If you find yourself in Malmo, Sweden, and happen to see a homosexual, an imam and a gypsy walk into a bar, it's not a joke. These are just some of the people who can be borrowed -- yes, borrowed -- from the local library for a 45-minute chat in a nearby pub as part of an effort to fight discrimination.

"Given the daily reports of widespread anti-Americanism in Europe, we are surprised that neither Mr. Krol nor Ms. Brohed has a Yank in stock. Should Americans ever become available in libraries in, say, Paris or Berlin, even Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder could check them out." - WSJ.com - Not a Swedish Joke 

(use BugMeNot)

Link

In all seriousness, though; I have often thought that much anti-American (and also anti-English) feeling has its causes in the "ambassadors" from these lands, foreigners meet on a daily basis.

The arrogant, loud mouthed, inter-railer with his thousands of dollars credit on his American Express card, or the drunken, violent English hooligan, have created images of these two countries that is very hard to shake from those not privileged by other forms of contact.

For some people, these stereotypes, are unfortunately the only types they meet. Or, perhaps more correctly, having met one of these types, because they dominate so much the landscape, it is so easy to paint all with the same brush.

What's wrong that it should be systematised via a library?

Not so sure about your hypothisis that it's folks met from the US or UK. Rather, I'd put the blame squarely on the Liberal Left-Wing MSM Press - whatever you want to call it. Always emphasizing the negative.

Agree the point re library check-out for the curious. Problem is, they'd be checking out the Michael Moore types as opposed to the folks w/out an agenda.

If you find yourself in Malmo, Sweden, and happen to see a homosexual, an imam and a gypsy walk into a bar, it's not a joke. These are just some of the people who can be borrowed -- yes, borrowed -- from the local library for a 45-minute chat in a nearby pub as part of an effort to fight discrimination.

"Given the daily reports of widespread anti-Americanism in Europe, we are surprised that neither Mr. Krol nor Ms. Brohed has a Yank in stock. Should Americans ever become available in libraries in, say, Paris or Berlin, even Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder could check them out." - WSJ.com - Not a Swedish Joke 

(use BugMeNot)

Link

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In all seriousness, though; I have often thought that much anti-American (and also anti-English) feeling has its causes in the "ambassadors" from these lands, foreigners meet on a daily basis.

The arrogant, loud mouthed, inter-railer with his thousands of dollars credit on his American Express card, or the drunken, violent English hooligan, have created images of these two countries that is very hard to shake from those not privileged by other forms of contact.

For some people, these stereotypes, are unfortunately the only types they meet. Or, perhaps more correctly, having met one of these types, because they dominate so much the landscape, it is so easy to paint all with the same brush.

What's wrong that it should be systematised via a library?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not so sure about your hypothisis that it's folks met from the US or UK. Rather, I'd put the blame squarely on the Liberal Left-Wing MSM Press - whatever you want to call it. Always emphasizing the negative.

Agree the point re library check-out for the curious. Problem is, they'd be checking out the Michael Moore types as opposed to the folks w/out an agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you over-emphasise the role of the press and public opinion, particularly in the UK and especially with racial types.

The intellectual, primarily liberal press, is, on the whole, preaching to the converted.

The “blue collar” press is about 50/50 liberal/conservative. But I doubt many opinions are formed or converted by them, as it is often difficult to find these, well hidden as they are between the tits and bums, and of little importance compared to the sports pages.

Most Mr. and Mrs Joe Average form their opinions as a result of either the influence of their parents, the effects of their peer group or, I believe, in more cases than often thought, as a result of their own personal experiences.

The press, perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, has been influential, but with the general decrease in reading literacy and habit, plus the considerable alternatives to “News” programs on TV, folk are less confronted with views held outside their group or contrary to their experience.

Nowadays, only by combining opinion with stories of sex, sport or, primarily in the UK (though decreasingly), the Royal Family, does the press have any chance of influencing the public. And even these views are quickly forgotten and replaced by the fortunes or misfortunes of a football or cricket team.

If you find yourself in Malmo, Sweden, and happen to see a homosexual, an imam and a gypsy walk into a bar, it's not a joke. These are just some of the people who can be borrowed -- yes, borrowed -- from the local library for a 45-minute chat in a nearby pub as part of an effort to fight discrimination.

"Given the daily reports of widespread anti-Americanism in Europe, we are surprised that neither Mr. Krol nor Ms. Brohed has a Yank in stock. Should Americans ever become available in libraries in, say, Paris or Berlin, even Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder could check them out." - WSJ.com - Not a Swedish Joke 

(use BugMeNot)

Link

In all seriousness, though; I have often thought that much anti-American (and also anti-English) feeling has its causes in the "ambassadors" from these lands, foreigners meet on a daily basis.

