[snarks_when_bored]

Well said, Mr. Hitchens.

[federal]

bookmark

[Lando Lincoln]

bump for great stuff

Lando

[Jim_Curtis]

Slobodan Milosevic was attempting to erase the identity and the existence of Bosnia.

If by "attempting to erase the identity" he means "engage the marauding beheaders who were invading from Bin Laden's terrorist training camps"...he does have a point.

I can think of a few identified characteristics of the US that I'd like to see erased, for the better. Several European countries are erasing identified characteristics now with deportations...an "ethnic cleansing" of sorts.

[n230099]

"Was the Clinton administration...wise in its opposition to the U.N. resolution that called for a preemptive strengthening of the U.N. forces in Rwanda?" Makes you think about what an Ambassador like Bolton would have said in those days.

[Rocko]

Bump.

[G.Mason]

Good article.

No doubt Nicholas [reads Democrat Party] should be made to eat the bread and milk, along with the slimy critter they placed in it.

One can only pray the frog is of the poisonous specie and that "Nicholas" will perish.

Build their gallows high

[chatham]

Christopher Hitchens is truly Remarkable.

[chatham]

Christopher Hitchens is truly Remarkable.

[Alia]

This, right here, perfectly illumines the conflict between DoD and "dem operatives" within State and CIA:

There's no cure for that illusion, but the resulting bureaucratic chaos and unease has cornered the president into his current fallback upon platitude and hollowness. It has also induced him to give hostages to fortune. The claim that if we fight fundamentalism "over there" we won't have to confront it "over here" is not just a standing invitation for disproof by the next suicide-maniac in London or Chicago, but a coded appeal to provincial and isolationist opinion in the United States. Surely the elementary lesson of the grim anniversary that will shortly be upon us is that American civilians are as near to the front line as American soldiers.

I differ from the wonderful Mr. Hitchens in this comprehension. I grew up skeet shooting. I've been duck hunting. In order to get the catch, you flush the ducks out. Herein lies, a principal difference in approach between the two operations. But I believe the DOD holds the trump card in the here and now (and since 9-11) given that the US was attacked - Furiously, evilly, cruelly. Since 9-11, the Admin has made good to "flush" out the terrorists and murderers. And this has been done. And it has been conducted in a very cost-effective, logistically brilliant manner -- drawing the terrorists from all over the world to, Iraq and Afghanistan, Where they may be flushed out, and thereby preserving untold millions of innocent lives around the world -- locations where these terrorists have taken root; but have been drawn to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan, instead.

In MHO, had the war not been conducted this way, pick any country, we, the US and Coalition Forces, would have been forced to fight this war on terms lain out by the terrorists, themselves.

Ergo, the threat to the US is unchanged -- they, the terrorists have always had us in their sights, the fact that they still do, is nothing new. But what is new? Our Homeland Security, Patriot Act, FBI, Intel and Law Enforcement have new marching orders -- one in which they can share intel, and beat inside-the-US-terrorists before they can strike. This is a great and better step than what we've had previous. And, it is clear from reading various reports -- these "US-domiciled-terrorists" are indeed being flushed out in advance of assault, mayhem, and murder.

My point being? The "old" CIA was unworkable. And yet it demanded more powers immediately after 9-11. It was too late, for that plan as laid out, then. And like the scorned-woman, many in the CIA/intel net sought personal revenge for the slight to their "intel". Therefore, the leaks.

And this too, Under Porter Goss, is being addressed.

What else have you to say, Joe Wilson?

[Rummyfan]

Bump for later!

[BunnySlippers]

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation.

He's right.

This is a terrific article. thanks for posting.

[Alia]

At once, one sees that all the alternatives would have been infinitely worse, and would most likely have led to an implosion--as well as opportunistic invasions from Iran and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, on behalf of their respective interests or confessional clienteles. This would in turn have necessitated a more costly and bloody intervention by some kind of coalition, much too late and on even worse terms and conditions. This is the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, and of Darfur today. When I have made this point in public, I have never had anyone offer an answer to it. A broken Iraq was in our future no matter what, and was a responsibility (somewhat conditioned by our past blunders) that no decent person could shirk. The only unthinkable policy was one of abstention

Truly, of marvel to me, is to witness the Cindy Sheehan cabal of the usual "interventionists" casting aspersions upon "intervention" of a more primary order -- survival and safety of many people. The Lefties are the hugest fans of .. "battered women's shelters'" "child abuse intervention".."drug abuse intervention".. not to mention their allfavorite -- banning smoking everywhere they can as a means to "intervention" in an individual's life. And yet, in classic "both lobes not working together" style, rail against "intervention" of a much, much larger order in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nay, in this instance, the liberals aid and abet the "batterers".

The new mantra of the left should be clear, by now, IMHO:

We are Against Domestic Violence" but for "International Violence" - since the liberals would indeed speak in quiet corners about Saddam's abuse of WOMEN in Iraq; but yet supported him for the "international" violence he was trafficking in.

The liberals never went and did a "crawford" in Iraq on behalf of those being domestically "abused" and "violated" in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Obviously, they had to know what Saddam was doing on the "global" levels.

[Alia]

The clear implication of the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before . . .

OOh! Brilliantly and scathingly put!

[Alia]

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.

Certainly, I do understand Mr. Hitchens' sentiments in this regard. However, it cannot be done this way, IMHO.

That Mr. Hitchens has made it clear, and that many others have made it clear should, in a real world, be sufficient. The quarterback never makes so obvious that which his free-choice players must do.

Clearly, President Bush is not at all against the freedom of authors, and thinkers, and pundits, and media to make or break the point(s). And in so doing, might the free people of America make choices as to whom they might read or listen to, and whom they choose not to. And these choices must not be legislated, as they appear to be in so many classrooms around the US in re "pub ed curriculum". No, the President offers choice and a large room for free people to decide for themselves. Obviously, President Bush supports the free market on many, many levels. That his opponents continue to make trouble, to obscure, lie and obfuscate facts is having quite an impression upon the free people -- not just in the US - but around the world -- and in my own humble opinion -- what is he saying? "You get to decide what kind of world you wish to live in."

It really is, freedom, up to each of us.

[Agent Smith]

ping for later

[HChampagne]

Hitchens is no conservative, in fact he is a self-avowed anarchist, but I am glad that his mother ship left him here for a little while. I love W and all of his people but they had no idea of what they have swerved into by their Iraq policy. It is all a crazy happenstance. We are better off for having this great president and for Tony Blair and the other far sighted. There is a God and she is wonderful.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Excellent post

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[tapatio]

Bookmarked

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING!
BRAVO!