Bush commutes Libby sentence

[kandrathe]

Formulate your beliefs how you like, but for governing, you must be secular. That's the whole spirit of the separation of church and state.

There is no part of the Constitution that regulates the "separation of church and state". It was cited, out of context, in a letter written to religious leaders by Jefferson. The Constitution bars any law to be made establishing (favoring) a religion, or from preventing the free exercise of a religion. It seems incongruous to me that you would make that statement which actually does violate the Constitution in preventing any person, including the President, of his exercise of religion, or his ability to have free speech. Then, you are referring as fact the following;

According to Prime Minister Mahmoud Abas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.

So, a pretty thin condemnation. You believe what you like. I think he probably spoke with the Vice President, his personal advisors, his cabinet, the National Security Adviser and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He probably also did pray, which in loose translation might be interpreted as "spoke with God".

[Jester]

I do not deny George Bush, or anyone else, the right to speak his mind about his religion in public. Where have I said otherwise?

I just don't think you should support someone who conflates his religion with government.

The quote, far from its source though it may be, is consistent with everything else he's said about his beliefs. Are you denying the substantial content of the message, that George Bush believes he is divinely inspired and supported in his "crusade" (his words) in the middle east? Or just quibbling about the particulars?

-Jester

Some fun quotes, including the belief that God wanted him to be president, and that God wants Americans to bring freedom (referring to Afghanistan) to the world: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/149/story_14930_1.html

[Occhidiangela]

. . . but my mistake.

Not your only mistake, on the atheists being "not Americans" bit.

The president opposes (veto pen in hand) stem-cell research, free access to abortions, gay marriage, and *starts wars in the middle east* on the basis that he believes god talks to him.

Please, get real. You mistake rhetoric for substance. A couple of months ago an excellent article was in, of all places, Newsweek, (by a guy with a Chinese sounding name, former Bush staffer) who spelled out very clearly how creatively Bush and his gang have manipulated, and used, the evangelicals for their own purposes. Not sure if I give it a 10/10 on candor, but it rings true enough to earn a 7/10 for credibility.

If "God told me to start the war in Iraq" is the level to which you have fallen, you are discussing a cartoon, not a person who is a president. Granted, W's not the finest specimen ever under the microscope, but not a two dimensional cut out, paper doll, president of straw as you assert.

Care to try again?

Occhi

[Jester]

Not your only mistake, on the atheists being "not Americans" bit.

Hunh? Could you perhaps be a bit more specific?

Please, get real. You mistake rhetoric for substance. A couple of months ago an excellent article was in, of all places, Newsweek, (by a guy with a Chinese sounding name, former Bush staffer) who spelled out very clearly how creatively Bush and his gang have manipulated, and used, the evangelicals for their own purposes. Not sure if I give it a 10/10 on candor, but it rings true enough to earn a 7/10 for credibility.

No question, Karl Rove and crew have played the religious card for all it is worth. And Bush is more than willing to let them. If he doesn't believe God is on his side, leading him through this war, guiding him directly in his decisions, then he is liar on a grand scale. And, frankly, it doesn't make me feel any better that someone who *fakes* these beliefs gets elected. Maybe it's even worse.

If "God told me to start the war in Iraq" is the level to which you have fallen, you are discussing a cartoon, not a person who is a president. Granted, W's not the finest specimen ever under the microscope, but not a two dimensional cut out, paper doll, president of straw as you assert.

Your president is an incompetent buffoon whose personal abilities fall somewhere between "laughable" and "terrifying." His naivete is backed by a team of cynical manipulators who have abused their powers to an extent that would have shocked any of your founding fathers. He is only now approaching the level of unpopularity that, in a sane world, would have been his from the start.

He is, himself, a cartoon. Reality has already blown clear past satire.

Care to try again?

Not really, no.

-Jester

[Thecla]

I kind of look at the 2nd war as a result of Saddam violating the terms of Iraq's probation

Well then, I would have to say that you have an extraordinarily mild view of this dishonest and unnecessary war, now costing the US an estimated $12bn a month, leaving aside the infinitely greater human costs.

