If you can persuade yourself to believe that it is remotely plausible that Bush would have stressed the WMD argument as forcefully as he did prior to the war, all the while supposedly in possession of definitive intelligence and foreknowledge that the WMDs were a fiction, and thereby knowing that it would soon be exposed by himself as a lie, after he mounted an invasion in order to facilitate a search for weapons that he supposedly knew not to exist….well, with such personal handicaps on your side things, in future you might be more cautious about accusing others of hackery.

“…no one in their right state of mind would take an chicken hawk like Hanson seriously.”

I offer some similar advice on this too: If one wishes to dismiss the seriousness of another, in order to do so successfully, one should take care to first establish their own seriousness.

That squared away, I’ll add that I saw the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a plausible and morally justifiable step in the war against Islamic terrorists.   It was by no means taken “unilaterally” by Bush over mere cultural and political disagreement.   Nor did Bush advance lies as a means to justify it. 

It’s worth pointing out, particularly for purposes of comparison with OIF, that Germany declared war on the US three days after Pearl Harbor and prior to Roosevelt’s request for Congress to declare war on Germany in 1941.

You know, Ann Coulter really isn’t a role model.

Good speaking with you.

9/11 happened on my island — on my home.  With no cell phone service, clogged-up landlines, and essentially no transportation, I had to ensure my kids were safe and gather them from their separate schools.  Islamic fundamentalism and terror is no abstraction in my life, or the lives of my Manhattan neighbors. We follow it. And you’d be hard-pressed to find any of us who don’t oppose the war the Iraq, or who don’t feel bin Laden should have been the priority target, and not Saddam Hussein.

That said, hey … the fact I was able to cover as much ground as I did with Miller in the 17 minutes allotted was a feat in itself !

Yes, and so what. The problem we face with Islamic terrrorism isn’t limited to bin Laden and al Qaida. President Bush put in place a big picture approach to dealing with the problem.

At this point, bin Laden is essentially irrelevent. Islamic terror remains, and we must adopt a wider response than just a hunt for al Qaida.

What’s the left’s plan to deal with the problem? As far as I can tell, the left simply wants to play pretend.

“a potential terrorist sponser”

An equivocal NeoConservative?! What next — a vegetarian great white shark? A Tsavo maneater volunteering at a hospice?

PS: Learn to spell.

PPS: Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, Osama bin Laden — who, incidentally, remains at liberty despite having personally ordered the murder of 3000 Americans — al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Frank Miller is the Ann Coulter of comics, a hateful, scaremongering hack who’s been on the slide since Hard Boiled in the early 90s.

Goodbye. 

Germany couldn’t invade England, let alone become a serious threat to the US. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was essentially suicide, it was based upon the hope that the US lacked the will to fight–otherwise the essential logic of economics dictated sure defeat for Japan.

Germany and Japan were a more serious conventional military threat than Saddam’s Iraq, it is true, but just like Iraq, neither was capable of defeating the US.

Saddam’s Iraq was a rouge state in the center of the Middle East. Removing Saddam and replacing him with a democratic and sane government has the potential to stablize the region and transform Iraq from a potential terrorist sponser into an ally on the war on Islamic terror.

Saddam Hussein, as unpleasant as he was, was no more capable of threatening Western civilisation than Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro, and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida or the Taliban.   

Uh, Saddam had in fact caused multiple humanitarian crisis in Iraq and the region. However, besides that, we need to fight for other reasons. Consider the Cold War, where we chose to fight some battles (Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador) and not fight others (Hungary). In the end we won, by fighting the communists and putting as much pressure on them as we could.

Evil has to be fought, and sometimes we need to fight it even when we are not being attacked and genocide isn’t ongoing.

Ceding iniative to the bad guys is a plan–for failure.

The holocaust had nothing at all to do with us declaring war on and attacking Germany.