February 20, 2003

Please clarify your statement "Anti-semitism, either straightforwardly spewed from mosques, or covertly expressed in the chanceries of Europe, is the force that unites the peace mobs of the left with totalitarians like Saddam."

I don't pretend to speak for other peaceniks, but I'm surprised to be brushed with an anti-semitism charge.

Stephen, yes, Daniel was killed because he was a Jew, and had he been the clear-eyed realist that you are, he would not have been killed because he would not have been where he was in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, his murder was horrific, and deplorable, but we must not forget that it was avoidable. The thing that makes me sad is that Daniel--most likely in an effort to be open-minded and "liberal" overlooked the liability of his faith and his heritage, and struck out into the heart of today's equivalent of Nazi Germany to meet a member of today's equivalent of the Gestapo, and he did it alone, and without telling anyone where he was going. No story is worth such a risk.

What frightens me is that now, we have hundreds of thousands of people--right here at home--who would have us do the same thing as a nation! They would have us turn a blind eye to those who hate us as Americans. When Jews march agains the war, I'm even more horrified, because to me, they are repeating Daniel's mistake on a large scale.

The Israelis know what kind, idealistic "liberals" do not--that anti-semitism is alive and thriving, all over the world. We can either recognize it, and have a healthy fear of it, or we can put on the rose-colored glasses, pretend it doesn't apply to us, and hop a cab to certain death. I'm not suggesting we walk around paranoid, just that we call our enemy by the name he gives himself, and attack him before he can attack us.

Let us use the anniversary of Daniel's death to remember that no other Jew needs to suffer his fate as long as we recognize why his killers did what they did, and who supports their actions.

While Frank, and other peacniks might not, in fact, be anti-semities, they must wake up to the reality that in many cases, they are defacto supporting people who are, and whether they like it or not, they cannot call for "peace" when such hate abounds. Peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the absence of the kind of blind hatred and ignorance that killed Daniel Perl.

In all due respect, I don't think you can accurately lump the motives of the diverse group of people who marched for peace last weekend with any anti-semitism the organizers may/not feel. That would be as unfair as categorizing Republicans as racists. You also can't assume that those who are against war with Iraq at this time are not practical, and they want to give Saddam Hussein an eternal free pass. Some commentators, such as Mark Steyn, have cast it in an either/or frame that makes this assumption, and then proceed to accuse us all of being irrational. And yet, these commentators never take the logical next step of saying, "OK, if war is not justifiable now, what would you consider adequate justification? How long would you agree to letting Saddam Hussein go on this way?" (Under such a scenario, these commentators would actually be taking a moral high ground (showing willingness to dialogue with the peaceniks) as well as potentially showing that the peaceniks have no plan and are politically bankrupt. I think it's telling that no one wants to promote this dialog. (I also think it's telling that our administration pushed through resolution 1441 without reaching agreement first on what counts as a material breach: this is project management 101, and our MBA President doesn't seem to have done so well on that. But I drift.)

I come from the Southern part of the United States, and am very familiar with the impact of racism. I can assure you that I am not complacent about anti-semitism. And I think that the other side of the political spectrum is making a grave mistake by not realizing the diversity within the broad group of those who want peace. Disagreements over when it is time to go to war do not preclude us from fighting anti-semitism.

(By the way, Stephen sent me a link to an article which is intended to clarify his position. I hope he will respond here, rather than in private email, so the dialog is in the town square.)

Deb,
Exactly right.

I'm sure there were many, perhaps the majority of "peace" marchers who had the most benign motives. However, so did the students at Oxford and Cambridge in the '30's who vowed not to fight for "King or country". So did the huge throngs who cheered Neville Chamberlain after Munich when he proclaimed "peace in our time". I follow Orwell who pointed out that pacifists were "objectively pro-Hitler", just as the peace marchers are objectively pro-Saddam (I notice he has stiffened his resistance to compliance citing the world wide "peace" demonstrators.) I think the pacifists in England made war more likely and when it came more terrible. However the moral self-satisfaction of pacifism is very great, just as it is a shared satisfaction to march in a throng denouncing America and Israel while singing peace songs. Yet, as Kipling said,
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot"
So I'm sure those same demonstrators who spat at Fire fighters on Sunday will be praising them and the military when the war heats up again.
However I digress; what I really wanted to focus on was the anti-semitism now spreading like a deadly virus through the left, world wide. Just look at the list of organizers of the demonstrations; you will find many whose main function is to delegitimize Israel and blame the Jews for the troubles of the oppressed Arab masses. While it's true you can't blame the marchers for the sins of the organizers, isn't it the responsibility of SOME of them to disavow the anti-semitism of the leaders? ANSWER, one of the main organizers, barred Michael Lerner, a far left Jewish activist from participating. Lerner is an Israel bashing Jew but his sin was simply being a Jew. Why does no-one on the left seek to combat this virulence? I argue that it is utopian thinking, (see Joshua Muravchik's Heaven On Earth, The Rise and Fall of Socialism), and the need for scapegoat's to explain its failure that casts Jews as the eternal target of irrational hatred. I eagerly look forward to some on the left recognizing this. Actually there is one I can think of--Ron Rosenbaum of the NY Observer who has recognized this and spoken out against it. Are there any others?

The article I cited is by David Brooks:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/268jlqme.asp

And here's a recent sampling of the sort of thing I said was straightforwardly spewed from mosques:

Tuesday, February 18, 2003
"O United States, O Britain, and O you Jews, sons of apes and pigs" Friday Sermons 14 February 2003

Friday Sermons Deal With Pilgrimage, Iraqi Imam Calls Iraqis for Jihad
Ramalla: [Iraq war] is a dual plot against our Palestinian people and
steadfast Iraqi people, and our Arab and Islamic governments are waiting
until the enemy has pounced on our Muslim Iraqi people.
[With thanks to www.mideastweb.org/mewnews1.htm ]

Friday Sermons Deal With Pilgrimage, Iraqi Imam Calls Iraqis for Jihad
GMP20030216000074 Middle East -- FBIS Report in Arabic 14 Feb 03 [FBIS
Report]

Following is a roundup of Friday sermons carried by the news media of Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Syria, Iraq, and Qatar on
14 February 2003:

SAUDI ARABIA:

Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabia TV1 in Arabic, official television station of
the Saudi Government, carries at 0940 GMT a live sermon from the holy mosque
in Mecca:

Shaykh Salih Muhammad Al Talib delivers the sermon, which he begins by
congratulating pilgrims on accomplishing the pilgrimage rituals. He prays to
God to accept their worship and calls on them to pursue their piety.

The imam urges Muslims everywhere to uphold their religion, ponder their
relationship with God, take stock of their position, rectify their faults,
and hold to the unification testimony of "there is no God but Allah and
Muhammad is His messenger" due to "the present circumstances surrounding the
nation."

The imam continues with the same theme in the second sermon. He calls on
Muslims to fear God and seek His mercy for the sake of their own salvation.

The imam concludes with a prayer to God to support Islam and Muslims, humble
infidelity and infidels, destroy the enemies of religion, and make this and
other Muslim countries safe and secure. He prays: "O God, whoever wishes
Islam and Muslims evil, busy him with himself and turn his plot against
him." He also prays: "O God, support oppressed Muslims for your sake
everywhere. O God, support them in Palestine and on every land and under
every sky. O God, deal with the enemies of religion for they are within your
power."

Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabia TV2 in Arabic, official television station of
the Saudi Government, carries at 0940 GMT a live sermon from the holy mosque
in Medina.

Shaykh Abd-al-Bari Bin-Awad al-Thubayti delivers the sermon, in which he
urges pilgrims and worshippers to pursue their piety. He says worship is not
just prayer to God, but also job in support of family and charity in aid of
the poor. Moreover, he says, worship is good social manners. In short,
worship is a system of life, he adds.

The imam continues with the same theme in the second sermon. He urges
worshippers to continue their good deeds, such as prayer and charity.

The imam concludes with a prayer to God to support Islam and Muslims, humble
infidelity and infidels, destroy the enemies of religion, and make this and
all Muslim countries safe and secure. He prays: "O God, whoever wishes us,
Islam, and Muslims evil, busy him with himself and make his plot backfire on
him." He also prays: "O God, support the mujahidin who elevate your word
everywhere. O God, make them steadfast. O God, direct their arrows. O God,
give them victory over your enemy and their enemy."

YEMEN:

Sanaa Republic of Yemen Television in Arabic, official television station of
the Republic of Yemen, carries at 0927 GMT a live sermon from the Grand
Mosque in Sanaa.

Shaykh Akram Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqayhi delivers the sermon, which he devotes
to Id al-Adha, saying such holidays are occasions for prayer and good deeds,
especially charity, as well as rejoice and brotherhood.

The imam devotes the second sermon to a general prayer to God for mercy and
salvation. He prays: "O God, support our brother mujahidin in Palestine,
Iraq, and everywhere. O God, support them with Your angels, strengthen their
hearts, and give them victory over their enemies. O God, deal with the
aggressor Zionists and the arrogant Americans, as they are within Your
power." The imam also prays for success for the president in his work for
the wellbeing of the country and people.

JORDAN:

Amman Jordan Television Channel 1 in Arabic, official television station of
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, carries at 1000 GMT a live sermon from
martyr King Abdallah mosque in Amman.

Dr. Mahmud al-Awatili delivers the sermon, which he begins by congratulating
pilgrims on accomplishing their rituals and praying to God to accept their
pilgrimage and return them safely to their countries.

Turning to current events, the imam says he hopes that in their upcoming
summit the Arab leaders would close their ranks in order to spare their
countries and peoples of all evil. He also appeals to "peace-loving" world
leaders "to deter the arrogant ones, who have been blinded by their love for
bloodshed, and make them keep their fleets off Muslim shores and go back
safely to their homes before God's anger befalls them," as it has befallen
the "espionage shuttle."

The imam devotes the second sermon to the ritual of sacrifice during Id
al-Adha, urging those who have not made their sacrifices to do so within the
feast days.

The imam concludes with a prayer to God for mercy and salvation. He prays to
God to keep this and other Muslim countries safe and secure. He also prays
for King Abdallah in his efforts for the wellbeing of the country and the
people.

