Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

In the context of commercial speech, few courts would have a hard time with the notion that saying partial truths that have a tendency to create a false impression can create a duty to say more, and can support a fraud claim. They crossed that line repeatedly, and intentionally. Which is not say it's actionable in any way. And that's not even getting to the things that were patently untrue. E.g., Cheney saying there was no doubt that Hussein had WMD.

Depending on what you mean by "capability," I think you are overstating things. He had a nuclear program and chemical weapons in the past. They seem to have decided -- in the apparent absence of any evidence, and occasionally despite the views of the intelligence community -- that he had developed these further, when in fact he had shut them down and abandoned them.

They didn't make the case for going to war on the ground that Iraq was supporting the Palestinian Authority, but thanks for playing. We'd have to invade a lot of other countries, too, if this was our policy. What they keep playing up is ties to Al Qaeda. But on this point, I don't see misrepresentations so much as an attempt to insinuate ties where there are none.

Remember that stuff about Iraqis meeting us with flowers? The Pentagon was entirely too optimistic about all of this. They clearly need more soldiers to do the job, at a minimum, but Gen. Shinseki lost his job after he said this before the war.

I hope you are right, and am afraid you are wrong. The announced cut-backs in troop levels there are a bad sign, though.

More troops at a minimum. If this means giving real authority to NATO or the UN so that other countries take on their share, so be it.

Since we live in a democracy, and the "lying idiot" is going to be asking us to let him keep his job soon, I do not subscribe to the notion that this is all water under the bridge and we should turn to the next problem.

I'm sure people thought that talking about the Gulf of Tonkin was "partisan carping" too, but I am confident that historians will see it differently. And the story is not going away before then, because there's a direct line from the lack of evidence of WMD, to the Administration's "hard sell"/misrepresentations before the war, to the coffins coming back to the country through Dover.

Redistricting Episode IV: The Battle in the Courts
 

The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday fired a shot in the fight over non-census year redistricting, stating that the legislature couldn't re-redistrict after the 2000 lines were drawn by a judge. The case, especially if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, could have an impact on similar fights in other states, especially Texas.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...g_Lawsuit.html

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

Let me put this a different way: If we knew then what we know now -- that Hussein had no WMD and was not a threat to the U.S., imminent or otherwise, and that he had no more connections to terrorism than any other country in the Middle East -- would the Administration have sought to go to war? And would the public have gone along?

On the former question, I would say perhaps. I think the fundamental reasons why they were spoiling for this fight were different -- Bush's conviction that it was the right thing to do, and the neo-cons desire to drain the swamp. But they also recognized that these rationales were not going to carry the day with the public, which is why they pushed the other rationales so hard. Wolfowitz essentially said this to Vanity Fair. And on the latter question, I say no way. Hussein was a bad man, but the public only wanted a war because they felt threatened by WMD and terrorists.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

We know he had them at one time. The question that needs to be answered is where did they go? Until we can search Syria, you cannot say whether Hussein had WMD or not.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

I think it's pretty universally conceded that, in the interview in which he supposedly said this, he was refering to SH restarting his production facilities. The context of the interview makes this clear. He misspoke. I've read the entire interview, and several conflicting explanations, and I see only this one explanation.

I don't buy this. I'm more likely to buy the theory that he was continuing to try, but had no success (note the recent "Korea screwed him" story), or even the "he thought he actually had them, while his people were lying to him about it" story. I cannot picture SH abandoning that particular quest, ever.

They made the case that SH was a central figure in the support of worldwide terrorism. In terms of the worldwide impact that seems to emenate from Israel, I'd say his effect there was huge, and was more than enough to satisfy what Bush & Co. were describing. He was a destabilizing force, possibly the most destabilizing in the ME.

Read the polls. They are meeting us with flowers. Unfortunately, the .5% that are still rabidly anti-US have all of the weapons and hate left over from the War That Never Was. I think the Pentagon was unprepared for an immediate surrender - they were not prepared for a situation that left SH's army free to walk home with thier guns. This was poor planning, in hindsight. They should have kept them together as much as possible, and put them to work as a group.