The arrogant, loud mouthed, inter-railer with his thousands of dollars credit on his American Express card, or the drunken, violent English hooligan, have created images of these two countries that is very hard to shake from those not privileged by other forms of contact.

For some people, these stereotypes, are unfortunately the only types they meet. Or, perhaps more correctly, having met one of these types, because they dominate so much the landscape, it is so easy to paint all with the same brush.

What's wrong that it should be systematised via a library?

Not so sure about your hypothisis that it's folks met from the US or UK. Rather, I'd put the blame squarely on the Liberal Left-Wing MSM Press - whatever you want to call it. Always emphasizing the negative.

Agree the point re library check-out for the curious. Problem is, they'd be checking out the Michael Moore types as opposed to the folks w/out an agenda.

...views are quickly forgotten and replaced by the fortunes or misfortunes of a football or cricket team.

& MTV

Agree the point re library check-out for the curious.  Problem is, they'd be checking out the Michael Moore types as opposed to the folks w/out an agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is your point here that Michael Moore types would somehow be more popular than other types (possible, I suppose) or that there exists somewhere some kind of politically involved person without an agenda? If the latter, exactly what kind of person who knows anything about politics has no agenda?

Agree the point re library check-out for the curious.  Problem is, they'd be checking out the Michael Moore types as opposed to the folks w/out an agenda.

Is your point here that Michael Moore types would somehow be more popular than other types (possible, I suppose) or that there exists somewhere some kind of politically involved person without an agenda? If the latter, exactly what kind of person who knows anything about politics has no agenda?

Specifically in this case w/MM I was thinking of the terrorist enablers and appeasiers as opposed to your 'Joe Six-Pak' who supports basic 'human values'. The latter here has no overt agenda.

But doesn't Mr. Joe Six Pack (JSP for short) have a kind of agenda?

I mean, the image that comes to mind when you say that is a very specific type of person- not really the average person who lives in New York City, for instance, or even in New Orleans.

My Mom's a strict tee-totaller, but in other respects she might pretty much agree with Mr. JSP politically (at least the JSPs I'm familiar with in the southeastern quadrant of the U.S.)- and she would probably agree with statements like:

1. Abortion is against the will of God so it should be illegal.

2. Christian politicians are more desirable than non-partisan politicians.

3. If I need to give up some of my freedom to remain secure, that is acceptable.

Never mind if they are right or wrong, or where she got the notions, they are still loaded with political agenda- and she expresses that when she votes, talks with her friends, or even just chooses to be apathetic and sit back and tolerate the status quo.

so I don't see how it's any different if there's a Michael Moore type or a JSP talking to you- they're both political in their way, as are all the posters on this forum, in their way.

"Steven"

Malmö needs to work on discrimination issues. Not too long ago it transpired that the municipal housing company kept records of undesirable tenants... which in itself is one thing, but the list included skin colour and other details that definitely do not belong in such a list.

I have it confirmed from a childhood friend who is married to a Nigerian man, that they had major troubles looking for a flat in Malmö.

Her husband told her it was a racial issue, but she refused to believe him, so they made a bet, and asked her 'bona fide' Swedish friend call up the company and pose the exact same questions she had herself... and the answer was that they had plenty of available apartments in the area in question.

Beautiful, isn't it.

Malmö needs to work on discrimination issues. Not too long ago it transpired that the municipal housing company kept records of undesirable tenants... which in itself is one thing, but the list included skin colour and other details that definitely do not belong in such a list.

I have it confirmed from a childhood friend who is married to a Nigerian man, that they had major troubles looking for a flat in Malmö.

Her husband told her it was a racial issue, but she refused to believe him, so they made a bet, and asked her 'bona fide' Swedish friend call up the company and pose the exact same questions she had herself... and the answer was that they had plenty of available apartments in the area in question.

Beautiful, isn't it.

And that's in Sweden?

That can't even happen below the Mason-Dixon line in the States...

But doesn't Mr. Joe Six Pack (JSP for short) have a kind of agenda?

I mean, the image that comes to mind when you say that is a very specific type of person- not really the average person who lives in New York City, for instance, or even in New Orleans.