WEST BANK & GAZA STRIP

Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel in Arabic, official television station of
the Palestinian Authority, carries at 0955 GMT a live sermon from Khalil
al-Wazir Mosque in Gaza.

Shaykh Ibrahim Mudayris delivers the sermon, in which he urges Muslims to
pursue their piety, saying that it insures fulfillment of religious duties
and avoidance of sins. He also urges them to continue repeating the
unification testimony of "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His
messenger." The imam then discusses pilgrimage rituals in detail.

In the second sermon the imam turns to current developments. He appeals to
Palestinian leaders saying that while he appreciates their resistance
against the enemy in defense of national territory and honor, they must
assess every phase of the struggle. He says: "we must assess every phase of
our legitimate struggle. We must also assess every means we use for jihad
and struggle against our enemies. If the phase demands an offensive means,
then we should use it, and if it demands a political means, then we should
use it also. Moreover, we must also insure a recess [Mewnews- not clear] for
our mujahidin."

The imam concludes with a prayer for unity, victory, and release of all
release of prisoners.

Ramallah Voice of Palestine, official radio station of the Palestinian
Authority, carries at 0955 GMT a live sermon from Al-Aqsa Mosque in
Jerusalem.

Shaykh Yusuf Abu-Sunaynah delivers the sermon, which he devotes to his
favorite subject of social reform within the Palestinian society in East
Jerusalem. He says that homes and schools must give closer attention to
morals, which, he says, have been corrupted by modern information
technology. He urges parents to teach their daughters to obey their
husbands. He reads what he terms "the mother's 10 commandments" to her
daughter concerning her husband.

The imam continues with the same theme in the second sermon. He says instead
of following Islamic teachings Muslim youths nowadays indulge in corrupt
habits, such as taking drugs, committing crimes, and engaging in fraud. The
imam also alludes to what he terms the manifestations of humiliation shown
by long queues of Palestinians outside the Interior Ministry and National
Social Security Department in Jerusalem.

Discussing current developments, the imam says that the United States and
Britain have completed the deployment of their forces for an attack against
Iraq. Turkey, he adds, has declared support for the United States, Iraq's
Arab neighbors have opened their air bases to "enemy" planes and soldiers,
and the US secretary of state has openly declared US intention to change the
map of the region after the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. It is a dual plot
against our Palestinian people and steadfast Iraqi people, and our Arab and
Islamic governments are waiting until the enemy has pounced on our Muslim
Iraqi people, he says. Would there be a courageous Islamic Arab awakening to
disappoint the aggressors, he asks.

The imam concludes with a prayer to God to support Islam and Muslims and
humble infidelity and infidels.

SYRIA:

Damascus Syrian Arab Republic radio in Arabic, official station of the
Syrian Government, carries at 1005 GMT a live sermon from Al-Mawlawiyah
Mosque in Damascus.

Shaykh Sulayman al-Afandi delivers the sermon, which he begins by calling on
Muslims to help one another, support the oppressed, repulse every sinful
aggression, and help the poor through alms giving. Islamic holidays are not
only days of rejoice, but also of worship and charity, he says.

Turning to current developments, the imam wonders about the indifference of
Arab and world conscience to the causes of justice, freedom, and human
rights and says Arab national duty and honor call for "standing by our
brothers in Palestine and the Golan."

Syria under President Bashar al-Asad offers every support to the steadfast
Arabs in Palestine and the Golan, he adds. "Today, O faithful," the imam
says, "we hear the beat of war drums and the sound of danger alarms. We hear
threats by the United States against Iraq and its besieged people. The
United States is furious about the so-called weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, but silent about the huge arsenal of nuclear, biological, chemical,
and other weapons of mass destruction in Israel. This confirms the vicious
imperialist intentions and premeditated hostile plans against everything
Arab and Muslim. Syria has rejected aggression against oppressed people in
any country."

The imam devotes the second sermon to a general prayer for Islamic victory.
He prays: "O God, whoever wishes Islam and Muslim goodness make him
successful, and whoever wishes them otherwise deal with him with the sword
of Your vengeance." He prays for the salvation of Palestinians and Iraqis.

IRAQ:

Baghdad Republic of Iraq Television in Arabic, official television station
of the Iraqi Government, carries at 0935 GMT a live sermon from Abd-al-Qadir
al-Jaylani Mosque in Baghdad.

Shaykh Bakr Abd-al-Razzaq al-Samarra'i delivers the sermon, which he begins
by calling on worshippers to rely on God. He says that power lies in the
hands of sincere, faithful men, who have pledged their lives to God.

Turning to the current crisis, the imam warns threateningly: "I warn you, O
United States, O Britain, and O you Jews, sons of apes and pigs. You, Jews,
are behind sedition on earth. God has chosen us to chop off your filthy
heads, and we will chop them off." The imam reiterates that sedition on
earth "takes place with the funds and media intrigues of criminal Jews." "It
is very regrettable and shameful that the United States and Britain bow to
Jewish tyrants," he says.

The imam makes an emotional appeal, saying Iraqis are ready to respond to
the call of the prophet. They are ready to die and meet their God, he says.
"We are ready, O Muhammad," he cries out, "we yearn for you and God. We
can't stand this world and its corrupt dens, which contain these people,
these murderers of the prophets, who kill our children and women daily and
destroy and level lands." "O God," the imam cries out again, rousing the
congregation, "give us a chance for martyrdom. We are coming. Here are
Iraqis waiting for the hour to meet you. Permits us to be among the
supporters of Muhammad and Islam. O God Almighty honor us with the call of
the Koran: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight,
because they are wronged, and verily Allah is most powerful for their aid."
[Koranic verse] This brought out deafening cries of "Allahu Akbar" from the
congregation.

By this moment, the whole atmosphere in the mosque is charged with strong
emotion, while the imam continues to invoke Islam's great saints, many of
whom are buried in Iraq, including Imam Al-Husayn, grandson of the prophet
and symbol of jihad and martyrdom, especially for the Shiites. "Allahu
Akbar," the imam cries out echoed by the congregation. The words of "Allahu
Akbar" ricochet within the walls of the mosque. "Allahu Akbar," the imam
goes on, "and victory for Iraqis, Allahu Akbar and victory for us with God's
might, Allahu Akbar and victory for us with the blessings of the prophet,
may the peace and blessings of God be upon him. God is our best supporter."

Calming down a bit, the imam says: "Look, O world, this is how Iraqis are.
This is their nobility and honor. Their honor is from God and his prophet.
It is their souls that speak not tongues. God is our best supporter."

The imam devotes the second sermon to a deep, emotional prayer to God for
salvation. He warns: "The traitors and the unjust; the renegade agents and
covetous criminals will see what their end would be."

The imam concludes with a deep, emotional prayer for martyrdom that brings
out a solemn "Amen' from the congregation. He prays: "O God, deal with the
United States, Britain, and Zionism, as they are within Your power. O God,
shake the ground under their feet. O God, defeat them and make them booty
for Muslims. O God, show our revenge on them." He also prays: "O God, deal
with the tyrant of the age, Bush the criminal, Sharon, and his followers."
"O God, whoever wishes us, our country, leader, Arabs and Muslims evil, make
the cycle of evil turn against him. Turn his plot against him until he
butchers himself with his own hands. O God, turn the infidels against one
another. Busy them with themselves. O God, freeze the blood in their veins
and make their plots destroy them. O God, defeat their soldiers, split their
ranks, and turn Your torture on them." The imam prays for Saddam's victory
for the sake of Islam and Muslims.

QATAR:

Doha Qatar Television service in Arabic, official television station of the
State of Qatar, carries at 0850 GMT a live sermon from Umar Bin-al-Khattab
Mosque in Doha.

An unidentified imam delivers the sermon, which he devotes to the messages
brought by the different prophets. The imam devotes the second sermon to id
al-adha prayers.

The imam concludes with a prayer to God to support Islam and Muslims. He
prays: "O God, whoever wishes us, Islam and Muslims goodness make him
successful, and whoever wishes us, Islam and Muslims evil, deal with him.
Make his plots destroy him." He also prays for the success of Muslim rulers.

Stephen, thanks for your last two posts. They make your position much more clearer, and indicate a level of discrimination between the intents of the organizers and those of the marchers which was not apparent in your original.

Sadly, groups which are more socially acceptable have yet to organize marches, although they have come out against war at this point (for instance, the Roman Catholic Church). I'm not sure if you would consider that an improvement, however. Given our country's past, and its broad failure to adequately come out against the transports during WWII, I'm not sure who would be a sponsor so acceptable as to not be a lightning rod for some sort of criticism.

It is possible, by the way, that Orwell was wrong... Even Samuel Johnson was here and there!!

I have not seen criticism of ANSWER which is as specific as you've asked, but I believe have seen columns by Eric Alterman which question their authority. (Perhaps even from Joe Conason, not sure.)

Stephen, I think I'm going to do a whole post on this topic because so many people are observing Daniel's death, and I really want people to think about what lesson we can learn from this tragedy, and how--sadly--Daniel's attempt to "dialogue" with anti-American, anti-semitic islamists in an effort to write a story so others would "understand" them resulted only in his death.

As you have noted above, the enemy has told us time and time and time again who they are, why they hate us, and what they want to do to us. There was no "news" for Daniel to find, there was no "story," and the sooner the rest of the free world figures that out, the better.

As for Frank, I can respect your point of view that we shouldn't vilify the peace protesters for what the organizers believe or say, but I have to agree with Stephen that you do have a responsibility--if for no other reason than your are protesting publicly, in front of people who do NOT know where you stand personally--to not accidentally lend credibility to extremist points of view who happen to be marching shoulder-to-shoulder with you. Whether that means carrying one "Saddam comply" or "Saddam resign" sign, or simply having speakers who denounce anti-semitism openly in stead of passively tolerating it in their midst, you can't just claim it's not your problem. To your point, I'll be the first person to say that while I agree with some of the pro-life position (partial birth abortions are murder, for example), you won't see me marching on a clinic. And even though I think we should fight to protect our 2nd ammendment rights, you won't see me marching side-by-side with neo-nazis or white supremecists who think so too. This is common sense. There are many ways to protest, and ANSWER is not the only one.