[kandrathe]

Well then, I would have to say that you have an extraordinarily mild view of this dishonest and unnecessary war, now costing the US an estimated $12bn a month, leaving aside the infinitely greater human costs.

I don't think we need to rehash the Saddam thing. War is the result of failed politicians -- in this case Saddam is equally to blame for his cat and mouse games. But, no wars are just, and politicians do not fight them. I have to agree with Colin Powell on this one; we broke it, now we better fix it.

9-11 cost New York about $100bn and some 2950 innocent lives. So is 2 trillion worth it to keep the war out of the US? I'd rather we fight the global war with al Queda in Baghdad as this point, rather than in New York or Detroit. I would predict that if we just pull out of Iraq, first many thousand Iraqi's will die, then battle will move to London and to the East Coast of the US within a year or two. Most people think we are still fighting a war with Iraq. In actuality, we are fighting a war in Iraq, but only a fraction of the combatants are Iraqi's. You have thousands of recruits from all over the Muslim world going there with Iranians supplying IEDs and other arms and Hezbollah fighters helping to train on the tactics that made Lebanon such a great nation. Its not like if we pull out of Iraq that the war with al Queda is over. We would just have given them a great place to base from and spread global jihad.

[kandrathe]

The quote, far from its source though it may be, is consistent with everything else he's said about his beliefs. Are you denying the substantial content of the message, that George Bush believes he is divinely inspired and supported in his "crusade" (his words) in the middle east? Or just quibbling about the particulars?

I believe you have moved well beyond objectivity. Your obvious extreme hatred for the man seems to make it pointless to try to have a rational conversation. Does he talk to God? Well, yes, that is what praying is about. But, you also lack a context of understanding what that relationship is about as well. Does Bush think God told him to attack Iraq? According to Abas, he did, but I doubt the source for the reasons I stated.

There are times when you make Cindy Sheehan seem almost conservative and lucid.

Sorry to rob you of Jefferson the Deist;

Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Washington, April 21, 1803.

DEAR SIR,

In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.

Th: Jefferson

[Lissa]

On the use of US troops in an illegal war... Accuracy In Media -- Bush Critics Ignore Clinton's Illegal Pro-Muslim War in Kosovo

Sorry, but Kincaid is as far out as Anne Coulter. Looking over his information he's just as looney as she is and I wouldn't put much credence into what he has to say.

Reading through some of his Bio, the man needs a good wack upside the head (take a look at article number one concerning his beliefs about Clinton and Milosevic to get an idea of just how screwed up this man is).

[Jester]

I suppose it will have to be left to our fellow forum dwellers whether I have simply been consumed with hatred beyond the point of objective reason. I certainly despise the man and his works. As far as I am concerned, there is ample, public evidence for very nearly everything I have claimed, and the rest is simply connecting the dots from there. To me, where I am now is where one would end up having payed the slightest attention to Dubya's abysmal presidency, and applying pretty simple reasoning. How you have not yourself come to this point, I cannot say, but are your emotions necessarily more pure than mine? Certainly I am very, very, very far from alone in these beliefs.

As per Jefferson, as I said in my very first post on this tangent, believed in many of the teachings of Jesus. He is a Christian, and is claiming to be a Christian, like one might be a Benthamite, or a Foucauldian. That is to say, he believed in his ethical and philosophical teachings. One might also point out that declaring oneself to *not* be a Christian in those times was like tying your leg to a rock and then trying to swim, a tough go of it at best.

He was not a Christian in the sense that I called before, and call again, the sine qua non of Christianity *as a religion*: belief in the divinity of Christ.

He didn't believe Christ saves you with his blood, or anything else. He didn't believe Christ rose from the dead. He didn't believe that Christ worked miracles. He didn't believe in the virgin birth. He didn't believe the Gospels were the divinely inspired works of anything, instead calling them the hyperbolized work of charlatans. He certainly didn't believe in any church's doctrine since the gospels.

But, regardless of whether this rather questionable 'christianity' still qualifies by one definition or another, the point is that this is very clearly not the Christianity of George Bush. It is scarcely even related.

There are times when you make Cindy Sheehan seem almost conservative and lucid.