Agreed, but with the proviso that the other members need to wake up and smell the arak, and realize that the bad effect if this fails will only hurt them worse than us. My contempt for the French in this regard (combined with the contempt brought on by reading their arms sales list two days ago) is such that I could never, in good conscience, agree that their needs and desires and philosophies should ever be served by giving them a choice, but if the UN were to agree to meaningfully staff Iraq (not their usual 5% addition on top of our troops, and not on our nickel), I would give them more overall authority, but only operationally, and not insofar as they could determine actual strategy and goals. Hell, we'll be supporting Iraquis forever if we let them establish another Oil for Rapes program.

That's certainly your right. Keep up with the "he's a lying idiot" mode. Saves me money for the Sharpton contributions.

Again with the misrepresentations? See - you can't go one post . . .

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

I never seen such detailed discussions of this. I'm not as interested in parsing individual statements as you might think. I do it because I'm a lawyer. Fundamentally, the Administration told us all that there were WMD, and there weren't. It's really as simple as that. At the time, I assumed that they had intel they couldn't share, and was inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this. Now I feel that my trust was abused.

We can stipulate that he was a bad man, with bad thoughts. That's really not the question.

I think you are wildly overstating his effect. Note, e.g., that the Palestinians soldier on without him.

Those teenagers weren't putting flowers on the bodies of the dead Spanish intelligence officers. Must have been some of that .5%. It's funny how such a small proportion of the population gets so much press.

A nice idea, but it's our baby now, and if it goes south it will hurt us more.

If that works, why don't we tax foreigners to pay for the new Medicare benefits?

[acknowledgement of humor]Heh.[/acknowledgement]

So it turns out that some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees/political prisoners/what-have-you were actually kidnap victims who were turned over to U.S. authorities for the ransom that was offered for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

Oooooooooooooops.

Seems like maybe due process of law is a pretty good way to get at the truth. The wheels of litigation grind slowly, but these guys spent two years in a chain link cage because our government was too ashamed to admit they'd fallen for the oldest trick in the book.

Edited to add this quotation from Jim Henley's Unqualified Offerings:

The appropriate word is "grind" when people are forced to represent themselves pro se.

Many months ago I posted an article from (I think) the Boston Globe about some of the prisoners. Like the guy who got lobotomized with an anti-tank round such that any neurosurgeon or whatever could state with certainty that he would never present a danger to anyone again. Half his head was missing. There were a few really extreme cases that were noted at the time. Evidence included the statements of some of the intake teams (soldiers) on the ground in Afghanistan who were like "yeah, our rules say "16-40? Check; in custody for any reason? Check; non-Afghan? Check", put em on the plane to Cuba.

In other words, the evaluators on the ground, including intelligence teams, said they opposed sending some of the people as "Al Queda" types, but the rules were followed to the letter. 3 for 7? or was it 3 for 6? Whatever, there has been evidence that this has gone too far for some time.

That said, given that its the intelligence/military people using the word "kidnap", I'd guess they meant "kidnap" in the sense of "innocent, as far as we know, of whatever we charged them with". But if that is the media making up the word "kidnap", I'd imagine some of these "victims" might have been legitimate targets.

Hard to say without quoting and noting the sources. But yeah, there were excesses, no doubt.

Hello

I think the military people are not using the term "kidnap" in the sense of "Sorry we kidnapped you"; I think they meant it in the sense of "We took you into custody when some Northern Alliance fighters swore on a stack of Qur'ans that you were a resistance fighter --- keep in mind here that you were a little beat up and wearing a black hood at the time, honest mistake --- and we gave them a check in accordance with our standard reward policy, but it turns out you were merely bonking the wrong chieftan's sister or something and, oh well, long story short, we're out a bunch of reward money and here's your plane ticket; and --- funny story here --- some other time we'll tell you about the unfortunate resonance this has with the way the U.S. obtained large portions of its population of African descent; and we certainly hope there won't be any diplomatic incidents arising from this, which could be messy for everyone involved, right?"

But all I know is what I read in the weblogs.

