comments
Various Comments on the News
By Daniel G. Jennings
Saudi Arabia
The present controversy over the 28 pages censored from the official report on the 9/11 atrocity centers around information supposedly linking Saudi Arabia to the Al Queada terror network. A popular theory has it that Bush and others are covering this up because they don't want to offend Saudi Arabia our oil source.
If this is true, it justifies President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Saudi Arabia is unreliable and potentially a hotbed of terrorism we're going to need a new source of oil and soon. There's only one other potential source around: Iraq. Well now Iraq is now under our control so we will now have another source of oil.
Without another source of oil Bush couldn't come out and criticize Saudi Arabia because the Saudis could throw the world into chaos by cutting off the oil. Bush couldn't attack Saudi Arabia without provoking the Islamic world, after all it contains the holiest shrines of Islam. We also can't run the risk of King Fahd destroying the oil fields, my guess is the Saudi oil fields are rigged to blow or set up to blow fast. Meaning there's no way to move against Saudi Arabia without seeing the oil fields in flame.
So by demanding this data be made public the Democrats maybe justifying Bush's war when they want to criticize it.
There is a terrible after thought to this way of thinking, is Saudi Arabia or somebody in Saudi Arabia is behind the attacks on our forces in Iraq? The guerrillas are sabotaging the oil fields, who has the most to gain if the Iraq oil fields are kept out of production: Saudi Arabia. Frightening, isn't it.
Guerrillas in Iraq.
The guerrillas attacking the US in Iraq are perplexing, they appear to have no leader, no organization and no cause to fight for yet they are carrying out attacks on our forces that have dozens of Americans. Obviously somebody is organizing the guerrillas, who? Why?
Saddam Hussein is a suspect but does he have the expertise to do this? Is the man who couldn't defeat us with a massive army supposed to be organizing a guerrilla campaign capable of stopping us? Al Queada and Bin Laden are also likely suspects, they hate us and would love to establish a base or better yet a friendly regime in Iraq.
Syria is a possibility but a stronger possibility is Saudi Arabia which stands to loose if the Iraqi oilfields are reopened. Its oil prices will fall, worse, a democratic Iraq would undermine the sorry dictatorship in that nation.
Of course if there is no visible organization or individual behind these guerrilla attacks, these actions are meaningless. They are simply vicious and nasty little crimes. There is no moral dimension to these attacks beyond revenge, frustration and sheer anger. Without a moral dimension, a cause to fight for, a leader or symbol to rally around there is no way the Iraqi resistance can work.
Yes Saddam Hussein is still out there somewhere hiding in the desert but without his storm troopers and secret police force to terrorize his foes, Saddam is powerless. Every time he makes a pronouncement Saddam becomes more and more of a bad joke. Since he has to hide to avoid our forces Saddam can't come out and organize and direct his forces.
History teaches us that the successful guerrilla or resistance leader such as George Washington or Ho Chi Minh must operate openly to get publicity to remind the public that he is still in the fight. That he's still out there battling the enemy.
More importantly he must be able to openly and actively organize his forces and direct operations. The guerrilla leader must operate from a base or safe haven that the enemy can't touch. This can be a base in some remote region the enemy can't reach. such as George Washington's redoubt at Valley Forge or Mao's sanctuary in Yunan or in the territory of another nation, much as Charles De Gaulle used Great Britain as a base during World War II. Saddam has no such place he can go, the US can reach him anywhere in Iraq, and no other nation will take him in. Saddam must remain in hiding, he can stay on the run forever but he really can't do anything.
All Saddam can really do is pay Iraqis to set off bombs and kill Americans. Such activities kill good men and grab headlines but they don't win wars. Armies win wars, even in Vietnam, the Communists didn't win until they were able to come out of the shadows and fight as an army after the US had pulled out.
So I seriously doubt this guerrilla campaign in Iraq will do anything but get a lot of good people killed for no reason and make a lot of people miserable. Once the US restores Iraq's economy and gets effective Iraqi military, police and security forces up and running the guerrillas will melt away.