Glad to know we could end this without it descending into ad hominem attacks. It's always so uncomfortable when that happens.

-Jester

Edit: clarity.

Afterthought: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm offers some interesting quotes on the establishment clause, including its applicability to charitable works, by James Madison. Not just the one Jefferson quote, it seems.

[Jester]

Most people think we are still fighting a war with Iraq. In actuality, we are fighting a war in Iraq, but only a fraction of the combatants are Iraqi's.

Yeah, I suppose 99/100 is a fraction.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How you have not yourself come to this point, I cannot say, but are your emotions necessarily more pure than mine? Certainly I am very, very, very far from alone in these beliefs.

Well, thanks for asking. I didn't vote for Bush, and I don't support many of his policies. From my libertarian perspective, he is the worst type of Republican in that he expands the role of the nanny state, while also working to curtail freedoms. The US will win the war against the extremists who seek to destroy us, but we won't do it by continuously tearing down all of our Presidents and Congressional leaders or by following a "Duty to Retreat" philosophy in our homes and our foreign policies.

He didn't believe Christ saves you with his blood, or anything else. He didn't believe Christ rose from the dead. He didn't believe that Christ worked miracles. He didn't believe in the virgin birth. He didn't believe the Gospels were the divinely inspired works of anything, instead calling them the hyperbolized work of charlatans. He certainly didn't believe in any church's doctrine since the gospels.

That has been falsely inferred due to Jefferson's abridged version of the Gospels used to proselytize the natives. I believe it was an he claimed in the letter I cited, that as a notable public figure, he wanted to keep his personal beliefs between himself and his maker.

Glad to know we could end this without it descending into ad hominem attacks. It's always so uncomfortable when that happens.

I just wanted to point out that the statement;

Your president is an incompetent buffoon whose personal abilities fall somewhere between "laughable" and "terrifying." His naivete is backed by a team of cynical manipulators who have abused their powers to an extent that would have shocked any of your founding fathers. He is only now approaching the level of unpopularity that, in a sane world, would have been his from the start. He is, himself, a cartoon. Reality has already blown clear past satire.

is a vitriolic statement devoid of substance, but worthy of a spotlight on the Cindy Sheehan Blog.

[Jester]

Well, thanks for asking. I didn't vote for Bush, and I don't support many of his policies. From my libertarian perspective, he is the worst type of Republican in that he expands the role of the nanny state, while also working to curtail freedoms.

Why, if you believe he is working to curtail freedoms and expand the role of the nanny state, am I not correct in my assessment that he is as much a danger to your liberties as Ted Kennedy (at the very least)? The PATRIOT Act alone is enough to send the little libertarian in my head screaming down the halls.

The US will win the war against the extremists who seek to destroy us, but we won't do it by continuously tearing down all of our Presidents and Congressional leaders or by following a "Duty to Retreat" philosophy in our homes and our foreign policies.

I'm pretty confident the United States will win over some grubby religious zealots plotting bombings from caves in Afghanistan. If you do lose, however, it will almost certainly be by broadening the conflict beyond said grubby zealots, provoking a mass reaction in the Islamic world. This is the madness Bush has dragged you into, and the sooner it stops, the more likely you are to be safe from Islamic fundamentalism.

That has been falsely inferred due to Jefferson's abridged version of the Gospels used to proselytize the natives. I believe it was an he claimed in the letter I cited, that as a notable public figure, he wanted to keep his personal beliefs between himself and his maker.

He certainly wanted to keep his personal beliefs to himself, and believed quite clearly that it was up to each person to determine these things for themselves.

However, as per the gospels, and the rest of the mystical theology, one does not require specious inferences. Jefferson just out and wrote it, clear as day.

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter

[...]

If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, of so much absurdity, so much untruth and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross, restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some and the roguery of others of his disciples

Quotes courtesy of infidels.org. There are many more, those are only the juicy ones.