This is truly nauseating and my deepest sympathies go out to those individuals affect. However, what was the fucking alternative?

Finally Some Common Sense from Bush
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[Bush to drop tarrifs on steel]

I'm sure they're having these people sign a release. I hear Cuban law is not good for people signing adhesion contracts.

Access to counsel. National security did not require us to hold these persons incommunicado and without recourse in the legal system, which, for all its faults, is better at separating wheat from chaff than the executive branch acting alone.

Agreed, at the 20,000 foot level. But to be fair to the executive branch, there were some timing issues involved - meaning that it was reasonably prudent to hold them incommunicado right after the war, and less so 2 years later.

Note to WH: Repaint Air Force One before undertaking covert missions.
 

--doorbell rings
Gilda: Who is it?
at door: Mrs. Robolohahe? (mumbled)
Gilda: Who is it?
at door: Plumber.
Gilda: Plumber? I didn't ask for a plumber. Who is it?
at door: Telegram.
Gilda: Oh, telegram. Just a moment.
--Gilda opens door and is eaten by Land Shark.

BA pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?"
Air Force One pilot: "Gulfstream 5."
BA pilot: "Oh." {Yahoo news.}

Lessons to be learned: (1) When secretly flying across the Atlantic into a warzone, repaint your aircraft so it no longer says "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in big letters. Paint out the "P" to throw them off the scent. You're just a humble citizen on a transoceanic flight. (2) If forced to lie to other aircraft about being a customized Boeing 747, do not say you are a Gulfstream 5. Come up with something plausible, like that you're a PSA flight that got lost in the Bermuda Triangle for 35 years. (3) Either BA is lying, or the White House is. Draw your own conclusions, but don't share them. Bilmore is angry enough as it is.

This could have been handled better solely by the executive branch. And it should have once people in the executive were quoted (by name I think, but I'm not sure) in the media with the oops part. In short, a little common sense would have gone a long way for the most extreme examples like Mr. Lobotomy or whatever they nicknamed the guy.

Some of the intelligence types in the intake process in Afghanistan were quoted as saying stuff like "this guy ain't Al Queda" and "this guy ain't high-level International Taliban". And they said their views and the bases thereof were known before some of the people were put on a plane.

Then again, if the alternative to being a high-value target living on the beach in Cuba was being a regular-value target living in a Northern Alliance railcar for the last 2 years, some of these guys might later thank us for our hospitality. Though, if they are truly innocent of anything, they probably won't.

I'm still having trouble with the "kidnap" thing, and I will til something is detailed for one or more of these individuals. Specifically, I'd like to know that the prisoners were blameless entirely. But that would be shifting the non-existent burden of proof here. So failing the ability to satisfy my desire, I'd like to know that we knew, or should have known, that we had no reason to detain the detainee(s) in question.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there were cases where our people knew, or should have known etc.... But what I'd read earlier was just that they weren't guilty of Al Queda-type stuff... not that they weren't guilty of anything, e.g., Talibanship or shooting at U.S. soldiers.

Heck, in at least one case, one of the detainees to be released is said to have killed a U.S. soldier. I'm not sure what more I'd need to justify keeping him locked up for life.

Hello

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

I am a "recovering Catholic", so I have followed those issues to some extent. The doctrine of papal infallibiity, as well as the list of essential items that one _must_ believe to be a Catholic, are both very different than the question of whether the Catholic Church regards itself as the "one true Church", and all other religions as "false". Check out some of the recent pronouncements on that issue, even in the context of the Pope's ecumenical efforts, from Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I believe is the Prefect for the Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

S_A_M

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

Actually, several of those bombers from the 1994 WTC plot are in U.S. prisons now -- including Mr. Ramzi Yousef -- the boss man who was snatched up years later from his tribal region in Pakistan by a combined U.S. /Pakistani operation under the Clinton administration. See generally:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in540376.shtml


They were closely connected to another group planning more bombings under the "spiritual guidance" of a blind Egyptian sheik Abdel Rahman. This story (above) also notes that Yousef was found in a safehouse financed by bin Laden -- and the belief that he was undergoing training there to engage in operations for al Qaeda after another operation of his in the Phillippines failed -- but mentions no proof/indication that he had been working for al Qaeda back in 1993.

