Stardate 20030720.1803

(Captain's log): [Update 20030726: An updated version of the strategic overview can be found here. It is expanded and includes more factors, while eliminating some material which has no long term significance. It's also organized somewhat differently.]

The new refrain is "Bush lied about the reason for attacking Iraq. He claimed that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium from Africa, and that wasn't true." Therefore... only they don't proceed with the "therefore" because their unspoken therefore is "therefore we shouldn't have attacked Iraq; we should have pursued other approaches and left Saddam in power."

And they don't want to formally say that, since Saddam was a monster and the people of Iraq are incalculably better off now without him. But those making these arguments don't care about the plight of the people of Iraq, or indeed the plight of impoverished people anywhere else, except in very abstract terms. The dirty little secret of those on the far left making these arguments is that for all their claims of compassion for the downtrodden of the world, they are primarily motivated by hatred of Western culture, especially as manifested in the United States, rather than by love of the people of the rest of the world.

Which is why they don't like to talk about how awful it actually was in Iraq before we invaded, because they argued at the time, and implicitly are arguing now, that the status quo there should have been maintained.

I made a small comment about that a couple of days ago, and in response Hesiod Theogeny mailed me the following:

"You know, it's odd that no one is accusing Bush of lying about how brutal and vicious Saddam was."

Because he wasn't lying about how brutal and vicious Saddam was. Although, he isn't DEAD or captured yet, is he. So "was" might be a bit premature.

Then again, Bush isn't saying much about the viciousness and brutality of Kim Jong Il, either.

Lest he reminds people that he didn't really give a shit about the Iraqi people in the first place, and just used their suffering to justify his own abitions. After all, millions of people are starving to death in North Korea due to Kim's policies. To the point of cannibalism, according to some reports.

Oh...he used to say bad stuff about Kim...until Kim built nukes.

Then Bush shut up.

Like all cowards, he only picks on those he can beat up easily.

It's been a pretty bad year for leftists in general; too much has gone right for those the leftists oppose. They made immensely dire predictions about the consequences of war in Iraq, including millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of civilian dead, a bloody stalemate, rise of the Arab street, a massive uptick in terrorist attacks against us, and a whole lot else – none of which actually happened. It's a real bummer.

So rather than concede that they may have been wrong, they're trying to shift the terms of the debate, and to that end they're engaging in historical revisionism, as well as the odd rhetorical ad hominem.

They're attempting to focus the entire debate on one small and, in fact, extremely unimportant event which took place in the last few months. They're trying to claim that the inclusion of one specific sentence in this year's State of the Union address is the total political issue, and since that sentence appears to have been based on faulty intelligence, trying to claim that this somehow shakes the entire foundation of the case for war.

I feel as if it might help a bit if we review the real issues. I have been criticized by some as not having tried to deal with the question of whether "Bush lied!!!", and the main reason I haven't is because I don't think that the specific question of the claim about uranium from Niger is important.

I. What is the root cause of the war?

A. Collective failure of the nations and people in a large area which is predominately Arab and/or Islamic.

B. This has led to rising but unfocused discontent, anger and resentment.

C. Some in the region have tried to take advantage of that for their own purposes.

1. Governments in the region have tried to focus it on external targets to deflect it away from themselves.

a. Israel has been the preferred target.

2. Ambitious leaders have tried to harness it by claiming that they could change it if supported.

a. Khomeinei and the Taliban used it to support revolutions respectively in Iran and Afghanistan.

b. Saddam used it to gain support for creation of a united pan-Arab empire ruled from Baghdad.

II. Why is the US fighting the war? Why were we attacked?

A. American success casts Arab/Islamic failure in sharp contrast. Politically, economically, militarily, technologically and culturally we set the standard and our accomplishments make their failure look particularly bad.

B. America is the largest and most important supporter of Israel. Arab leaders have used Israel as a scapegoat for their own failure, and part of that is to blame us since we refuse to abandon Israel. They have provided enough support to the Palestinians to keep the s