Gay Rights
Gay rights have been in the news a lot lately. The media has gone hysterical over the issue of gay marriage, the Supreme Court's wise and overdue decision to strike down silly and archaic laws banning Sodomy and the Episcopal Church's questionable decision to appoint an openly gay man as a bishop.
The truth of course is that this debate is a rather meaningless one, gays have always been free to live their lifestyle and practice their sexual preferences in America. There is no evidence that "gay rights" will improve the lifestyles of gay people or affect society in any way. Nor is there any evidence that gay rights will have any sort of impact on average Americans, family values or anything else negative or positive.
Instead this debate on gay rights serves to distract us from real issues affecting the nation, war, terrorism, healthcare, the export of American jobs overseas, Iraq, North Korea, taxes, national security. Issues that affect all Americans in very real ways.
To make matters worse, the gay rights debate seems to be promoting one of the things gay rights is ostensibly designed to stop homophobia the irrational fear of gay people. Many cultural conservatives now see gays as enemies to the family, the church, God, the flag, the country and everything that is good and decent. For the first time in human history homosexuals are seen as a threat to the average man.
Such hysteria can't be good, it will undoubtedly lead to gay bashing and persecution of gays or those branded gay by society. The gay rights movement, the media, cultural conservatives and politicians on both sides of the aisle will be equally to blame for this sorry state of affairs. They will have falsely portrayed a group of harmless people as a threat to the nation for cheap publicity and they will not suffer for it. Instead average Americans will suffer in dark alleys, lonely parking lots and on barbed wire fences. Some will be beaten, some will be killed, and many will loose jobs or homes because of this nonsense.
It is time that we all started working for the good of the country and stopped this silly gay rights debate before it is too late. If we don't, a lot of people are going to be sorry. People like Matthew Shepherd for if this gay rights debate continues we're going to have dozens of Matthew Shepherds, innocent young people killed over a meaningless issue.
However, I fear only in the future when the history books are written will we see gay rights as the meaningless issue it really it is. My guess, the historians of the future will rank the Americans who debated over gay rights with the Byzantine theologians who argued about the place of angels in Heaven while the Turks were outside the walls.

Another reason for the war
The present controversy over the 28 pages censored from the official report on the 9/11 atrocity centers around information supposedly linking Saudi Arabia to the Al Queada terror network. A popular theory has it that Bush and others are covering this up because they don't want to offend Saudi Arabia our oil source.
If this is true, it justifies President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Saudi Arabia is unreliable and potentially a hotbed of terrorism we're going to need a new source of oil and soon. There's only one other potential source around: Iraq. Well now Iraq is now under our control so we will now have another source of oil.
So by demanding this data be made public the Democrats maybe justifying Bush's war when they wnat to criticize it.

crime
America's Obsession With Crimes
By Daniel G. Jennings
America it seems is obsessed with sordid but spectacular crimes, the Lacy Peterson Case, the Kobe Bryant affair, the Robert Blake case and a dozen lesser dramas fill our TV screens and newspapers. Often crowding out more serious and more dramatic news stories like the war in Iraq, the crisis in North Korea and the war on terror.
Why are Americans so obsessed with kidnaps, murderers and other such crimes when our country and world face some of the greatest crises in history? Events far more dramatic than the crimes we see on the news.
The answer is a simple one, the cases the media focuses upon involve simple everyday crimes. Acts of one on one violence, everyday evils that we can all understand, deal with and relate to. The kidnaping and murder of a wife by her husband is something we can understand even if it horrifies us. Ditto for the rape or attempted rape of a pretty young woman by a famous basketball player in a hotel room.
These evils are personalized, localized and simple. They can be easily understood and easily contained and dealt with by the police and the courts. There's no chance of Scott Peterson or Kobe Bryant or any of their ilk harming average Americans.