S_A_M


That statement is counter-factual. See Ty's earlier response.

(a) I'm sure you didn't mean this the way it sounds, but you really shouldn't want to fall back on the "Oh Yeah? Well, Clinton would have done the same thing!" defense. Oh, how the bar has dropped for the GOP!

S_A_M

edited to fix tags and, because I was in the neighborhood, spelling -- T.S.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

Just to add a few details. Immediately before 9/11, and I mean IMMEDIATELY before 9/11 (like within 2 weeks preceding), the Taliban offered to release the American missionaries (remember them?) for the blind sheikh.

Additionally, media reports since 9/11 have the U.S. killing or capturing 1 or 2 of the blink Sheikh's sons in combat. Another, or perhaps one of the 2, who I believe is in custody, was named as a midlevel Al Queda leader... something like the 50 or 100 most-wanted before capture.

All from recollection, so I might be slightly off.

Hello

I can't find a link just yet, but i've heard some of the more extreme errors were the fault of the Islamic spys at gitmo we're just now catching. seems they bought into keeping these guys to embaress us, all for the greater good of Allah. is it a coincidence the spys getting caught is in the same month as these guys getting released?

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

Bilmore -- you obviously put time and effort into this response -- but I think that you did not squarely and fairly address Ty's rather simple question -- as evidenced by the considerable effort you spent explaining why the administration had good reason to believe that what it said was true and to act as it did. See below:

That wasn't the question. Ty asked if you could concede that they said some things that have proven to be not true, and hw would concede lack of evidence of mens rea for lying.

Bilmore -- You're apparently forgetting some very clear staetments that the administration made while making their case on WMD that have been pretty well determined not to be true.

To wit:

G.W. Bush -- March 17, 2003 -- Address to the Nation:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Hmmm. Really??

With further research, I have realized that they were more careful and cautious than I had remembered, and it brings to mind my posts arguing about the "impression" Cheney, et al. sought to create without actually quite saying the words.

But -- if you're not willing to admit that the administration said pre-War turned out to be inaccurate or "not true" -- I think you've got some fairly good-sized blinders.



Ok. I don't disagree that our current status is understandable. Geez, from the sound of it I wish you were the President's National Security Advisor (only half-kidding.)

I'd love for you to point to one shred of evidence that our government understood that this stuff might well happen, and planned for it -- and prepared our citizenry for such an eventuality before launching the war. You'll have to go beyond a few throw-away words about sacrifice. Rumsfeld, e.g., publicly disagreed completely with Gen. Shalikashvili's testimony that it would take troop levels in the six figures for several years to occupy and pacify Iraq. The White House flatly refused to discuss potential costs of the operation with Congress until well after the war began. There was, in my view, no honest, intelligent, and forthright debate over the cost, benefits, and dangers of the course of action on which the administration set our country.

As you posted this on December 1, 2003, I'll agree with your statement that "Bush made no secret of how hard it would be months ago" -- but did he make that clear back in mid-May, when he flew out to the aircraft carrier in his spiffy flight suit with his big "Mission Accomplished" Banner?? Did he ever make that clear before launching the war? Is there any sign that the administration expected to take more casualties after the end of "major combat operations" than during? Did they have the right troop mix in place to enforce order and police a populace? Or -- did they expect the Iraqi state apparatus to hold together (a HUGE miscalculation)?

Not so. See above.

Free Trade
 

What do you all say to this argument by Professor Alan S. Blinder?

Blinder link

I think Blinder's off base because he's focusing on aggregate productivity, which is basically irrelevant. People don't elect leaders to maximize the world's GDP; they elect their leaders to maximize their slice of the pie. Trade and immigration barriers protect relatively unskilled workers in the US and other developed countries from their competition abroad. Furthermore, the conservatives who favor removing immigration and trade barriers have no plan whatsoever to increase taxes on skilled workers to compensated the unskilled workers whose wages are being bid down by third world workers.