Anti-Semitism at the "peace" march in London:

London Peace Marchers Say: Long Live the Intifada
Whose friends are these? | 17 February 2003

“May I ask why you are marching today?” I tentatively queried the lady in front of me at Saturday’s anti-war demonstration in London. Her placard bore a picture of a dead baby and the words, SHARON’S GREATEST VICTORY: LONG LIVE THE INTIFADA—a sign that was only slightly more provocative to a New Yorker like me than the ever-present: FREEDOM FOR PALESTINE: VICTORY TO THE INTIFADA. I used the line I’d perfected on dozens of people that morning, from Muslim boys in black and white kifeyahs, wrapped terrorist-style around mouth and nose, to hippies in army fatigues, and grannies whose homemade signs read simply NO WAR. For I was marching as an observer only, trying to gauge the mood of the 1 million or so who filled the streets from Haymarket to Hyde Park Corner. Till now, I had always gotten a civil—if ill informed or garbled—answer.

Dressed in a beautiful camelhair coat, with an opulent fur hat and Gucci shades, this lady interested me: her—at least to my NYC-bred mind—anti-Semitic placard hardly fit the refined figure she cut. Nor did her answer. “No,” she snipped. “You’re American, aren’t you? You’re not very popular here today. I should go home, if I were you. In fact, I should go back to America.” In other words, “Yanqui go home”—despite the Upstairs pronunciation.

Anti-Americanism came from some very strange quarters on Saturday. “September 11 was the fault of the Americans. They want to rule the world, like, literally, but also with cultural imperialism,” explained one cliché-spouting student in Nikes, as we waited together in the half-block-long line for Starbucks. “September 11 was the only way the oppressed could make themselves heard.” A yuppie, wearing a NYC hat and a badge that read OLD EUROPE, said, “I’m marching against hypocrisy: America is the greatest terrorist in the world, but they call their terrorism war. You’re Canadian, right?” Or the red-bearded hippie, who mumbled through a McDonald’s burger, “Socially, we’re not allied with the US.” It wasn’t so surprising when a group of yoofs, clutching beer cans, elbowed me off the curb. As I fell, one hissed, “You fucking Americans are so pushy.”

But, having gone to Sarah Lawrence, I wasn’t shocked by the notions that America is “an imperialist power trying to take over the world” and “in hock to big business.” I’ve seen the defaced American flag before—our stars replaced by logos for Shell, IBM, McDonalds, and the like; it could just as easily have been waved on an American campus as by the Bristol Student Union on Saturday’s march. But the defaced flag of Israel carried by a bearded, middle-aged Scot took my breath away: a tank, dripping blood, was superimposed over the Star of David. I’d never seen that at a NYC student rally, and I never hope to.

A motley assortment of activists had organized the march: the Stop the War Coalition (founded by trade unionists, students, and the odd celebrity or politician), the Muslim Association of Britain, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I thought, naively, that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had disarmed itself years ago, when the end of the Cold War proved that the arms race had worked. How wrong I was—scores of old Lefties came out on Saturday to refight ancient battles. But what were they doing marching side by side with radical Islamic groups? How curious to see the CND demonstrating against disarming a murderous dictator before he gets nuclear weapons. Curiouser still was the weird amalgam of chants and slogans, the trivial next to the libelous: a BAGELS NOT BOMBS next to ZIONISM EQUALS RACISM. DOWN WITH ISRAEL/ BLIX LOOK INTO ISRAEL/ LONG LIVE THE INTIFADA. ISRAEL BROKE 69 UN RESOLUTIONS and JUSTICE FOR PALESTINE FIRST jostled with MAKE TEA NOT WAR and TWAT: THE WAR AGAINST TERROR. A group of veiled girls in black chadors chanted, “Bush, Bush we know you; Daddy was a killer, too,” next to trust-fund trendies in specially made T-shirts: MY BUSH MAKES LOVE NOT WAR. Where else would full-bearded Muslims, in hajji caps and white traditional dress, march next to the gay alliance, Iraqi flags vying with rainbow flags?

But one thing unified the march: a rabid hatred of Israel. Young Muslim men, beautifully turned-out yuppies, and aging hippies alike wore the kifeyah; almost all the flags that marchers waved were Palestinian flags. The VICTORY FOR THE INTIFADA sign was mass printed and distributed free by the Socialist Worker newspaper; the official slogan for the march was “Stop the war on Iraq/Freedom for Palestine.” As we walked past the Ritz, along the fanciest street in Mayfair, I saw a young man standing atop the ten-foot high entrance to the Green Park subway station: feet apart, right fist thrown up in a psuedo fascist salute, left holding a huge green flag, scrawled in Arabic, his lower face covered with the kifeyah and his head wrapped in a black scarf—the picture would not have been out of place on Al Jazeera. As the veiled girls passed him, they broke out in ululation. I couldn’t help wonder, what did all the Guardian-reading Jews of Hampstead make of marching in such company?

Many people were quick to assure me that, “We object to the Republican administration, but not to the American people—they didn’t even vote for Bush,” a canard voiced even more vehemently by London’s mayor Ken Livingstone. “This is a man who stole the US election illegally,” the mayor charged; “a man who has been arrested twice; a man who wouldn’t even fight for his country in Vietnam. And we’re being asked to die for this man—I don’t think so.” He finished by introducing the “leading American campaigner for peace and justice, Jesse Jackson.” This ambulance chaser of international disorder proceeded to chant, ad nauseum, “Stop the war—save the people; stop the war—save the people; Give peace. A chance. Keep hope. A-live,” while the British listened, entranced. Then, of course, there was the rapper, Ms Dynamite, Harold Pinter (who read a “poem”), and Bianca Jagger. Near the rally a group was selling T-shirts for £10: FARRAKAN SAYS NO TO WAR.

“Are you Muslim?” I rudely asked a young boy, draped in a Palestinian flag, whose friend chanted, “Allahu Akhbar,” echoed by the surrounding crowd, as a nearby group of would-be hippies sang plaintively, “All we are saaay—ing is give peace a chance.” The boy seemed shy but not angry. “Yes,” he replied, “but not a very good Muslim. I don’t pray five times a day.” And what did this baby-faced 17-year-old, with his radical friend, think about America? “America is a nice country, and Sadaam is not a nice man. But now whenever they talk about terror they talk about Islam. I don’t want there to be a war on Islam. We don’t sit around saying kill, kill, kill, all day. We don’t want to kill; Islam loves peace; but America doesn’t seem to understand Islam at all.” As I left, he called after me: “I am glad we are on this march together. That is a good sign.” I wondered what the intifada-supporting toffs would make of him.

On the whole, the Muslim militants—like the one who told me that AIDS was an American conspiracy to keep the Third World in place—were more willing to speak with me than the older, white marchers. School children and next-generation hippies were eager to talk, too. But the respectable middle classes, many from the countryside, clammed up. It was these who shouted, “Vive la France”; these who wore OLD EUROPE badges, and carried signs reading SUPPORT REGIME CHANGE: GET RID OF BLAIR. It was these who rounded on me, when I asked about the threat of terrorism: “If we get attacked now, it will be America’s fault.”

Julia Magnet is an editorial writer for the (London) Daily Telegraph.

If Dr. Johnson were alive today, he would kick your ass for twisting his (and other's) words to fit your vitriolic, war-mongering bullshit.

Wow! What a well reasoned argument. They must have taught you well in whatever madrassa you attended.

Now that we all understand that not all of the protesters agree completely with everything for which ANSWER stands, perhaps it would be responsible for us to talk about what all the protesters do agree on, namely, we shouldn't be invading Iraq. We could be making plans for it to happen later, should certain conditions be met, but millions of people around the world marched to express this. Now, at least, is not the right time. Just as there has been no organization which you might consider more acceptable organizing peace marches, it's noteworthy that there has been nothing to a similar extent which supports going into Iraq. Where have the hawk marches been? How many attended? The Burke analogy of quiet cows and loud crickets breaks down because cows and crickets are different species with different capabilities. Humans can all attend demonstrations, and most can march. Where is the outpouring of support from the hawks? Could it be that the feelings that we should go into Iraq are not as intense? Could it be that there is no argument for going into Iraq which will bear the scrutiny of a few hours' sunlight, before it dies like mold?

To point to antisemitism as if it washes away the arguments for peace is misguided and intellectually dishonest.

The obvious point about citing the numbers of marchers is that millions of people can be wrong even if they are marching under the banner of "peace". Will you concede that perhaps those of us who favor military action now, against Saddam, also want peace? I would assert that we ARE already at war, a war launched against us by enemies who hate liberal democracy and all our freedoms. Those of us who choose not to indulge in the self-flattering narcissism of mass marches, still honestly believe it is a mistake to postpone dealing with a maniacal tyrant who has been warring on us for many years. Remember, Saddam has been violating the cease fire agreement since he signed it in 1991. Now that 9-11 has awakened us from the '90's vacation from history, those of us who favor dealing NOW with Saddam believe we will help create a more peaceful Middle East. After all we will be destroying a tyrant, removing his WMD's, ending his oil money fueled quest for nuclear weapons, ending the possibility of those weapons falling into the hands of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah and others. A useful bonus will be ridding Baghdad of enemies like Abu Abbas, al Qaeda operatives, as well as ending the bonuses for suicide bombers who pursue the same tactics as the 9-11 fanatics. Furthermore, as Tony Blair pointed out, those "peace" marchers in London are outnumbered by those tortured and murdered in Saddam's gulags.
Pointing to anti-semitism doesn't "wash away" the argument for peace. It underscores that there cannot be "peace" unless the central role of the ongoing war on the Jews, supported with money and materiel by Saddam, is acknowledged. It highlights the fact that there is an alliance between the anti-semitism of our enemies and the so-called "peace" marchers. Again, peace requires liberal democracies confronting tyrants who seek to destroy the Jews. Saddam is one of those, in a long line going back through Hitler and Stalin for thousands of years. I'm not willing to wait until one of the Middle East kleptocracies or theocracies can do what Iran has vowed to do once it has a nuclear bomb: solve the problem of the Jews by detonating such a bomb in Tel Aviv. So I would argue that we have been at war for years, have been able to pretend we weren't until 9-11, and the route to peace is to press the war vigorously until our enemies have been defeated. The next phase of the battle is in Iraq. Posing this as a conflict between peace loving doves and war loving hawks is intellectually dishonest, in my view. But of course there is another route to peace; it was captured by Orwell when he said: "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it."--Orwell
And finally, from the great liberal, John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." I am willing to fight for real peace.