This is in stark contrast to the monstrosities that lurk beyond America's shores. Take Bin Laden and his Al Queda a group of fanatics that hates America so much they want to kill Americans, they're willing to die so, worse they're clever enough to figure out how to use everyday objects to kill thousands of Americans. They brought down two of the biggest buildings in our biggest city and killed three thousand people in the process.
And we all know that Bin Laden is only the tip of the iceberg there are dozens of other terrorist groups and terrorist masterminds all dreaming of repeating or topping the atrocities of Sept. 11. Some of these groups, including Al Queada are trying to get their hands on chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. We were already attacked with anthrax in fall of 2001.
If terrorism wasn't bad enough there's the so-called rogue states and their monstrous leaders. Saddam Hussein who is willing to turn his own nation into a battleground to keep himself in power. Kim Po Yi of North Korea who is willing to starve his own people to death rather than relinquish power. Not to mention the potential crisis in Africa where people are starving and human rights are a thing of the past .
Nor are terrorism and dictators the only manmade horrors we might face. There's the environmental crisis global warming which could trigger catastrophic climate changes and terrible disasters. The depletion of the oil reserves which could lead to a world wide energy crisis.
Compared to these crises the murders on TV seem tame and civilized. Perhaps that is why we're so obsessed with those cases. They have a tinge of nostalgia to them, they remind us of an earlier and simpler time when the main violence we had to worry about was the thug waiting to mug us in the alley. When we didn't have to worry about some fanatic fighting for a cause or a faith we barely understand plunging a plane into our city. Or a madman out of a James Bond movie setting off a nuclear bomb in your hometown.
There is a historical precedent to this obsession with crime. In the years before World War I, when Europe was moving towards self destruction, the British newspapers were filled with stories about murder and murderers. Murderers such as Dr. Crippen who had killed his wife and buried her in the basement. Then ran away to America with his mistress in tow disguised as a boy. Such grisly affairs kept the British public's minds off the naval arms raise, the growing military might of Germany and the tensions on the European continent.
So perhaps the obsession with crime is a typical human response to times that are as complex as they are frightening. Hopefully we can get over this obsession and start setting our minds to solving the world's problems or at least thinking about them.

dumbocrats
Mood:  accident prone
Are the Democrats Playing Right Into Bush's Hands??
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Democrats it seem are playing right into President Bush's hands. They appear to be doing everything in their power to destroy whatever chances they have of winning the White House or regaining control of Congress in 2004 with the stupidest set of political moves I've seen in a long time.
First there is the political witch hunt and smear campaign being waged over the 16 words in the State of the Union message and the whole Iraq War. The Democrats are staging a major attempt to destroy the President based on the flimsiest of premises the 16 words in the state of the Union message. Never mind the fact that British intelligence is standing by its conclusion that Saddam tried to import uranium from the African nation of Niger or the lack of any evidence disproving these claims. The Democrats base their whole case on a former ambassador who flew to Niger and asked local officials (presumably the same people taking Saddam's money) if the claims were true. An individual who is now behaving like a Democratic party activist.
The effect of the political witch hunt the Democrats stage over this issue will be to destroy themselves. The public supports the war and sees Bush as the good guy. They'll see Bush as the hero, a decent patriotic man trying to defend the country and the Democrats as a bunch of arrogant witch hunters. They'll also conclude rightly that the whole thing is an attempt to pay the Republicans back for trying to impeach Clinton over Monica. Trying to sabotage the war effort and smear the President while American soldiers are fighting in Iraq won't sit well with the public.
Then there's the war, Bush has certainly accomplished a lot. He's removed one of the most oppressive and murderous regimes on Earth from power, ended Iraqi attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, secured our oil supply and the Middle East peace. Now we are predictably faced with a guerrilla campaign that will cost some American lives. Democratic politicians who make an issue of the body bags will seem like ghouls profiting from death and suffering not high minded moralists.
The left has concluded that a few terrorist attacks are a second Vietnam War. I don't see the kind of massive guerrilla armies America faced in Vietnam. Do the Iraqi guerrillas have the government and infrastructure of an entire country to back them up as the Vietnamese communists did? Do they have the support of a super power willing to supply them with arms and financing as the Vietnamese communists did? No, they don't.