The Jefferson Bible was clearly *not* just an abridgement devoid of theological meaning. It was Jefferson's attempt at creating a "real" christianity, stripped of all the theological trappings that, in my opinion, make it a religion in the first place. A quick peruse of the wikipedia page on the topic calls into question your interpretation, including and especially the idea that the abridgement was of practical, not theological, value. Indians also do not come up. From whence does your information on this matter come?

(Edit: Interesting. Further googling indicates that this "Not a bible, just a primer for indians" is fairly widespread. However, it is a claim apparently contradicted by Jefferson in his own letters.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

As per my less than moderate comments in reply to Occhi, they were perhaps a little bristly, given his criticism that since the man is president, he somehow must not be as I have described (frankly, as Bush himself has described, since it is the man's own words that convince me). How does one argue with that?

One can doubt the comments from Abbas, and everyone else who was there at the time, and the transcript from Ha'aretz. But the comment that he believed God wanted him to invade the middle east is almost painfully plausible. A war to free the middle east, and especially Palestine, is a key ultra-right evangelical belief. Bush has himself claimed that God is not neutral in this conflict, and that he believes God wanted him to be president. He has said that God promised the people of the middle east freedom, and that America is doing his will in bringing it there. Many, many observers to the white house have commented on his propensity to fall back on prayer to guide his decisions, that he is a man, as the Blues Brothers said, on a mission from God.

Now, how implausible is the Abbas quote? Seems like it's right down the middle to me. Maybe the language is slightly exaggerated, who knows, but why would they have invented that comment whole cloth? Even if it is not itself valid as evidence, its content seems completely reasonable, given what we know about the man. So, once again, if this seems cartoony, it's not because I'm painting a cartoon stereotype of Bush. He did that to himself, through his own words, and his own actions.

Perhaps I should have been less abraisive there, although I can't apologise for the substance, which I still very much agree with: Bush is a failure of comical proportions who never should have been elected. However, you yourself are immoderate in your own language on a regular basis. Perhaps we should take a cue from those aphorisms Jefferson was so fond of, and remove the logs from our own eyes.

-Jester

[Thecla]

9-11 cost New York about $100bn

Where did this figure come from? And, using the same accounting method, what is the true cost of the Iraq war? The cost of 9/11 (large by any normal standard) is a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of the Iraq war.

So is 2 trillion worth it to keep the war out of the US? I'd rather we fight the global war with al Queda in Baghdad as this point, rather than in New York or Detroit. I would predict that if we just pull out of Iraq, first many thousand Iraqi's will die, then battle will move to London and to the East Coast.

In retrospect, it is probably just as well that President Bush did not propose before the invasion the cunning plan of temporarily distracting terrorists from attacking the US (if not the UK) by the creation of a new center of terrorism, recruitment, and training in Iraq; if he had, the war might not have had much support.

[kandrathe]

Where did this figure come from?

Estimates from the controller of NYC.

In retrospect, it is probably just as well that President Bush did not propose before the invasion the cunning plan of temporarily distracting terrorists from attacking the US (if not the UK) by the creation of a new center of terrorism, recruitment, and training in Iraq; if he had, the war might not have had much support.

Especially from Iraqi's. Which might be why while supportive of expelling Saddam, they are adamantly against a sustained US presence. The libertarian in me wants the 2 trillion back, however we must ask what we bought for that 2 trillion. Was it merely 4 years of keeping the war over there?

[Occhidiangela]

I suppose it will have to be left to our fellow forum dwellers whether I have simply been consumed with hatred beyond the point of objective reason.

Yes. BDS. Terminal case. And he isn't even your president/PM.

I am not pleased, and have become even less so since I got back. Article IV issues are being abbrogated, the border ignored, citizens harassed in lieu of security, Gonzo still on the job, and the debt cavalierly pushed off into my children's future.

And so on.

Yet somehow, I can remain rational about my distaste for the fix BushCo has led us to, while you rant on about a foreign nation's president.

Even when I was dissing Saddam, I didn't go to those emotionally driven lengths, for all that I believed Colin Powell's brief.

Why this intense emotion? Trying to keep your liberal street cred up? Not needed, your bona fides are secure, and have been since before September 11th, 2001.:)

Occhi

[Jester]

BDS.

Krauthammer. Classy.