The obvious point about citing the numbers of marchers is that millions of people can be wrong even if they are marching under the banner of "peace".

Of course that can be true. But I haven't even heard of "thousands" marching for war now, or "hundreds of thousands." How can I judge how heartfelt and widespread this acceptance of war is? How small a minority should be allowed to dictate to the majority?

Will you concede that perhaps those of us who favor military action now, against Saddam, also want peace?

Of course. But to me it appears as if your feelings are inconsistent. As best I can tell, you see war now as a way to peace; I see war later, if necessary, as a way to peace.

I would assert that we ARE already at war, a war launched against us by enemies who hate liberal democracy and all our freedoms.

But that is not the same thing as invading Iraq. So far there is no evidence that Iraq is at war against us. And as much as you believe that when the smoke clears there will be a connection between Sep. 11 and Iraq, that hasn't been found. Even though Rumsfeld started looking for it that day!

Those of us who choose not to indulge in the self-flattering narcissism of mass marches, still honestly believe it is a mistake to postpone dealing with a maniacal tyrant who has been warring on us for many years.

Your indictment of the marches as "self-flattering" self-flatters your complacency over your not marching for something you care deeply about. As for postponement, why is now the crucial moment? What is different now from last August? or next June? or a year from now? No one has provided any cogent evidence indicating the rate of progress of Iraq's armament plans, to suggest why "time is running out." All this talk of time running out is reminiscent of a stock boiler room suggesting that I have to buy a 'hot stock' today. We need more information as to why, with adequate pressure from the world community, we can't set a practical deadline. One which overcomes the failures of 1441 to set explicit standards for compliance, what consititutes war-worthy non-compliance, and what "serious consequences" are. The Bush administration failed miserably in not doing this before.

Remember, Saddam has been violating the cease fire agreement since he signed it in 1991.

Agreed. And something stronger than 1441 should have been pressed for years ago. But our prior slowness doesn't mean we should compensate for it by driving the car at 200 mph now.

After all we will be destroying a tyrant (etc.) Not at all clear that the future you foresee will be the one that occurs. As you know, Iraq's politics are gragmented, and it's impossible to tell what will rise up in its absence. You may remember that Clinton, prior to his entry into Bosnia-Herzogovina, was held to a standard of "what is the exit strategy" by the feet-dragging republicans who felt that there was no place for the US in remedying world horrors. (Remember that?) There have been no pronouncements from the Bush White House regarding an exit strategy; I don't think 9-11 changes the need for that. (BTW, I didn't ask for one regarding B-H, and I'm glad to see that no one has cotton in their skulls this time aroiund.) But the guarantees are certainly not there... And as for what the Bush White House will do, well, who knows? They might completely forget about Iraq after the fighting's done, in the same way that they failed to budget any reconstruction money for Afghanistan. We are not dealing with the most astute planners here, and you should be cautious. Bush could be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Furthermore, as Tony Blair pointed out, those "peace" marchers in London are outnumbered by those tortured and murdered in Saddam's gulags.

Little known fact: the number of marchers in New Orleans, or Chicago, were also fewer. But why count those in London alone? And why not throw in an estimate of those who will die on both sides? And why not tell us why you think wat will bring all those who were murdered back? And while you're at it, any estimates of what the human cost will be with a 3-6 month delay? These are the relevant figures for discussing why now. What will it save to do it now? Why is there no intellectual honesty in the discussions, but merely irrelevant rhetoric?

It highlights the fact that there is an alliance between the anti-semitism of our enemies and the so-called "peace" marchers.

Again, you're generalizing from the anti-semitism you see in the organizers to all the marchers. You're also trying to discount the sincerity of their desires for peace by putting peace in quotation marks. Nice rhetorical flourish, but I question its validity. Of course there are some who are anti-semitic. And you knwo something? Spend enough time at freerepublic.com and you'll encounter anti-semitism among the hawks there. Prejudice of all sorts. What makes you think the left has a lock on anti-semitism?

Again, peace requires liberal democracies confronting tyrants who seek to destroy the Jews. Saddam is one of those, in a long line going back through Hitler and Stalin for thousands of years.

I agree with some of that, except that I didn't think Saddam was particularly picky. Isn't the saw from the Bush administration that he "gassed his own people"? Adding anti-semitism to it doesn't change the nature of the argument. (Stepping aside for a moment, it could weaken some of your arguments with some audiences...)

I'm not willing to wait until one of the Middle East kleptocracies or theocracies can do what Iran has vowed to do once it has a nuclear bomb: solve the problem of the Jews by detonating such a bomb in Tel Aviv.

It's irresponsible to argue with you on that point, the way you've framed it. But your argument would be much more effective if anyone could provide evidence of the rate of progress of Iraq's program. Between the two potential weapons programs (nuclear and bio), I was under the impression that bio was the greater threat, for one thing. As for the rate of progress on the nuclear front, the evidence which Bush and Blair cited prior to 1441 was based on outdated reporting from the IAEA. And it was dishonest of them to act as if it was still reliable information.

The next phase of the battle is in Iraq.

Why Iraq and not North Korea? Doesn't North Korea have missiles which can hit California?

Posing this as a conflict between peace loving doves and war loving hawks is intellectually dishonest, in my view. But of course there is another route to peace; it was captured by Orwell when he said: "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it."--Orwell

Then why pose the conflict that way? In fact, you've done worse, by describing the doves as naive anti-semites. And there's yet another way: Keep the inspectors active, give them more time, negotiate with out UN partners to come up with a 1441 that has teeth — e.g., agreed-upon standards as to what requires war — and make it very clear to Saddam what the standards for his compliance are. No ambiguity. And then hold partners feet to the fire if they back down from enforcement. But none of these bullying, awkward attempts to embarrass the UN by threatening that it risks becoming a debating society. When has talk like that ever succeeded?

I am willing to fight for real peace.

So am I — when the time is right. But I think it's premature at this point.

Frank,
Glad to hear you'd be willing to fight at some point. When? I favor fighting earlier, remembering the ways the League of Nations tried to "contain" Hitler. Would it have been premature to take him on in 1935? I guess so--after all he hadn't done anything to anyone but his own countrymen. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, i.e. taking the fight to Saddam "prematurely". I believe we should have sought peace through military action a long time ago, as soon as we realized he was violating the truce agreement and making vast quantities of anthrax, VX and pursuing nuclear weapons. The fact that we were too slow and wilfully blind in the past, doesn't mean we're being too fast now. Instead it means we've awakened from a deep sleep and realize we cannot continue down this dangerous path. You and I have a different view of what constitutes sufficient evidence of connections amongst our enemies. I don't require legal proof. It's enough for me that Saddam shares aims and goals with Islamists; I remember Hitler and Stalin working together, Japan and Germany allied, Mussolini and Hitler working together because of shared motives. When Iraq's govt newspaper cheered the 9-11 attacks and when Osama in his latest rant told his followers it was okay to work with an infidel like Saddam since they shared the goal of destroying America, that's "proof" enough for me. You want to destroy my country and are acquiring the means to do so? I'll destroy you before you get the chance. I think we have waited far far too long.

A last point re: numbers--I'm not sure what your point is. If marchers number millions and proclaim they are for peace--you've conceded war might be a route to real peace-- and are more passionate about their approach (I'd say blinded by passion) should that give extra weight to their view? Why shouldn't my less passionate (I'd say less exhibitionistic) view be more persuasive since it's not as likely to be warped by the irrational aspect of passion? I've seen great passion expressed by huge throngs of Hitler's followers in Leni Riefenstahl's films. I've seen mass marches by Arabs in support of children strapping bombs around them and blowing up men, women and children in pizza parlors). I suspect it would be easy to get millions of Islamists to march in favor of completing Hitler's genocide (I do come back to that central question--the fate of the Jews). Does that mean policy makers should find ways to support them? Leaders can either tap that passion and ride it to popularity or they can stand against it. Of course it's not possible to predict the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam, but there is potential for a hopeful outcome, and citing all the reasons not to undertake the task now is a way to avoid acting. I've been clear: I think we should have removed Saddam long ago--I was very upset when Bush 41 stopped short of that. What however would convince you that war was necessary? It is not enough, in my view, to say Saddam is an evil man. H.G. Wells said that about Hitler but maintained he was not a threat and would not become one.

Addendum: I don't see what you're carping about re: greater specificity to 1441 deadlines. A 14-0 vote demanded immediate verified disarming. What could be more specific? He hasn't done that. The question, as Colin Powell pointed out is what the UN will do about that defiance. The lengthy written report was a farce. About the cost of war: WWII was very costly. Had Hitler gotten an atomic bomb and used it the cost would have been much greater.

I'm afraid I must beg your indulgence tonight, Steven. You've taken the time to make a careful reply which deserves similar care, and I've been caught up by more workaday affairs. Meanwhile, current events have decide they will, unconscionably, not wait for us. (The gall!) On the one hand, we have the Iraqis indecisive "do we really have to destroy these rockets we all know violate the agreements?", and on the other, we have the Bushies ongoing effort to erode our confidence in everything they say, even when it comes to comparatively small ticket items like whether or not reducing taxes will increase growth. (Begging the question, if they'd lie about economics, would they lie about WMD and human lives, and costs and benefits there?) Too much to deal with tonight, sorry.

Frank,
When you have more time: I note that you have advanced no discernible argument or evidence supporting your not-now-but later-position on the war other than that many people don't like war (and or the United States). Antiwar rallies were spirited pre WWII. Hitler after all had not attacked the United States (cf "Iraq has not made war on us.")It appears that you and the demonstrators will clearly not be convinced by anything short of a military disaster, such as the German blitzkrieg, or Pearl Harbor, or another 9-11. But the rest of us in the Coalition of the Willing need not wait to suffer in this way. Furthermore, postponement makes no military sense at all: the time to fight is when we are strongest and the enemy is weakest. It's as simple as that.