There's no way the Iraqi guerrillas can stand up to our military might or stage massive attacks on us. After a few months their campaign will sputter out, their supply of rocket propelled grenades will run out, their leaders will get captured or killed and Iraq will quiet down. The electricity will come back on, the oil will start flowing and the economy will start functioning.
Without large numbers of American casualties and the fear of a draft, the war will not be a serious political issue here at home. Any time and efforts the Democrats spend opposing it will be wasted. Many people will conclude the Democrats are protecting terrorists.
At home there are the silly social issues, gay rights in particular, an issue that only matters to the religious right and gays themselves. The vast Americans don't give a damn about gay rights and those that do think about it oppose it. This includes many working class voters who have religious rejections to gay marriage. Harping on gay rights will drive away many traditionally Democratic voters and do little to promote the party's image.
Finally there's the tilt to the left, as evidenced by the success of Howard Dean. Dean, the former governor of Vermont is vocally ant-war, (although he's conceded that the occupation of Iraq won't end anytime soon) and a staunch gay rights activist. Dean is getting lots of media attention and raising lots of cash even though he seems like the poorest choice for the Democrats in 2004. Pundits have already dubbed him McGovern II, a candidate so left wing he doesn't stand a chance.
We see how the Democrats are dooming themselves, but the question remains can they win in 2004? Yes, if they forget about the war and gay rights and concentrate on meat and potatoes economic issues. Healthcare, overtime pay, daycare, etc, things average Americans care about they stand a chance.
If the Democrats would spend as much time and effort opposing the recent overtime pay reforms (which essentially end overtime for the Middle Class). They would be seen as the champion of the little guy rather than the pets of the arrogant elite. If they'd keep pushing for real health care reform, and more money for things like education they'd get popular support. If a Democrat would have the guts to stand up and say I will try to build a national high speed rail system or come out in favor of mass transit the public would go for it.
The problem is this isn't going to happen. The peace movement and the single issue social activists have gotten control of the Democratic Party and would rather go down with the ship than steer a new course. My guess is the Democrats will have to crash and burn in 2004, before they figure out how to start winning elections again.

Bush
Bush and Iraq
By Daniel G. Jennings
It's obvious that President George W. Bush is a very brave and patriotic man but not necessarily a very politically astute individual. Bush is obviously doing the right thing in Iraq, but he certainly erred in using weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for the war.
There were several valid reasons for America to attack and occupy Iraq; protecting the world's oil supply, preventing future terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East among them. Reasons that the American people would have understood and perhaps supported. Unfortunately, Bush chose the cheap and melodramatic image, weapons of mass destruction. The one that would attract the most media attention and appeal deepest to emotions.
Weapons of mass destruction was the cheapest way out it got Bush the media attention and popular support he needed to wage the war. Unfortunately for Bush and the country, the weapons of mass destruction appear to be a fantasy and the intelligence reports Bush cited false or inaccurate. To make matters worse, Bush and some of his advisors appear to have lied to have exaggerated the threat in order to advance their cause.
By choosing the moral low road, and resorting to lies, cheap hysteria and fearmongering Bush made a terrible mistake for which he is going to pay in spades. Democrats and others will be able to brand Bush a liar and manufacture an artificial scandal to attack him.
Some leftists are already talking about this being a second Watergate, but a repeat of the Iran-Contra Scandal would be a better comparison. Nixon's actions in Watergate were motivated purely by personal fears and ambitions, his targets were his political enemies. Bush's actions appear to have motivated by a concern for the nation and the world's future. He acted to put America in a better position to deal with the world's challenges and secure a just peace for the Middle East.
My guess is that any attempt to impeach or smear Bush using these allegations will backfire on the Democrats. The public will see Bush as the victim of a political witch hunt, just like Clinton was. Average people will see Bush as a patriot who tried to defend the country and is being destroyed by a gang of vicious politicians. The public will rally around Bush, who will be reelected by a large margin and those who attacked him will slink away into obscurity.