I am not pleased, and have become even less so since I got back. Article IV issues are being abbrogated, the border ignored, citizens harassed in lieu of security, Gonzo still on the job, and the debt cavalierly pushed off into my children's future.

[...]

Why this intense emotion? Trying to keep your liberal street cred up? Not needed, your bona fides are secure, and have been since before September 11th, 2001.:)

Somehow, I'm going to want an opinion other than the two people I've been arguing against, no offense. And my "liberal street cred" means about as much to me as the crud on the bottom of my shoes.

The question is not whether I am angry at Bush and co. Of course I am. The question is whether that anger is justified, and if it comes *from* an analysis of the situation, and is not the *basis* for that analysis. Assuming there are any international actions at all that are worthy of outrage, I can't see how this fails to qualify.

1) Illegal war.

2) Motivated by God, or motivated by PNAC opportunism. Probably both.

3) Tens of thousands dead. Probably more.

4) Trillions of dollars flushed away.

5) Massive boost for the very terrorists it purported to combat.

6) Likely consequences appear dire. Destabilized nation at best, nuclear war with Iran at worst.

What, I'm supposed to remain calm about all this? This is a matter for all humanity to be deeply concerned about. This is doubly true since the United States, more now than ever, feels little obligation to confine itself to its borders. As far as I can tell, the sound judgement is to turf Bush and his puppetmasters out on their butts, and never, ever let them near power again. Indeed, it is deeply shocking that this has not already happened.

A war crimes trial would not be out of place.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Why, if you believe he is working to curtail freedoms and expand the role of the nanny state, am I not correct in my assessment that he is as much a danger to your liberties as Ted Kennedy (at the very least)? The PATRIOT Act alone is enough to send the little libertarian in my head screaming down the halls.

Presidents merely sign or veto. Ted is a bigger danger and one reason I support term limits.

I'm pretty confident the United States will win over some grubby religious zealots plotting bombings from caves in Afghanistan. If you do lose, however, it will almost certainly be by broadening the conflict beyond said grubby zealots, provoking a mass reaction in the Islamic world. This is the madness Bush has dragged you into, and the sooner it stops, the more likely you are to be safe from Islamic fundamentalism.

I think we felt pretty safe prior to 9/11 with those grubby zealots (trained in Pakistani Madrasas) in their caves on the Afghan border. It doesn't mean we are. We underestimated them, and their number then, and I think you are doing it now. How many al Queda cells are in operation in London? Do you really think we could be safer by retreating from them? It seems to me that Clinton tried the minimalist approach (tit for tat), and then we had one of the worst terrorist attacks on America ever.

He certainly wanted to keep his personal beliefs to himself, and believed quite clearly that it was up to each person to determine these things for themselves.

Ponder also this letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams. Of note is the summation at the end... "So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient Colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.'" A nod to Mathew 25:21 which a part of the story told by Jesus of a master and his slaves entrusted with their masters money. Also, the statement is an obvious nod to the belief in a day when he would meet his maker. Also, peruse freely this site, Thomas Jefferson on Religion.

The Jefferson Bible was clearly *not* just an abridgment devoid of theological meaning. It was Jefferson's attempt at creating a "real" Christianity, stripped of all the theological trappings that, in my opinion, make it a religion in the first place. A quick peruse of the wikipedia page on the topic calls into question your interpretation, including and especially the idea that the abridgment was of practical, not theological, value. Indians also do not come up. From whence does your information on this matter come?

Notable American Unitarians

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw." A Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816 I too applaud Jefferson as a free thinker, and not a brainless adherent of religious dogma. He is a true scholar of the available texts in various ancient languages and has formed his opinion, to the obvious consternation of the leaders of various Catholic and Protestant sects in his time. It is clear why he kept his views private. Of note, Jefferson says, "...it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus".

Bush is a failure of comical proportions who never should have been elected.