Clever Send me an email in repsonse to my previous response acknowledging the demands of the workaday world, and then hope your response to mine will hang out unnasnwered by either a) not indicating in the email that you've already responded, or b) not indicate that you will respond quickly. OK, it's your site, you pay the hosting fees, do as you will. But so shall ye be judged (Sheaskespeare? Rundgren? El Boss? dunno, sounds good nonetheless...)

Look, I advance no further argument on the alternative to war-now vs dove eternal because no leaders have voiced it, largely because the W Hawks have so far not chosen to ask. They don't care. What do they care to do? Lie. Absolutely every argument for war falls by the wayside, as complete, valueless TRASH when the White House lies and distorts. You can't trust them about the economy (they LIE). Why trust them about war? You're allying yourself with a venomous, filthy party. You know better.

(Raspberry, says Edith Ann.)

So here's where we stand. You have admitted that you "don't require legal proof" before engaging in something so horrible as war; that it's "enough for me that Saddam shares aims and goals with Islamists."

Unfortunately you're not king yet; the world has higher standards about trivial exercises like war.

While you would like to do away with a request for evidence that the time is "now," through your statement that "The fact that we were too slow and wilfully blind in the past, doesn't mean we're being too fast now", it also doesn't mean that we aren't being too fast now.

To make a case for war, and insist that the time must be now, you (or the Bush administration) need credible evidence. That evidence hasn't been presented to the world community yet, unless it's been done behind closed doors. What we do know so far is this:

• The Bush administration has analyzed the available information poorly, and has overemphasized trivial discoveries. Example: the papers the inspectors found in the scientist's home. Rice can play that up as much as she wants, but Blix has told us that those papers were merely the scientist's personal papers. Completely innocuous. Another example? Concluding that British intelligence had done an excellent job in its work (lifted from a magazine).
  
• The Bush administration is not believable. Bush proved that he was willing to do anything in order to get elected, lying to us in the debates, and sending the anti-semitic James Baker to Florida for the recount battles (that was really sensitive, doncha think, sending Baker there with all the people in PB County who have to live with accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan?)
  
• Bush has continued to lie to us since becoming President. We have the "trifecta" line he kept trying to backdate; we have what I posted yesterday regarding the "Blue Chip" economic conclusions; and yes, there's the list in Paul Krugman's column.
  

The evidence you've been relying on is poor. It's not just falling short of legal proof, it doesn't even pass the smell test. And frankly, given the extent to which Bush has shown a willingness to lie to us, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Secy. Powell has also been lied to.

There is no case for invading Iraq now.

As for comparisons to Hitler, I understand your loathing, as well as your intense interest in avoiding a similar situation. If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein is engaged in that kind of annihilation now, I would be the first to recoommend immediate invasion. I was sickened by our failure to act in Rwanda, and glad we started the bombing runs in Yugoslavia. But there is no evidence that anything like that is happening in Iraq. It did before, and it may happen in the future if the world ignores Iraq, but I don't see signs of the world ignoring Iraq.

Stephen, war is just too big a deal to engage in wihtout better evidence. Unfortunately the administration which is arguing loudest for it has proven itself to be morally bankrupt.

As for issues with 1441, that resolution has to be seen as a complete failure. Why? well, it treats all violations equally, as if robbery = murder. It doesn't specify what violations (singly or accumulated) justify "serious consequences." In short, it leaves so much wiggle room that it's one of those negotiated documents that does nothing but garner positive press and delays disagreements. It's a basic point in building a team that everyone has to be on the same page; every business major knows that. Every low-rung manager in private enterprise knows what happens when agreements aren't agreements. Our MBA president should have known that, too. He's a complete failure to this point in his Presidency, with no accomplishments. War is a horrible way to get yourself into the history books.

Oh, and I forgot to add: this thing with the hydrogen car and money for AIDS medications in Africa? Don't you get tired of seeing this man continually try to reinvent himself? It's almost as if he doesn't even who he is.

Frank,
For starters, I haven't "admitted"that I don't require legal proof before using force to remove the threat posed by Saddam. I have simply asserted my views as clearly as possible. To "admit" something, implies a guilty attempt to conceal it in the first place. We're having, I assume, a conversation, not an adversarial courtroom conflict. The rest of your argument seems to rely on a caricature of my views, substituting sarcasm for reason- as for example, in your comment that "the world has higher standards about trivial exercises like war". This suggests that I regard war as trivial. As someone who actually saw war up close and personal, I think I possess at least as clear a view of war and its horrors as you do. Your passion seems to blind you to this possibility. Let me be clear: I do accept that you and many, many others truly think that war now is avoidable. I differ in that I believe we are already at war, a war involving numerous enemies, Saddam being one of them and a particularly dangerous one. I am unwilling to accept the risks of waiting and since I am not, in your felicitous phrase,"king" of the world, I'm content to use my weblog to urge and argue for vigorous and rapid application of our military power to defeat our enemies. I don't share your confidence in the inspection efforts. I agree with Colin Powell that Saddam has huge stocks of these weapons, has used them before (see Jeffrey Goldberg's articles in the NYorker for first hand accounts by surviving victims) many were accounted for in 1998 before the inspectors left, and it seems plausible to assume that he has used his oil wealth to enhance and upgrade those stocks as well as to hide them even more effectively. I for one, am unwilling to ignore his Baathist, Nazi-like ideology and his driving ambition to acquire nuclear weapons for use against Israel. The time, for me is now and it would have been easier and safer years ago. You may disagree with this argument, you may want more evidence, but calling Bush names doesn't address the problem. Nor does suggesting that Colin Powell has been deceived by the President, rather than granting that he arrived at an informed judgment which he then presented to the UN. You keep asking the question: Why now? I understand that this expresses your abhorrence for war and its terrible costs. I think there is more than enough evidence and if it's not enough for you, so be it. I look forward to "inspections" following our forceful ouster of Saddam. Till then, I'll accept that your concerns are good faith ones-even though I wish I saw more evidence that you recognized Saddam to be a greater danger, and a greater liar than George W. Bush- if you'll acknowledge that my views are good faith ones as well. As to whether the main focus of your outraged concern is Saddam or Bush, I'll leave it to readers to assess where the balance of your adverse judgement lies.
Finally, Frank, I think we're both clear on each others'views. At this point I suspect we could add more heat but not more light to this discussion.

I don't think you think war is trivial, but I think you trivialize it by having lower standards of evidence than I do. I know you feel, from what you've said in emails, that war is a horrible thing. But I think that feeling is inconsistent with what I see as a lower standard of proof on your part.

Oh dear...
Frank, you clearly are less anti-war than anti-Bush. I believe you would argue for war if Bush were against it at this point, and would probably say that he was being "isolationist" and showing depraved indifference to the Iraqi people.

Let me ask you a few questions that will, I think, prove my point:
- In 1996, when Clinton said that Saddam had WMD and would, if allowed to remain in power, use them someday, where were the protests, the demands for "proof?"
- When he backed up these comments with bombing runs in 1998--after inspectors were urged to leave because they were being threatened by Iraqi minders, and because the President was about to drop bombs on their heads, where were the protesters? The demands for proof?
- 14 countries voted to pass 1441. 14 countries OTHER than those led by the Bush Administration agreed, in writing, that Saddam "is and has been in material breach." There is your proof. There is no burden of proof on Bush alone, the proof is in the document. If it is flawed, it is in that it states no clear deadline, that is all.
- It is not unreasonable that these 14 nations should come to this conclusion given that inspectors have not set foot in Iraq in 6 years, and Saddam has not voluntarily disarmed during that time. Therefore, whatever he still had in 1998 can be assumed to still be there, and common-sense would dictate that his people are not starving solely because he likes golden toilet bowls and fancy portraits. He's buying something, and ironically, the French and Germans know what it is!
- Why have the biggest leaks vis a vis Iraqi weapons deployments and programs in the last three months come out of Germany (DAZ specifically)? Why do newspapers there have to dig for information that Schroeder knows about, but is obviously not sharing with the inspectors? I think you'd be hard-pressed to say it's "Bush's fault"
- Is Tony Blair untrustworthy too? After all, he's the one who convinced Bush to go through the UN, and Bush did. He asked Bush to get a second resolution, and he did. So far, that looks like the behavior of a trusted ally to me, not the lying duplicitous self-interested buffoon you describe.
- Believing that tax cuts will stimulate the economy may be wrong, or misguided, but it is not a LIE. There are many many economists who believe the same thing, to varying degrees. Are they liars too? How about Dick Gephardt, when he says that Bush "owns" the recession, when any student of current events and history knows that it started while Clinton was still in office (barely, but still), was exacerbated by 9/11 (something wholly out of Bush's control, and arguably within Clinton's), and is already over by the literal definition of "recession?" Is Gephardt lying? I think he is. This is not a difference of opinion, it's a misstatement of FACTS, that is what a LIE is Frank.

You are bound and determined to vilify the Bush administration, why I do not understand. Does it gall you that someone as inarticulate as he is President? Does it gall you that a rich boy is President (Gore inherited all his wealth, would he have bothered you too)? Does it frustrate you that he's religious, or passionate, or unwilling to be swayed by YOUR opinion, or mine for that matter? What is it in particular about him that makes you sooo despise the man?

Because Frank, your hatred is coming through loud and clear, not your anti-war arguments. Those are pretty lame to tell you the truth. It's not about oil (entirely), it's not about Israel (although Israel will benefit, what's wrong with that?), it's not about imperialism (we don't want to stay, or keep anything all to ourselves, we never have). It's about (in this order I suspect):
1. Regime change
2. Disarmament (which could not happen without regime change and you know it)
3. Liberating the Iraqi people (a side-effect of item #1)
4. Freeing up Iraqi oil
5. Turning Iraq from impoverished to prosperous nation again, as it once was (a side-effect of item #4)
6. Sending a message loud and clear to despots everywhere--don't call our bluff, and don't think you can buy-off Islamist terrorists with your support and get away with it (even if you only support Hamas, the PFLP, Abu Nidal, etc...)!
7. Removing Kim Jong Il's biggest customer
8. Deciding for once and for all whether the UN has any credibility or not, because credibility with an enemy like Islamists is VITAL. Show weakness, and you are toast.

