east. This involved creating a democracy in Iraq. At the time, there was no interest in his theories from the higher up politicians, so the document was shoved into the drawer for safe keeping. He and the other neocons have been waiting for the correct moment to pull the document from out of the mothballs. I read a quote from someone that they realized awhile ago that they would need "a dramatic event" to speedup the timeline for their vision. 9/11 provided that.
>
>It was frightening to watch the Rumsfeld story. They discussed the battles between the civilian leadership of the military and the generals who were asking for several hundred thousand troops for an invasion into Iraq. There was an interview with a Colonel who was regarded as an "outside the box" thinker. He proposed that a war could be fought with 50,000 soldiers. Of course, he was quickly embrassed by Rumsfeld.
>
>There are many, many, many examples providing more then enough evidence that this administration went to war without any hint of an exit strategy.
>
>This is just one example of why this administration must go.
>
>So for folks like John Harvey, Charles Hankey, etc., there are many examples of why this president is dangerous to all of us. Just because we have not been attacked again does not mean that he has created an environment with all the pieces in place to faciliate attacks in the future. And this is just on the foreign affairs side. We haven't even gotten to the domestic side.
>
>Did you read the article the other day describing how the republicans were so incensed at the release of Kerry's wife tax return for last year. Didn't think so. Her taxes went substantially and there was an initial cry at the shock of how little taxes she paid. A media outfit took the now public return to be audited by a tax preparing firm. Their analysis showed that the decrease in her taxes paid from prior returns was due to the Bush tax cuts. Much of her income was thru dividend payouts. The tax rate for those payouts was cut substantially by Bush. So we now have a public document showing us in black and white showing us the effects of the Bush tax cut on the rich.
>
>Sorry John H., but these are just not my feelings. This is from my analysis of the current state of affairs. If anything, after reading your's and other's stories, I think it is you who are talking with your feelings. It is you who are happy because this president has taken us to war. Your feelings of patriotism are telling you how this shows the might of the USA!!! It is you who are looking at the situation with blinders. Oblivious to all the reports out of the middle east. I read one European officials description as "We have never had a situation like we do in Iraq today". What he is describing is the current situation in Iraq that allows terrorists to launch attacks with impunity against foreigners now. Iraq is the training ground for terrorists now. They don't need hidden camps in Afganistan anymore. They only have to Iraq and pick a target to try their ideas.
>
>
>
>>>Hi John,
>>>>Well, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking and DOING! Laying out logical, facts and data to counter the "feelings" of the left at every opportunity!<vbg>
>>>
>>>That's great to hear. So, about this "75% of al Qaeda" captured as our pres has indicated...can you lay out some facts about this for all of us? Like %75 of what amount, what's the previous & current count of members, etc.? Anything other than just "75%". Cuz, ya know...a president needs to get all the facts before jumping to politically motivating conclusions. Do you agree?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Steven-
>>
>>Steven;
>>
>>I thought the facts have been created to suit the moment? Talk about Kerry changing his position! Why did we attack Iraq? There are at least ten reasons the administration and president have given. They obviously hope to find the right audiences with a long list of reasons. Surely someone will believe any one or perhaps even more than one reason.
>>
>>It seems that the facts presented and accepted by the president have been flawed. Even so he stands behind all the intelligence agencies and data collected and given to him. When the intelligence agencies stated there was no immediate threat to the United States from Iraq, that information was discarded.
>>
>>It was obvious what the president intended to due when he addressed the United Nations in September of 2002. Having the backing of other nations could be important although not necessary when you are the world’s only super power. Perhaps addressing the UN was meant to be a wake up call to Saddam Hussein. Then the president asked for and received approval from the congress on October 11, 2002, to attack Iraq. It is like a strike vote taken by a labor union before contract negations with a company. The union wants to show the solidarity of its members and resolve to strike if necessary.
>>
>>By playing on the emotions of the congress and many citizens of our country due to the 911 incident, the president received an endorsement for the authorized use of force against Iraq. He could use it at any time.
>>
>>To fight a war is a logistics nightmare. You have to have men, women (times have changed and not for the better I think) food, weapons, munitions and battle plans. That is the short list of necessary items. It takes time to get everything in place.
>>
>>During the Gulf war I saw from Vandenberg Air Force Base how each stage built up from August of 1990 until the first shots were fired in January 1991. It took about five months to get everything in order. The war with Iraq also took about five months to prepare for. I correctly guessed the timetable of the attack on Iraq based upon the Gulf War experience.
>>
>>From several news sources I have heard that al Qaeda is growing and is not the only terrorist group to be concerned with! Muslims born and raised in Europe have been killed or captured in Iraq, fighting our troops. Muslims from many countries are fighting us in Iraq. This gives new meaning to the term, "Ugly American"!
>>
>>The reality seems to be that we have opened Pandora’s box by attacking Iraq. Time will tell how true that is and we have plenty of time to find out.
>>
>>Other than that, Happy Friday!!!
>>
>>Tom