Free Trade
 

You and Blinder are both right. The political impact of what you're saying, IMHO, is that some of the net social benefit created by free trade should be taxed (in the economic sense, but probably also in the usual sense) and used to improve the situation of those who are hurt by free trade. The sad fact, however, is that those who are the strongest advocates of free trade are generally the least interested in identifying ways to make the latter work, and those who have the constituencies who will be hurt by free trade put their energy into trying to block it rather than obtaining this relief.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

When you read about the actual planning, it's just mind-boggling how bad it was. Old friend Douglas Feith emerges here, too.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

yes that was what every government believed and what sadaam's behavior supported. What whacks me out is that within a dozen posts you guys say stuff like this, essentially the President should have known to ignore this evidence from the CIA; Contradicting the posts a few hours earlier about how he should believe CIA evidence form a source that Sadaam wasn't going forward with Al Queda JV.
Some of you guys aren't dumb. You do realize that you propose some all-knowing use of what intelligence is correct and what should be ignored don't you.
I will not re-enter the WMD debate, but let's summarize what has been proven to all who post on this board.

pre-war Bush said:
1 we believe Sadaam has programs to make chemicals/nukes
2 we know he had X tons of weapons, he has a duty to tell us where they are, he hasn't explained it. Sorry, I'm in charge of a country that cannot be attacked by WMD. I can't trust the guy.
3 He has links to OBL

We found proof of #1. We haven't found weapons, but that doesn't mean that #2 was incorrect. As an aside, When Clinton allowed the inspectors to be pulled, knuckling under ot Sadaam, he forced the next real US president to call Bullshit on sadaam for point 2.
#3 is true, although Ty thinks they're the okay kind of forming a joint venture with Al Queda discussions. these kind of meetings were routine in the Mid-East? I bet they become a little less routine now.

As I say, I've won this argument 4 times on this board and won't do-over. I need a challenge.


as I've proven previously, if it made sense to go in, it still makes sense even in view of the attacks now. the dead soldiers are a terrible price, but all of us mentally were prepared for more deaths. soldiers die. they die during routine training and they die when we attack a country. I think it safe to say, the day before the invasion began you were all fearful there would be thousands of dead US soldiers. We all hate any of the deaths, but don't act like the deaths change the equation, if it made sense to go in, then it still does.

as to what should/could have been done different, again you don't really say anything other than what is being done is wrong. More troops? for what? more troops equals more non-combat support conveys etc. that is, increase combat troops you increase soft targets. I'm not sure what benefit they would provide- what benefit do you see, other than given 9 morons something to prattle on about beside confederate flags?

I just don't see how past meeting with OBL are something that shouldn't cause concern. Did your pre-war analysis indicate Sadaam to be a rational predictable man?
Confidential to Ty: I know you mean this as a slam at my poor grammar, and I'm hurt

Free Trade
 

I don't quite understand. What is this "net social benefit" that you want to tax?

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

Actually, I was being responsive, in that I attempted to deal with those issues which Ty and others use as examples of deceit or mistake.

Yeah, really. At that time, the evidence was very strong concerning chemweaps. And, you seem to accept as proven a complete absence of the WMDs at that time, but I don't think you can make that leap. Maybe we will reach a point where this is proven to be the case, and then I will agree that, yes, Bush was wrong, but we're not there yet. It seems very illogical to now assume that SH had none. Were I to make such a leap myself on something, you'd be all over me for assuming that which has yet to be proven.

Sort of my main point. The mischaracterizations have been so rampant and continuing that they seem to have displaced reality in many minds. Say "liar" enough times and the general public will eventually accept it, true or not. Now, after some research, you're speaking of an "impression". I can tell you what my impression was at the time, and it doesn't seem to mirror your new impression at all. I'm hoping we can someday return to discussing facts.

The only one that is possible, but still open to contention, is the "presence of WMDs" issue, and. as I said above, it's not possible to answer that one yet. If there were NONE, and we prove this, then I will agree that what Bush said about intelligence showing otherwise was wrong. As for the rest, no, I don't agree that he was wrong.