My objection is that by your measuring stick, all past Presidents are failures, as well as the adjoining Congressional delegations. Our (American)system is imperfect, and peopled by imperfect leaders, however it is the best we have and I would argue it is still the best in the world. I would not argue that Bush's tenure is immaculate, however, I feel we should not be so critical that we condemn every administration. It has been the practice by both major political parties for the last few decades to seek litigious means to frustrate or obfuscate the ruling party. We as citizens are complicit in our complacency. If we, as citizens, have a lack of power, it is because we have allowed the power to be taken from us. You don't trust or agree with Bush, and I get it. Like I said, I didn't vote for either Gore or Bush. Once Bush was selected, it is the citizen and soldiers duty to stand with him, although not always in agreement. I however was not surprised by the Iraq war, since it was on the pre-Bush New American Century Wolfowitz-Cheney agenda. From my position, either Bush or Gore were bad choices for different reasons. But, now it seems we have the worst of both, economic suicide by War and Ecology. 9-11 changed the dialog, and we are obligated to reach into the dingy caves, extremist enclaves and poisoned madrases to eliminate the threat. I'd say if the extremists want Jihad, we should bring them Jihad in great measure and more than they can stomach. But, we should always be offering the frond of peaceful coexistence. We should endeavor to expose the warmongers on both sides and make them irrelevant.

[Thecla]

Estimates from the controller of NYC.

Well, then, How did he/she come up with the estimate? Is that the financial appropriation from the City of New York in response to 9/11? I only ask that you compare apples with apples. Who knows what the estimated of cost of the Iraq war is if you add in long term heath costs for veterans, the cost of restoring the military to it's former state, and so on and so on. Two trillion dollars is surely a gross underestimate of that amount. Never mind the cost to Iraq itself of the war, or the irreplaclable loss of lives (and, as a matter that's so sadly minor in the big scheme of this disaster, but which may still be significant hundreds of years from now, the destruction and looting of the remains of one of the cradles of human civilisation---the Venetian bombardment that ignited the Turkish gunpowder store in the Parthenon has nothing on what has happened in Iraq).

The libertarian in me wants the 2 trillion back, however we must ask what we bought for that 2 trillion. Was it merely 4 years of keeping the war over there?

The 2 trillion dollars has bought the US a greatly increased threat of long-term terrorism (I don't suggest that this threat was created by the Iraq war, but the policy of the Bush administration has been as if an arsonist set fire to your house and the fire department sent fire trucks filled with gasoline to control the blaze), 3,600 dead US soldiers (leaving aside the deaths in the shadow force of war contractors), 30,000 wounded (many seriously or crippled), and the loss of any US standing in the world,

The truth is that the US would be infinitely better off today had all the money for the Iraq war simply been burned.

[kandrathe]

Well, then, How did he/she come up with the estimate? Is that the financial appropriation from the City of New York in response to 9/11? I only ask that you compare apples with apples.

True. It was merely the buildings, loss of business and tax revenue, insurance outlays, and cost of reconstruction. It also did not take into account the loss of future ventures and productivity of the thousands of lost New Yorkers. As for the stolen treasures of Iraq, it seems to me that the Iraqi's did that to themselves. What did Nazi Germany do to the treasures of France during their occupation? I'm not condoning the loss, but it seems to me that WWII was pretty hard on historical treasures in the war zones.

The truth is that the US would be infinitely better off today had all the money for the Iraq war simply been burned.

It's hard for me to predict, not knowing what would have happened with our heads firmly buried in the sand.

[Thecla]

True. It was merely the buildings, loss of business and tax revenue, insurance outlays, and cost of reconstruction. It also did not take into account the loss of future ventures and productivity of the thousands of lost New Yorkers.

If I wasn't explicit enough before, let me ask you explicitly now: are you claiming that the financial cost of 9/11 is remotely comparible to the cost of the Iraq war?

As for the stolen treasures of Iraq, it seems to me that the Iraqi's did that to themselves.

Glad to hear you sleep so easily on the matter. I'll just comment that, like all cultural treasures, the treasures of Iraq are of significance to the whole world.

It's hard for me to predict, not knowing what would have happened

I share your skepticism of hypotheticals----ultimately we can only deal in the reality we have now, and the history that led to it. And it is this: the Iraq war is a disaster of historic proportions, and it is the Bush administration who chose to invade Iraq.