Future historians will also be on Bush's side. Other presidents have done much what Bush did in past situations. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt greatly exaggerated the threat that Nazi Germany posed to the United States. FDR and his advisors made ludicrous claims stating that the Nazis were seeking bases in Latin America to attack the United States. Or raising fears that German secret agents would commit terrorist atrocities on American soil, another fantasy. Although the Nazis were certainly evil and possessed a powerful military, they lacked the technology and naval forces needed to pose a direct threat to the US in World War II. Yet FDR, made them the primary enemy and concentrated America's forces against Germany. History has recorded that FDR did the right thing, by making German defeat his priority in World War II, FDR prevented the triumph of an evil and technologically advanced dictatorship that would have murdered untold millions and enslaved much of the world for generations.
During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson went even farther claiming that Imperial Germany was planning to invade the United States through Mexico. This pretext was ludicrous the Imperial German Navy couldn't even cross the English Channel and attack England. Yet Wilson used it as a pretext to ship hundreds of thousands of American troops to France to fight Germany in 1917 and 1918. An action that most historians now believe to have been the right course of action.
President Bush's actions were probably the right ones and he will certainly be validated by history. (Like Wilson and Roosevelt) Unfortunately, Bush will probably have to survive one of the most vicious and destructive political witch hunts in American history to live to see that validation.

We Could Use a Man Like Harry Truman Again
America and the Democratic Party Could Use A Man Like Harry Truman Again
By Daniel G. Jennings
If the Democratic Party and the liberal movement in America want to start winning elections again they could use a man like Harry S. Truman.
That is a staunch patriot who believes in America and is unwavering its defense and a man who cares about average Americans will do everything in his power to make their lives better. Truman was a true patriot who believed in freedom and America and never backed down in the face of their enemies. Truman never wavered from the defense of America and freedom around the world, he launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild devastated Europe and created NATO to defend Europe from Communism. He even committed American troops to the bloody and indecisive war in Korea to protect the poor people of South Korea from Communist thuggery. Truman's policies laid the groundwork for America's great victory in the Cold War, the bloodless defeat of Communism.
At home Truman worked tirelessly to help average Americans. He was the first President to work for civil rights, he desegrated the military, opposed lynching and proposed some of the first civil rights legislation. He also proposed national health care and other social programs to complete the work of the New Deal.
More importantly, old Harry never backed down, he always did the right thing even when it cost him political support. When Truman decided to oppose Communist expansion the left tried to stab him in the back. They went so far as to run Henry Wallace, FDR's simple minded vice president for president on a "peace" platform in 1948 as a third party candidate. Truman refused to give in or compromise. He wouldn't abandon the people of Europe to Communist slavery even though it might have cost him the Presidency.
The right also tried to stab Truman in the back. Southern racists angry that Truman was championing equal rights for blacks and other non-whites and opposing Jim Crow ran Strom Thurmond on the Dixicrat ticket. Like the far left they wanted to cost Truman the election and help the Republican Thomas Dewey win.
The unholy alliance of Communist sympathizers and Southern Racists almost achieved its goal. In 1948 the pollsters, pundits and experts predicted that Dewey would win. The Chicago Tribune even printed an edition verifying the victory. Yet, Truman won the common people rallied to his cause. Average Americans stood by the president and the far left and far right both lost.
The far left scurried back under its rock and didn't come out again until the Vietnam War. The far right's power and Jim Crow were broken. History vindicated Truman's policies America won the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement proved racial equality would work and become the bedrock of a new American dream.
Today more than ever the Democrats need a man like Truman. Someone who is willing to take a strong stand on national defense to prosecute America's war against terrorism vigorously and make sure the adventure in Iraq succeeds. To do what it takes to destroy the terrorists, dictators and warlords who are plotting to wipe our country off the map once and for all. To stand up to the self proclaimed peace activists who demand that we bow down and let the fanatics destroy us. To give the loony left the boot and start doing what's right for America and the world. Someone capable of doing the right thing for average Americans by championing the social programs that might make their lives better.