I posted the partial text of a Bush speech pre-invasion a week or so ago, in response to a statement that Bush never made this sound like it would be hard. It says exactly what you ask. He said it was going to be a long, costly process. Pre-invasion. In fact, that was the subject of much pre-invasion public discourse - whether we should become involved in something that promised to be such an incredibly hard slog - the remaking of a blasted country. For anyone to now suggest that Bush made them believe it would be easy or cheap is the height of disingenuity. (Is that a word?) I mean, c'mon - is the argument now going to be "but you said it would be eeeeaaaaasssyyyy!"? This would even rival the claim of "but you said it was imminent!"

It was only a Matter of Time
 

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

[Utah polygamist cites Lawrence in defence]

It was only a Matter of Time
 

Probably not a wise move. All it's going to get him is a vastly increased public (including inmate) awareness that he's going down for screwing a thirteen-year-old. That's not a good thing to let out in the prison system.

(And it sure as heck won't get him anywhere legally.)

Free Trade
 

If the public is better off as a result of free trade, we ought to capture some of that gain and make sure that it goes to benefit those who are made worse off by the free trade.

Free Trade
 

Maybe I'm just thinking to concretely about this, but what "gain" would you tax? Generally speaking, the public benefits from free trade by being able to purchase goods at lower prices. Are you suggesting that we keep the prices for such goods artificially high, tax them at that rate, and redistribute to those that have lost jobs?

on yet another note
 

Maybe so. As of now -- it appears unlikely that we'll find out. Too bad, perhaps. I really liked the idea of General Clark.


Look. I don't think Bush lies more than any other politician bends the truth, and I certainly don't think he is a "bad man". In some ways, he is clearly now a "good man" who shares values that I find important. However, it appears that, from what we know, his "character" and "behavior" as a younger man was somewhat deplorable (although quite human and understandable -- especially for a young, rich man). That doesn't speak too much to Bush's trust and character now.

However -- given that record, and (i) given Bush's refusal to answer questions about any drug use pre-1974 (?) because it is "irrelevant", (ii) given the way his compaign released flatly incorrect information about the circumstances of Bush's DUI arrest, and (iii) given the significant evidence that Bush first got a highly coveted slot in the Texas Air National Guard due to his father's influence (to avoid Vietnam) and then simply walked away from his service obligation with about 18 months remaining -- the GOP would be ill-advised to make the campaign into a slugfest about character issues. Bush will have a record of four years in office by them -- make the campaign about the substance of what he's done.

I find it telling that the GOP and Christian right gave Bush such a pass on these various issues after the way that the GOP attack dosg tore into Clinton over Vietnam and marital infidelity (although no evidence has surfaced of the latter with Bush)- they REALLY, REALLY, wanted to win in 2000. I think the reformed sinner aspect -- now "washed in the blood of the Lamb" -- seems to have bought him immunity from all that went before. Too bad Clinton didn't think of that.

If you want to base a race on "character" and "trust" -- the GOP was just damn lucky in 2000 that Al Gore was so stiff and unlikable, while most guys would enjoy a beer with Bush. Speaking of myths and lies, the myth of Al Gore as "serial prevaricator" is one of the worst.

S_A_M

Free Trade
 

If someone is harmed by free trade, isn't that an admission that their past conduct was subsidized by over-regulation? Why would we want to reward them for that? We're not taxing auto manufacturers and paying off buggy-whip makers, are we?

(I think Blinder misses the boat by speaking short-term only. As barriers decrease, you will see, not only a globalization of wages, but of buying markets, too. Yes, the wages will even out to that $8/hr of which he speaks, but that $8 will be buying more efficiently-produced global goods. It's a net gain for all, really.)

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

You ignored all of the hard points in my post, and just rattled on about why it as right to invade. I think so too -- but that doesn't change anything I said above about the lack of any meaningful honest debate from the administration over cost/benefits and preparing the public for what might happen (or any sign that they understood that this might happen. The number of casualties isn't the issue, in my mind.

Go back and try again, Hank. Or, is this another argument where you declare victory and retreat?