I might also point out, Frank, that we did not wait to be attacked by Germany. Nor did we wait until the blitzkrieg. We went to war with Germany for one simple reason, on December 9, 1941, Hitler declared war on US! So, did we preemptively attack them then? I submit that Saddam's behavior during the last 12 years is no less than a declaration of war against the West. It may not have the "official" stamp of the Rechstag on it for your approval, but it's the same thing. Either we heed the message, or not.

Whether we start this war, or he does, people will die. The question is, how many will die, and at what cost. If we wait and do this on Saddam's terms, you can guarantee that more people will die, it will cost more, and it will take longer. This is not a Bush lie, it's reality. A casual perusal of history teaches us this much. You choose not to see it because you are blinded by hatred of a man, and that puts you on a par with the enemy in more ways than you know.

My interest isn't to vilify Bush, so much as to point out that he has a credibility problem, and thus, we should be skeptical about what he's put forth. End of story.

Interesting, you don't seem too concerned about Saddam's "credibility problem." Perhaps if you and the other members of the tinfoil hat brigade expended just a little more time on that than on PhotoShop montaging Bush's face under Hitler's hair and moustache, Saddam would have disarmed already. As it is, you've all given him hope that you are more ready to believe him than your own President.

Congratulations. You must be very proud.

It's a pretty sweeping statement to suggest that I believe Saddam merely because I'm awake enough to recognize Bush's credibility problems. Sweeping, and wrong.

I see a lot of oversimplification and demonization going on this discussion. Too many objectionable, sweeping generalizations — look what got me in here, in my first comment.

The world has less black and less white than you would like to believe, I'm afraid.

Perhaps Frank, perhaps, but your credibility falters when you refuse--at every turn I'm afraid--to concede to the FACT that of the two men, Bush is far and away the better.

Like most of the anti-Bushies, you consistently use the "Well Bush is a liar" excuse for not going to war. It's not an argument. Let's say the conspiracy theorists were right about FDR, and he did know that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked (he didn't, but play along), would that make it any less legitimate to go to war with the Japanese? What about Germany, you never responded...That was preemptive. We were not attacked by the Germans. Some supply ships were, but our nation--our "homeland--was not. What if FDR lied about the supply ships, or about the German declaration of war...Should we not have gone to war in Europe?

You still believe that Bush's economic policy is behind this war, why? What's YOUR evidence? Anyone of us can roam the Internet and find "evidence" to support any whacked out claim, but do you think for one second--in this post-Watergate era--that some intrepid reporter, or some underpaid Secret Service Agent wouldn't have "outed" Bush by now if we were leading a secret plot to pull the wool over all of our eyes, just to get into a war? Do you also mistrust the join chiefs, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and everyone else in the Cabinet--all of whom would have to be "in on it?"

Must be rough to walk through life so mistrustful of your leaders where information is more highly prized than gold, and you are free to sell it on the open market without being KILLED! Imagine what it must be like to be an Iraqi where you can't even DREAM of living in a world without Saddam without risking that some fly on your wall is actually a member of the secret police, lying in wait for you to screw up so you can fall into a torture chamber, or worse, watch your daughter or wife raped before your eyes.

Your suspicions assume several things:
1. That you are right, and Bush is "lying" as opposed to just plain wrong (and I think we've cleared up the difference).
2. That he's managed to either fool or buy-off a lot (we're talking HUNDREDS) of extremely smart, highly talented and already pretty well-off people.
3. That the 60+% of the American people who do not think he's lying are morons.
4. That Tony Blair has a career death-wish, or is about to be the most highly compensated of all, and I don't think the Bush fortune is quite that large.
5. That the intelligence communities of at least half a dozen nations are filled with filthy rotten liars.
6. That the inspection teams that came before this one lied.
7. That all of the Iraqi defectors around the world who are a) not protesting this war (how curious) b) providing supporting evidence to Bush's statements c) totally confused as to why people like you refuse to believe them, are lying.
8. That the US has a desperate need for Iraq's oil, when we currently only import 14% of our oil from the M.E. region and still manage to have some of the lowest fuel prices in the world for our people.
9. That the President has total control over the economy in the first place, and that Bush's only concern is buying off a bunch of rich people (rich people like me I guess, because I'd stand to get a nice fat rebate, and I'm unemployed!), while the rest suffer, hahhahahahha (sinister laugh).
10. That the President, or any one else in the government, owes YOU PERSONALLY, full disclosure of everything he knows, how he knows it, why he knows it, and what he stands to gain by knowing it, which he does not, and if he did, he could not possibly manage the country efficiently. Carter tried this when he insisted on being personally informed as to the schedule for the White House Tennis Courts so he could reassure the public that they were not being used inappropriately, and look how well that turned out for him.

Now, having made all of these illogical and implausible assumptions, you have--quite logically--come to the illogical conclusion that going to war in Iraq is a bad idea because Bush is a liar. Wonderful. If this is painting you with too broad a brush, I'm soooo sorry, but you are the one who's looking at the world in black and white terms sir, not I. You are the one who says "If he's not telling the whole truth, 100% of the truth, at all times, to all people, me included, he's a big fat hairy liar, and therefore I can't believe a friggin' thing he says ever."

Pretty absolutist I'd say!

And all I added was, if that's how you see it, then I find it interesting that you would make allowances (which you do implicitly) for Saddam! When you say the papers taken from the scientists' homes were personal, how do you know? Who told you? How did they get the info? Are you not trusting Saddam or giving him the benefit of the doubt? When you say that he is cooperating more than Bush says, are you not allowing gray area for him--despite his long history of outright lies? Why aren't you quite as intolerant of his lies, which have been PROVEN--lies told in an environment that does NOT hold him accountable, as our country does our President?

This was my point, and, characteristically (for someone on the anti-war, anti-Bush side) you have failed utterly to answer it.

Do I trust Saddam Hussein more than Bush? No, not for a moment. And I'm not sure how you conclude that because I don't think war is necessary yet, I must therefore trust Saddam more than Bush... It's kind of a non-sequitur.

Would FDR have been justified in attacking Japan had he known about Pearl Harbor in advance? Depends on the quality of his 'knowing.' If he had incontrovertible proof, I think he should have struck. But in the absence of incontrovertible proof, he should only have shored up our defenses.

Do I think Bush's economic policies are behind the war? No. Never said it. What I did say was that he has lied about his economic policies, providing another instance of his poor credibility.

Powell and Rice: are they "in" on it? Like, "evil"? No. But I think they both have agendas which they believe are just, and I disagree with their intepretations of what are available. I'm not sure how to characterize Colin Powell's misstating of facts when he presented to the U.N. I can see how he might have made the mistake of overly-crediting dimestore intelligence from the UK, but the spin he put on those translations is significant. As for Rice, it was she who was re-emphasizing the papers found in the Iraqi scientist's home, which Blix said were only personal papers.

Do I think Bush could single-handedly sway so many in government? No. But he has others on his side (and may have been swayed by them). The Mideast agenda was proposed ten years aqo, before President Bush took office. Now, Wolfowitz, who proposed it, has an opportunity to fulfill his hopes. Once can respond to evidence, or one can gather evidence in accordance with predispositions. Since Rumsfelf had people immediately looking for Iraqi complicity on September 11 that day, there's significant room for skepticism.

My "assumptions" list: It looks longer, the way you've typed it. [Did you change the font size? :-) ] I don't think I said it was about oil. I also think your point about me assuming Bush has 100% total control of the economy is wrong and irrelevant; I never said this was even about the economy, merely that if you can't trust him about what he says about the economy, can you trust him about war? The Bush administration claimed that a "Blue Chip Panel" of economists concluded that his plan would lead to 3.3% growth; not so. As for Blair, he's easily duped, since he couldn't tell dimestore magazine "intelligence," and since he and Bush made a joint statement many moons ago on the basis of obsolete IAEA reporting.

Before I go further, you will have to justify your list of assumptions about me, because responding to them all right now is wasting my time. I can see how, if you take them as a given, I come off as an irrational absolutist, but I can't see how you got there. Some of them seem to be driven by anger...

As for "tolerating his lies," I recognize those lies. But right now, with the world's eyes on him, they are not deadly, and I don't think they merit war on the accelerated schedule which the Bush administration is trying to set.

Well Frank, I come to the conclusion that you make certain assumptions by reading your comments, obviously. Perhaps it will be clearer this way:
1. You seem to think that those who "support" the war (which isn't even true--most of us merely support the need to make "serious consequences" have meaning) have an obligation to take time out of their weekends to protest the protesters. Not sure where you get this idea. If we have nothing to protest--if the government seems to be doing what we want or going in the right direction--what's the point?
2. You keep harping on ONE issue--the "lies" Bush tells about the economy--as indicative of a total lack of credibility. You have yet to establish that what he says is a "lie" as opposed to a mistake, or a misapprehension of how the economy works, or a different opinion than you have.
3. You seem to think that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with either the protest marchers or the French/German retiscence to enter a war with Iraq. That's you opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you refuse to touch (with a ten-foot pole it would seem) the reality of the fact that "freeing Palestine" is not exactly the point of an anti-war in Iraq march, now is it? Why free Palestine, and not Iraq? Oh, that's right, there are no Jews there, I forgot!
4. You keep saying "NOW" is not the right time. When is the right time? You say "when certain conditions are met." What would those be? See, as I read 1441 (which wasn't even necessary to begin with, but whatever...), Saddam was the one who had to meet certain conditions, about 12 years ago in fact! He has not, and we have given him a last, last chance, and he has basically laughed at us. We are not the ones who have to figure out how to get out of this without "serious consequences," he is. The fact that you keep ignoring this point really baffles me and leads me to conclude that you either trust Saddam more than Bush or that you trust a process that has failed UTTERLY to disarm Saddam--inspections--more than you trust Bush. To me, Blix loses credibility when he changes his tune from hour to hour too! One week he says Iraq is not complying, then another week he says he's seeing progress, but nothing has changed except his tone. I find that circumspect, but yet you trust him more than you trust Condi Rice. What's so funny to me is that you focus on this minutia, but fail to discuss the fact that Saddam has had three+ months to give access to U2 overflights and to scientists, and he hasn't. But obsess about a pile of papers if you want.
5. You seem to refuse to allow for common sense and learning from the past. You seem to wipe the slate clean and start with 1441, stubbornly refusing to go back in time to the cease fire agreement, or to any of the other instances when inspections failed. More inspections won't work any more than these have worked because, we'll, we've tried MORE inspections! The fact that they were separated by a few years each time should not lessen your fear of Saddam, it should increase it. It should not strengthen your faith in inspections, it should weaken it. Let's say we sent inspectors in for another year. And let's say they gave Iraq a clean bill of health. Unless Saddam dies, he's still in power, and sanctions are still there. Now, if we lift the sanctions, and Saddam is still in power, we are trusting that he has completely changed his stripes OR that he will die before he can rebuild his arsenal OR that his people (now better fed) will grow strong enough to oust him on their own before he dies of natural causes or kills all of them, whichever comes first.