Unfortunately it appears we're not going to get a Truman, we're going to get another George McGovern, a weak minded little man who will sell his soul to the far left to get the nomination. Then lack the courage, vision and guts necessary to win in the fall. Until the Democrats are willing to run a man like Truman for President again, they'd better get used to a permanent role - as the minority party and the opposition.

War for Oil
The Left is Wrong: Oil is a Legitimate Reason to Go To War
By Daniel G. Jennings
When the self-proclaimed "peace activists" chant "No War For Oil" in the streets they are both right and wrong. They are right in assuming that oil is perhaps the primary reason for America's invasion and occupation of Iraq and wrong in saying that is immoral to go to war for control of the world's oil supply.
Is it wrong for a nation and people to fight to protect and control the major supply of a natural resource that is essential for the survival of their civilization? Yes folks, oil is that important to America and Americans.
If you don't believe me, go into your kitchen and take a look at the food there and think for a moment. Where did that food come from? It came from farms, farms where it was planted, tended and harvested by machines that run on oil. Once the food was harvested it was taken to factories to be processed by trucks and trains that run on you guessed it oil. Once it was processed it was taken to warehouses and distribution centers by more trucks and trains, then taken to the store or stores where you bought it by more trucks. Without oil that food wouldn't be in your home and your family wouldn't be eating, or you'd be out in the back yard hoeing turnips for dinner.
Beyond our food supply we need oil to run the vehicles that get us around, the cars and trucks that take us to work and school and shopping and vacation. Oil to make the plastics that virtually everything in our homes seems to be made of these days. Oil to run the planes we fly around in and oil to run the trains and trucks that move freight around our country and the ships that move freight around the world.
Even if you don't drive or even a car you still need oil. You still need food to eat and plastic tools and utensils. If you don't drive a car you probably ride a bicycle with rubber tires made from oil or take a bus that runs on oil.
Even our national defense is dependant upon oil. Our country is protected by a military that runs on oil planes and helicopters can't fly without oil, ships can't sail without it and tanks can't roll without it. Without oil the only defense we'd have would be nuclear missiles and the only military option open to our leaders would be incinerating our enemies' cities.
And we don't have enough oil to meet our needs here in America. Forget what Pat Buchanan and company tell us. There's only one place in the world we can get the oil we need to run our country on: the Middle East.
Yes, we could and undoubtedly should, wean ourselves off of oil dependance but that's going to take decades perhaps generations. We'll have to build electric powered rail lines in our cities, electrify our rail system and find some way to get Americans to ride light rail instead of driving SUVs. We should also build electric powered high speed trains.
And even if we did all that we'd still need oil. Oil to run the machines on our farms, oil for the endless stream of delivery trucks that keep our cities going, and oil for planes to fly to Europe and for buses in the places trolley cars aren't practical. Not to mention oil to keep our military machine going.
Technology probably isn't going to get us out of this mess either. Forget all the hype about electric powered cars and hydrogen power. Such things are not practical given today's level of technology and barring breakthroughs won't be available anytime soon. Even if we made those breakthroughs it'd take years to adopt them on a scale large enough to make a difference.
Virtually every other nation on Earth is just as dependant on oil as the United States is. When America fights to control the oil we're not just protecting our energy supply we're protecting everybody else's. We're making sure that other nations won't be in a position to get blackmailed by the likes of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. We're also making sure that the tyrants and terrorists won't have huge piles of oil money with which to buy weapons to attack us with. Saddam was able to stockpile huge amounts of armaments and experiment with weapons of mass destruction because of his oil money. Bin Laden has financed his terrorist outrages with oil money from Saudi Arabia.