Again , you ignored the substance. Didn't I answer that in my post, to at least some extent? I'll say it again -- its the right troop mix -- higher numbers of MPs and /or Civil Affairs units., engineers, etc., etc. You need them to police the cities, and do all of the crap that the U.S. has tried to do since the occupation began. As I noted, there weren't many of those at the beginning.

There also weren't enough combat troops to fill in for them after "the Fall" -- because the 4th ID was still in transit through the Suez after the unfortunate diplomatic debacle in Turkey that kept us from having a real Northern Front -- and thus facilitating The retreat to the North by Hussein and his guerilla fighters -- passg to Syria, etc. That failure did cost us -- although it was obscured initially by the quick success in the South.

That's enough. I refuse to talk to myself.

S_A_M

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

And you call yourself a lawyer?

Yeah, right.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

I disgaree with so much of what you said, but I suppose I can't be too excercised by your Rose-colored glasses. Its to be expected given the battle you're fighting.

Ok. But you're sticking with the words that came from Bush's mouth in one or two speeches , and not the words and conduct of the Administration as a whole over the period of months preceding the invasion. You haven't really hit the substance of what I tried to say. I may be incorrect, but I am not being disingenuous.

To pick simple and concrete examples -- (a) What about the Rumsfeld position on the likely troop strength required and the likely time/duration of an occupation? Either they knew what was likely to come, but didn't say, or they were pretty damn surprised at what happened. (b) Was the refusal to discuss anticipated costs, etc. and the down-playing of the troop strength required for pacification all part of the acceptable hard-sell?? To refuse to give even any projections, but just spout truisms such as "We know that the cost of action will be less than the cost of inaction" (paraphrase)?

P.S. All of those truisms were based on the premise that Hussein had all these WMD -- and might just turn them over to terrorists.

Well, even now you say you don't think we'll ever find any WMD -- but require PROOF OF A NEGATIVE (i.e. none existed at all in Iraq in March, 2003) before you'll even grant that the administration seemins to have said something incorect. Oh, come on!

Look -- if your principal points are that Hussein was a bastard who deserved what he got, the world will be better off without him ruling Iraq, the invasion was the right thing to do. I agree with (a) and (c), and (b) seems likely unless things collapse horribly in Iraq. However, that doesn't/shouldn't render the Administration immune from all criticism over what was done, how it was done, and how they "sold" the war. It is not all meaningless partisan carping -- although the administration/GOP strategy at this point is clearly to try to hang on and make it all work out well in the end.

If it does, much of this criticism will fade, and we can get back to discussing GWB the environmentalist and champion fundraiser, who has "seen into [Putin's] heart" and discovered that he is good man dedicated to democracy.

S_A_M

Free Trade
 

Yes.

Now you're addressing the normative question of what the baseline is. In a protectionist world, free trade is a subsidy to those who can compete. The Constitution does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.

Baselines aside, it should be possible to gather consensus around moves that benefit everyone. If you can create net welfare gains, the winners should be able to -- in effect -- buy off the losers. That this does not happen may be because the would-be winners are too focused on staking a claim to all of the gains.

No doubt, there are some who lose their jobs and can't find new ones because they have the wrong skills, etc.

Here's A Couple of Follow Up Articles
 

One quick point on my way out - If I was unclear, I'm sorry - I actually do think we will find chem stocks, and possibly even nuke precursor material - maybe in Iraq, more likely right over the border in Syria - but I won't be terribly surprised if we don't (I'll be surprised, but not terribly - close point, I know), and a complete lack of success once we have covered a substantial portion of the available hiding spots (we ain't even close, yet) will be enough to prove the negative to me. But, like I said, if we don't, it will be a surprise to me, as everything I know about SH, Iraq, the ME, and life in general strongly supports my belief that he had them, or was working on them right before we got there.

And, from what you say, I guess the new argument really IS "but you said it would be easy!" Lordy. (What other conclusion can I draw from your repeated suggestions that Bush et al kept trying to gloss over the cost of fixing a country? I mean, how stupid of an argument would that be to support? Who would ever believe such a thing? Are you saying that YOU believed that to be the case pre-invasion, or even post-invasion? Bush convinced you, or convinced someone?)