My Mom's a strict tee-totaller, but in other respects she might pretty much agree with Mr. JSP politically (at least the JSPs I'm familiar with in the southeastern quadrant of the U.S.)- and she would probably agree with statements like:

1.  Abortion is against the will of God so it should be illegal.

2.  Christian politicians are more desirable than non-partisan politicians.

3.  If I need to give up some of my freedom to remain secure, that is acceptable.

Never mind if they are right or wrong, or where she got the notions, they are still loaded with political agenda- and she expresses that when she votes, talks with her friends, or even just chooses to be apathetic and sit back and tolerate the status quo.

so I don't see how it's any different if there's a Michael Moore type or a JSP talking to you- they're both political in their way, as are all the posters on this forum, in their way.

"Steven"

Well, let's take for example the current flap going on in the states with this Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq. Never mind he was on his second tour of duty there and was an enthusiastic supporter of the WOT, his mother has now gone on an anti-war crusade and been co-oped by the radical left.

Fair enough she has worthy cause to grieve but her 15 min of fame are almost three weeks old now and it's becoming an embarrasment.

My initial point is JSP, whom most consider the 'silent majority' - w/out an overt political agenda other than to get through the daily grind is now considered to have one simply because he's supporting the notion of Democracy in Iraq.

This contrast has always been in Scandinavia.

Whilst being some of the best exhibits of true "social democracy", creating societies perhaps an anathema to BM, they nevertheless have been able to develop a functioning and electorally satisfying system of "liberal" institutions throughout the area - to the envy of many other parts of the world.

On the other hand this has disguised (suppressed?) an "indre svinehund" (an inner pig dog). From the children of quislings in Norway has developed a group whose fascism is becoming more violent. From the Arian sympathisers in Sweden has developed "skin heads" feared throughout the area. And Denmark has housed and allowed to develop a modern Nazi party.

These reflect, unfortunately, the inner pig dog present in all Scandinavians - and perhaps all of us.

Our job is to train it and keep it down.

Well, let's take for example the current flap going on in the states with this Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq.  Never mind he was on his second tour of duty there and was an enthusiastic supporter of the WOT, his mother has now gone on an anti-war crusade and been co-oped by the radical left.

Fair enough she has worthy cause to grieve but her 15 min of fame are almost three weeks old now and it's becoming an embarrasment.

Whether or not one agrees with Sheehan, she certainly has become an activist. I suppose an activist is one who spends a significant portion of his time promoting a political viewpoint. Would that describe anyone else on this forum?

My initial point is JSP, whom most consider the 'silent majority' - w/out an overt political agenda other than to get through the daily grind is now considered to have one simply because he's supporting the notion of Democracy in Iraq.

Once again, without worrying about whether it's true that JSPs are either right or form a majority, they wield power. Assuming that the States has a representative government and that the current government truly represents a majority of Americans who share its viewpoints, that government exists as the result of a political act by the majority. Their choice to put that government in power, to let it stay there, not to act against it, or not to try to change it is a political choice- even if it is mainly exercised by inertia. They may not be activitists- they may not enjoy initiating political conversation- they may even actively seek to avoid political conversation- but they are still political agents, and thus have a political agenda. It seems odd to me for someone to describe the members of the majority in a democracy (who by definition have the greatest power of all) as those without a political agenda, and to characterize their more outspoken minority opponents as having an agenda, and furthermore for this to be a negative thing.

"Steven"

Well, let's take for example the current flap going on in the states with this Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq.  Never mind he was on his second tour of duty there and was an enthusiastic supporter of the WOT, his mother has now gone on an anti-war crusade and been co-oped by the radical left.

Fair enough she has worthy cause to grieve but her 15 min of fame are almost three weeks old now and it's becoming an embarrasment.

Whether or not one agrees with Sheehan, she certainly has become an activist. I suppose an activist is one who spends a significant portion of his time promoting a political viewpoint. Would that describe anyone else on this forum?

My initial point is JSP, whom most consider the 'silent majority' - w/out an overt political agenda other than to get through the daily grind is now considered to have one simply because he's supporting the notion of Democracy in Iraq.

It seems odd to me for someone to describe the members of the majority in a democracy (who by definition have the greatest power of all) as those without a political agenda, and to characterize their more outspoken minority opponents as having an agenda, and furthermore for this to be a negative thing.

"Steven"

Perhaps it's because when there is a 'Noble Cause' i.e. the suppression of terror, it emboldens the enemy when they observe Hanoi Janes and perhaps, now, Ms Sheehan and the MoveOn.org crowd?

While it may be true that suppression of terror is a noble cause, and it may even be true that the current U.S. administration does in fact intend and act to suppress terror, it is the essence of democracy that dissenting political viewpoints are tolerated. To imply that having and expressing a dissenting viewpoint is somehow unpatriotic or conspiratorial with an enemy seems to be missing the point of what it is American patriotism is about- which is to say, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which were written in a context of assuming that the State could become too powerful and that dissent should not be vilified.