Since oil is that vital, securing our supply of it makes a lot of sense. Keeping our oil supply out of the hands of a vicious tyrant like Saddam Hussein or fanatics like Bin Laden is vital for our future. Beyond Saddam and the Islamic fanatics there's China which might make a play for control of the oil if we don't garrison the Middle East to keep them out. Do we really want an organization as corrupt and ruthless as the Chinese Communist Party in control of our energy supply? I don't think so.
Fighting for oil is not a greedy and immoral power grab. It is a moral action, because fighting to protect one's civilization and way of life is not immoral. There is nothing unethical about fighting for your way of life, your country and the things it stands for. When America fights for oil, it does just that.
When the "peace activists" chant "No War For Oil"they are telling us it is wrong to fight to protect our country and other nations. The "peace activists" are wrong, going to war for oil is the right thing to do.

America and the World
Since 1945 virtually every nation on Earth has been worried on some level about American power. America has been the world's dominant power since then, more powerful than the British Empire was. Now after victory in Iraq and Afghanistan our power is greater than ever. Many other nations now wonder how do they contain American power??
The other countries have adopted two policies for containing American power. The first is to build up some power or coalition of powers as a counterweight to American power. During the Cold War, many nations even democratic ones like Canada and India overtly or discretly tried to prop up the Soviet Union because it was a counterforce to America. Fortunately, the USSR had neither the economic or industrial resources to compete with America militarily. Since then there have been attempts to build up the European Union as an alternative to America. This will fail because the only way Europe can build up a military capable of matching ours would be to make massive cuts in politcally popular social and other programs. In the future China and India maybe built up as alternatives to America. The other strategy used to deal with America is to hamstring America with international laws and restrictions. Or with smeer campaigns designed to make America look bad. This won't work either because America can simply ignore international law. The problem with this strategy is it will make international law and institutions into a hollow joke and encourage international lawlessness.

Time in Iraq
Time in Iraq is on America's side. It's going to take several years to rebuild that nation. Hell, it's going to take several months or a year to get Iraq back to the level it was at in March, 2003 before the war. Our rebuilding efforts will take time months and years. It'll take four or five years just to get Iraq up to the level of development of say Jordan. Iraq's govenrment, society, economy and infrastructure have been decimated by thirty years of totalitarian govenrment. It's going to take decades to rebuild Iraq just as it will take decades to build the former Soviet Union and its colonies in Eastern Europe. This means that the longer we stay, the better off Iraq will be. It also means that our foes in IRaq don't have the time ,they have to sabotage us in the near future before things get better there. It'll take years to rebuild Iraq but I think we can do it. As long as the US government listens to the American people rather than the media that is.

Iraq
Mood:  celebratory
A lot of us are wondering where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?? The ones Bush and company used as pretexts for the war. My theory is this, the weapons never existed or at least in the numbers advertised. They were a hoax but not a hoax by the Bush administration. The scientists and administrators in charge of the Iraqi WMD program lied to Saddam and his sons. They told Saddam they were manufacturing tons of WMD when they weren't making a thing. They did this for two reasons, first they had neither the technology or resources to carry out Saddam's wishes, and second if they lied to Saddam they could divert the money and resources Saddam gave them for the resource for their own use. Instead of making WMD the IRaqi experts simply sent Saddam a report about the work they were doing and pocketed the money. That is how totaltarian regimes often operate. Since there were no Congressional committees and no free press in Iraq to expose their wrong doing the Iraqi experts had no reason to assume they'd be caught. Similar things happened in other totalitarian regimes. In Nazi Germany, Hitler thought his scientists were close to developing an atomic bomb he even bragged about it to Romania's dictator in 1944. Yet in reality the scientists were nowhere near developing a German bomb. Hitler of course had no way of knowing this. The only evidnence he had was the reports written by the scientists, many of whom were political opponents of Hitler's who didn't want to give Adolph a super weapon. In the Soviet Union, Russian experts told the Kremlin bosses that their economy was working when it wasn't. So my guess is the IRaqi experts faked the reports, they told Saddam what he wanted to hear and did nothing. We'll find that the vaunted IRaqi WMD program was nothing but a collection of lies and a few jars of germs.