Why now? Well Frank, because I think that the Iraqi people deserve to have sanctions lifted. The sanctions have only hampered their ability to get rid of this monster, and have made the monster stronger in the process. However, we can't lift the sanctions unless we KNOW he's fully disarmed, and I think common sense would dictate that we can't be SURE that he's fully disarmed unless he, and his sons, are NOT in power anymore!

So, how when would you propose we take care of this problem??? You say "not now," and I make my assumptions that you either trust him, trust inspections that have proven to be total failures, or trust in some higher power to strike him and his entire family dead by bolt of lightning or something? But you seem to think that there can be no good reason--no reason that has nothing to do with a Bush scheme to fool us all--to take him out forcibly.

If this isn't what you mean to get across, perhaps you ought to reframe your argument.

Frank,
I wonder why you fail to address the argument I have made that the anti-semitism of Saddam constitutes a clear and present danger to Western civilization. Please look at Deb's web site or my most recent posting for the letter from Arafat to Saddam. Saddam has been financing terrorism aimed at innocent Jews in Israel--and probably elsewhere, for years. Enough!! Delay means more deaths. Are deaths of Jews in Israel and elsewhere somehow acceptable? I don't think you recognize the centrality of anti-semitism to the peace movement. Do you think those signs depicting Bush as Hitler, or Sharon as Hitler were just a small minority and therefore not significant? A virus starts with a small number of particles then goes on to infect and destroy the host organism. Your cause--"peace" is the host; it is infected by a terrible disease.

Stephen, you make an excellent point. The "peace" movement is infected. Whatever morality it has is corrupted by the willingness to freely associate their message with the messages of other clearly NON-peaceful movements, all in the name of "critical mass."

People like Frank say we shouldn't "lump" all these people together, but the truth is, they lump themselves together! Whenever someone says "Two million people marched on London to protest the war!" they don't differentiate between the communists, the anti-semites, the Saddam apologists and the regular average-Joe peaceniks, they cite the whole group, AS A WHOLE.

Seems like dirty pool to me! Either differentiate your message, and concede to being fewer in number than you claim, or lump yourselves together and risk being accused of holding views you don't hold. Sorry, can't have it both ways, that's what I say!

Or perhaps I should say "fuzzy math!" Seems Frank might like that term better! :-)

(I apologize in advance if this reply doesn't seem to be as coherent as a first expression, but I am attempting to respond here to four replies at once.)

Protesting in favor of a policy which already seems to be in place: (Deb, when you raised this point, you seemed to suggest that "serious consequences" means something other than invading Iraq. SFAIK, that's what the Bush administration has always been saying it meant; that there was really no need to clarify it further with a second resolution... that is, until recently when they said they feel 1441 also assumes regime change. This, I guess, is another instance where the lack of specificity is an issue for 1441; other international partners don't take regime change as being part of 1441.) Yes, it's proper to demonstrate and march in favor of existing policies. You will note that there are generally two camps of abortion protesters, even though the law of the land only goes one way.

The difference between mistakes and lies. I'm not sure if it matters whether Bush is lying or mistaken; in either case, it we are asked to assume he is accurate and tellig the truth. A failure in either condition erodes the veracity of the information itself. As for what I honestly feel, I think Bush (and/or his team) has lied to us. There may have been other occasions where he was simply mistaken, but I can point to some lies. One, you may or may not remember that he constantly referred to some comment he made in Chicago while campaigning, where he claimed that he had said in 2000 that he would only allow a budget deficit under one of three conditions? "Little did I guess I'd hit the trifecta," was what he said in 2002, on something like a half dozen or more occasions... in spite of it frequently being pointed out that he never did say it. He continued to use the lie. A second case (not him personally, but someone in his staff): the St. Louis warehouse speech, where "Made in china" labels on boxes were taped over, so as not to dilute his big "Made in the USA" signs. Third, this recent brush-up over the Blue Chip panel, which he claimed supported his stimulus plan and had said it would lead to increasing GDP by 3.3%. (When called on this, Fleischer stonewalled, as is his wont.) Fourth, the denials that Bush has revised his opinions on nation building. (Why they are afraid to demonstrate that W is a dynamic person who can learn form experience? I have no idea.)

My failure to accept Deb's position that German and French reluctance is related to anti-semitism. Your tone continues to taint me with anti-semitism, when you write of my "refusal" to acknowledge "the reality of the fact that 'freeing Palestine' is not exactly the point of an anti-war in Iraq march... Why free Palestine, and not Iraq? Oh, that's right, there are no Jews there, I forgot!" First, your tone is offensive, perhaps deliberately, I am offended, and so you score a point. In terms of a discussion, might I suggest that in the future you will be more persuasive if you don't try to belittle those you deal with? They listen more that way. As a goy, I happen to feel that I have read a lot about the plight of the Jews and am very sympathetic to their difficulties, both here and abroad. (A list would include a couple Jiri Weil novels, a handful of Elie Wiesel, Wyman's "The Abandonment of the Jews," Dawidovicz' "War Against the Jews," Conor Cruise O'Brien's "The Siege," ... and this was all on my own, not for any class. I hope you can forgive my feeling that I have read more than 90% of other Americans and am relatively sensitive to the issues... If your language alienates me, it won't be helpful for you when you talk to others. So be careful.) As for why I didn't respond to that specific argument, it's probably because dialoging on this web site is not so high in my list of priorities that I address everything. You shouldn't feel that you have trumped me.

"Now" is not the right time." Absolutely correct, I have never said what the right time is. But that doesn't erode my argument that there are more alternatives than the two that are raised when hawks frame the argument. There are those who know much more than I do, who could reply responsibly if asked. But so far, no one is asking. (BTW, I know your earlier reply was prior to this, but Senator Chuck Hagel [R, Nebraska] also worries if we aren't pursuing this too aggressively In his view, it's too early in a very long campaign to start alienating our international partners.) Is it meaningful that no one in the Bush administration is bothering to ask? If no middle alternative really exists, they would score big time by demonstrating that France, Germany, Russia, China, et al have no substantive plan. Why aren't they asking the question?

Deb, you also focus — rather militantly, if I may so — on my preference for weighing information from Blix and others (as I see it), calling my weighing 'obsessions,' and what I think about 'minutia[e]', when to you it all seems cut and dried. I'm not sure really how to reply... I know you know that the world is more complex than "Goodnight, Moon," and I'm sure you feel that invading Iraq is a serious step to take. But you'll just have to accept the fact that I feel differently than you, and the path to my conclusions is legitimate. So is the path to your conclusions. I just disagree with them, and I'm not going to berate you for feeling the way you do. Frankly, neither of our opinions mean diddly here.

When you attack me (yes, I think that's a fair word) for failing to use common sense, well, either you overly-generalize from the little discussion that we've had here, or it isn't that common. It's just not right for you to generalize from this limited discussion to a statement like that. I am aware that the Clinton administration, other countries, the UN, and Saddam Hussein all had a part in letting this fester to this point. But I disagree with any conclusion that the proper reaction is to act so quickly as if we think we can make up for the past ten years. First, it won't work, and two, I don't think it's necessarry.

I'm sorry, I have to stop here... I had originally hoped to say more in response, but my time for this is up. (Stephen, I'll have to come back to your point some other time.)

By the way, if you're looking for a good read, I recommend "republic.com" (a book, not a web site) by Cass Sunstein.

Frank,
I will let Deb reply for herself, but one point: it's pretty obvious that your real passion is anti-
Bush, as revealed in the copious research you devote to exposing his "lies". Somehow, Saddam's lies about such matters as WMD's, poison gas attacks on Kurds, existence of torture chambers, assassination plots etc. Furthermore if the anti-war protests were really that why, along with demands on the Americans and British were there none on the other party to the conflict, Iraq? Finally, it seems to me you ignore history and what it teaches; not just Saddam's history, following his role models Hitler and Stalin, but the 20th century's history. In his history, Modern Times, Paul Johnson quotes from a secret briefing Joseph Goebbels game in April 1940, 2 weeks before the Nazis overran France: "...they could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. That's exactly how it was in foreign policy, too...In 1933 a French premeir ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it):"The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!" But they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone...And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!"
I have been clear: Saddam should have been removed in 1991. Now he is more dangerous but still removable at minimal cost. The UN is clearly content to live, as France was in 1933, with an armed and dangerous tyrant in the Middle East. I am not.

Sorry a typo interfered with the sentence about your response to Bush's 'lies' vs your lack of passion vs. Saddam. It should have read after listing Saddam's lies "....somehow don't evoke the same passion":

Stephen, it's not copious research, it's stuff I come across naturally in my morning reads (or in looking for information that might be vluable to my Quote of the Week page). Keep in mind, you're not seeing all the information I gather through the course of a week, you're only seeing what I post here. Not at all reflective of all that I see. (Visit some of my recent Quote of the Week discussions and you'll see use of cell phones during theatre performances; use of cell phones while drunk; a discussion of public fancy; impact of first name on a resume on getting an interview, etc. I could take you through more, but I think you get the point.) I just don't discuss everything here because the bounds of a discussion, to some extent, are dictated by the post to which I respond.

Now, this whole idea about my not being concerned about Saddam Hussein and his WMD. In the same way that you think it's wrong of Eric Alterman to figure that anyone write of Lenin is a conservative, I think it's wrong of you to imagine that anyone who is not as vehement as you are, about moving now, is unconcerned. I am very concerned about Hussein, just as I have been about other tyrants who I grew up with (in the Philippines and Haiti, for instance). And likewise, I am very concerned about the weapons he may still have. But I don't think this is the right way to go about it, and I refuse to be labeled as someone who "ignores history." I don't ignore it, I apply the learnings differently.

Really: I thought your masthead says you fight cant. Why do I see so much cant here?

Frank,
I'll ignore the last crack as a Johnsonian gibe--to which I might respond that I think you may require another 9-11, the prospect of being hanged yet again to concentrate your mind. The thrust of everything you say is: we'd best rein in Bush! You say you're concerned about Saddam and I grant you the genuineness of your concern. I'm sure Chamberlain was concerned about Hitler too. He definitely was. Churchill was concerned but found reasons to ACT, not to pusillanimously pontificate and procrastinate. While you say you are very concerned about Saddam, by equating that concern with your concern about many other dictators you blur and obfuscate the clear and present danger posed by Saddam; you class him among the many, many dictators who abound and who present little present danger to world stability. Haitian dictators? Really! Saddam differs; he is a dictator like others but he has acquired and used
WMD's and is ready to use them on us! He can finance his evil schemes with oil money--unlike Papa Doc in Haiti. Are you willing to risk waiting for an atomic explosion in Manhattan? How sure are you that Hans Blix's inspections can prevent that?
And one more Churchillian quote re: your earnest disdain for lies by statesmen-- at the Teheran conference: "Truth is so precious that she must often be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

If "pusillanimously pontificate and procrastinate" ain't cant, I don't know what is.

RE the last Churchill quote: Churchill is not God. A thought stands on its own merit; an ad hominem recommendation is no better than an ad hominem attack. The quotation is expresses a bad idea.

Frank,
No ad hominem attacks that you need parry. Alliteration is not cant. Sorry Frank, a thought doesn't stand on its own. An observation about human nature by a Churchill carries greater weight, by virtue of his superior powers of understanding and wider experience, than one by Marshall Mathers. Churchill was not God, but he, more than any other individual was responsible for saving the West from Hitler, when peace seeking people of good will were inclined to surrender. We can learn much from him. His insights into human nature as it operates in the sphere of politics were profound. Were it not for Churchill you, Frank, would not be free to pursue our interesting debate. I would certainly have perished in an oven and you would probably have been exterminated for your non-aryan cultural interests. Saddam Hussein is our 21st century Hitler. And that's not cant.

"Clear your mind of cant," said Johnson to Boswell. So how did Johnson define cant? Let's look at his dictionary (I'll use the 1755, if you don't mind...)

1. A corrupt dialect used by beggars and vagabonds
2. A particular form of speaking peculiar to some certain class or body of men
3. A whining pretension to goodness, in formal and affected terms
4. Barbarous jargon
5. Auction.

Of these five, I presume it's the third which concerns you most (or perhaps you have another word in mind)?

Where is the whining emanating from?

Joe Klein is accused of psychobabble for overly analyzing Bush and making presumptions about Bush's relationship with God (this complaint of yours is spot on, by the way, and I mean that seriously). But here, war protesters are slurred as anti-semites; as for myself, because I chose to ask to have that point clarified, I've been called obsessive; "anti-Bush" it seems I do "copious research" on his lies; someone who ignores history; someone who trusts Saddam Hussein more than Bush; etc (it would be a long list if I chose to enumerate it all).

And why? Because we disagree. Because I see things differently form others in this discussion, and there must, therefore, be something wrong with me. And it must be up to others in this thread to ascribe the root cause of my disagreeing to anything but honest disagreement or a different interpretation of the available evidence.

Does an honest dialog and disagreement have to go in the directions and to the lengths as it's been taken here?

If you really want to fight cant, I know a very good place to start.

Frank,
I think you, not I, have been wielding the term "cant" as a weapon. My alliterative reference was to Neville Chamberlain, not you. I have no doubt that your views are honestly and thoughtfully arrived at. I for my part feel, to quote Johnson, "I have offered you an argument; I am not obliged to offer you an understanding". I have the impression that you do not take seriously the threat posed by a murderous tyrant eager to use WMD's against us; you think there are a variety of ways to deal with him apart from the military one, which I think is long overdue. I think the anti-war movement is a dangerous fraud, rife with anti-semitism and hatred of America. You insist there are many who honestly seek peace. I wonder why none spoke out against Saddam and why so many joined with supporters of Palestinian terror. I think the UN is a farcical and dangerous organization in which tyrants and thugs demand democratic rights that they don't grant their own people; an organization that funds and supports terror organizations in Gaza, etc. I think we made a mistake going to the UN in the first place. I see though that I'm repeating points already made so I think it best to wait until events unfold and see what we learn after the military action that is now inevitable.

Ah, there's the rub... I don't think you've been wielding the "term" cant as a weapon; it's my point that, while you claim to work to slay cant, you use cant itself (not the "term").

Frank,
I'm happy to leave the judgment as to where cant is to be discerned up to readers. But I have never tried to pathologize you by suggesting there is, as you put it, "something wrong" with you. Mistaken, yes, misguided, yes, wrongheaded yes-- but honest positions, honestly arrived at. That's why I've taken the time to address your points and explain mine.

Stephen Rittenberg wrote, I have never tried to pathologize you by suggesting there is, as you put it, "something wrong" with you. Mistaken, yes, misguided, yes, wrongheaded yes-- but honest positions, honestly arrived at.

Let's look at what you've said:

• Demonstrators and marchers you've never met or spoken to are driven by anti-semitism
  
• These same "indulge in the self-flattering narcissism of mass marches" and are likely "warped by the irrational aspect of passion"
  
• I am blinded by passion ("Your passion seems to blind you to this possibility")
  
• My "real passion is anti-Bush, as revealed in the copious research [I]devote to exposing his 'lies'."
  
• I "ignore history and what it teaches"
  
• You assume that because I mention prior concern over Papa & Baby Doc & Marcos, that I don't discriminate between them, and on the basis of that assumption proceed to suggest I might be willing to wait for a Manhattan mushroom cloud (you've done that a few times) before acting
  
• I "do not take seriously the threat posed by a murderous tyrant eager to use WMD's against us"
  

I could probably mention others if I lowered my threshold a bit.

You know, if you would just ask someone how they feel, and get to know people, before you launch off on these flights, this comment section would probably be half as long as it is. (And I haven't even listed Deb's...)

Look, it's your web site: I don't think it's proper for me to write my own long manifesto on your web site before discussion starts. But I think you have really, seriously overstepped some lines in trying to fill in blanks, when all you had to do was ask.

Frank,
I never personally met Hitler either, but feel confident he was an anti-semite. As to the rest, although it would be easy to rebut your points, I don't think it would be wise at this point.

So now you feel you can be just as confident that the marchers are anti-Semitic in the same way that you're confident Hitler was anti-Semitic. You prove my point with evey post, Stephen. Rather than retrench, I think you should rein it in.

Yes Frank, I am confident that anti-semitism has infected and corrupted the so-called peace movement. How much evidence do you need? Did you read the David Brooks article I mentioned earlier? Have you seen the pictures of marchers carrying signs saying Israel is a Nazi state? or Sharon (and Bush) photoshopped into Hitler? And I am frankly disgusted, a la Oriana Fallaci http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=506 by the absence of protest by other peace marchers against the hijacking of the movement by anti-semites and Stalinists. Fallaci, as you know, is a woman of the left. Here's what she had to say about the "peace" demonstrators protesting the plight of the Palestinians, the same people now marching against our use of military force against Iraq: "I find it shameful that, obeying the stupid, vile, dishonest, and, for them, the extremely opportunistic fashion of political correctness, the usual opportunists-no, the usual parasites-exploit the word "peace." In the name of the word "peace," now more devalued than the words "love" and "humanity," they absolve...one side of hate and bestiality. In the name of pacifism (read conformity) from the mouths of shrill voices, the same voices that earlier genuflected to Pol Pot, they now incite people who are confused, naïve, or intimidated. They cheat them, corrupt them, take them back half a century, that is, to the yellow star on the coat. These charlatans care as much about the Palestinians as I care about them (the charlatans), i.e., not at all." Strong stuff? You bet, and the same would apply to the protesters who condemn Bush and America while omitting a word of condemnation for the new Hitler, Saddam. They care not a whit for the Iraqi people living under a barbaric tyrant. Now Frank, I'll try once more and I promise, for the last time. I believe you genuinely want to deal with Saddam, that you are not an anti-semite and that you honestly feel I have deployed cant to pathologize you. I regret that you feel that way, but on this blog I will continue to fight what I consider to be "folly, ignorance and cant", especially when I consider the dangers we all face. One of those dangers, I believe--based on some of the history I've cited, especially the 1930's---is presented by the benign, well intentioned people who think we can wait longer to disarm Saddam. I think our President has been far too deferential to the sensibilities of people who want to talk and talk and talk. It's time for action.

Okay, you win. Bye.

Make no mistake, what Falliaci saw is shameful. And the calls that David Brooks has received are hideous. And if I encountered attitudes like these, a dentist could do well to follow in my footsteps.

But I don't see anything in these anecdotal accounts to suggest that, even if these attitudes are growing, that they represent the feelings of those who argue against invading Iraq in general. To suggest that this is the case is not a responsible use of your right of Free Speech. The credibility of your posts will be increased if you can back it up with something more than anecdotal information.

Again, I remind you: the Left has no lock on anti-semitism. As you would say to others, be careful about your bedmates.

Due to Moore's Law, info on the Internet has a way of living way too long, and needs to be revisited occasionally. This piece on the likelihood of the Manhattan mushroom cloud is very valuable, I think. It turns out that, as I feared all along, the Bush administration was overstating the threat, if not outright lying, and leading us down a terrible path. Does this mean I think Saddam Hussein was a good leader? No, don't kid yourselves with any 'moral equivalency' arguments. I am glad people are experiencing greater freedom. But I am not glad at how the US administration went about it.