Naturally, some statements (like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre) of free speech must be regulated for public safety- but I think the test to determine those statements must be very strong, and test for very direct, immediate, malicious harm; otherwise any statement can be twisted into a form of sedition and censored by a tyranny.

I have seen arguments both to the effect that free speech against the war harms U.S. soldiers by emboldening the enemy, and that the war itself harms U.S. soldiers by putting them in a place where bombs blow them up. Who knows if the second of these statements is true or not? However, the first one (in my view) is certainly less patriotic, because it lacks respect for one of the freedoms for which the soldiers are theoretically fighting- in other words, the freedom to disagree.

"Steven"

I have seen arguments both to the effect that free speech against the war harms U.S. soldiers by emboldening the enemy, and that the war itself harms U.S. soldiers by putting them in a place where bombs blow them up.  Who knows if the second of these statements is true or not?  However, the first one (in my view) is certainly less patriotic, because it lacks respect for one of the freedoms for which the soldiers are theoretically fighting- in other words, the freedom to disagree.

"Steven"

Absolutely concur we require free speech but as you've pointed out, 'free speech' cannot be condoned in the example of a 'theater fire' nor should responsible free speech be allowed to fabricate - as in the case of Ms. Sheehan and her over-the-top remarks e.g. OBL was allegedly behind 9/11 & America is the world's worst terrorist etc.

Here's a good piece on Mother Sheehan's latest remarks and how both the right & the left view the WOT through the same lenses:

"It is becoming nearly impossible to sort the extreme rhetoric of the antiwar Left from that of the fringe paleo-Right. Both see the Iraqi war through the same lenses: the American effort is bound to fail and is a deep reflection of American pathology.

An anguished Cindy Sheehan calls Bush “the world’s biggest terrorist.” And she goes on to blame Israel for the death of her son (“Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel”).

Her antiwar venom could easily come right out of the mouth of a more calculating David Duke. Perhaps that’s why he lauded her anti-Semitism: “Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media.”

This odd symbiosis began right after 9/11. Then the lunatic Left mused about the “pure chaos” of the falling “two huge buck teeth” twin towers, lamented that they were more full of Democrats than Republicans, and saw the strike as righteous payback from third-world victims.

The mirror-imaging fundamentalists and censors in turn saw the attack as an angry God’s retribution either for an array of our mortal sins or America’s tilting toward Israel."

Read the whole thing for it is good.

Freedom of speech is easy to support when you want to assure the freedom for people to say things you agree with....even the worst dictators of the world give the freedom to say things they agree with.

Freedom of speach only truly exists when a society makes iron clad laws that are absolutely enforced that guarantee that people can say the things that you abhor...things that malign you...things that challenge your existence...even things they probably should not be saying.

Freedom of speech is easy to support when you want to assure the freedom for people to say things you agree with....even the worst dictators of the world give the freedom to say things they agree with.

Freedom of speach only truly exists when a society makes iron clad laws that are absolutely enforced that guarantee that people can say the things that you abhor...things that malign you...things that challenge your existence...even things they probably should not be saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, and America still has the KKK walking in the streets in daylight. I guess our freedom of speech works.

Absolutely concur we require free speech but as you've pointed out, 'free speech' cannot be condoned in the example of a 'theater fire' nor should responsible free speech be allowed to fabricate - as in the case of Ms. Sheehan and her over-the-top remarks e.g. OBL was allegedly behind 9/11 & America is the world's worst terrorist etc.

I don't know if what Mrs. Sheehan says is true or not. No doubt if a proper hearing were held to determine if she is slandering Mr. Bush, with all evidence open to being examined by a fair and impartial judge and jury (and the public), we would find out. If any of our many federal prosecutors feels there is a case, no doubt they should begin a trial. I'm sure that Mrs. Sheehan would be willing to participate, and no doubt Mr. Bush would be happy to clear his name and let her confront him in an orderly manner (since he knows already what she says about him is untrue, of course).

Why, nothing she says truly threatens him, does it? Why should they even pay attention to her?

Then again, on the other hand, if she truly lacks all credibility, as you seem to think, then maybe there is no real case for slander. After all, you have to demonstrate genuine harm to public reputation for such cases to be successful.

Whether or not she is correct in what she says, I'm sure that she would be the last person in the nation to whose opinions a ban on free speech would apply- after all, she's sacrificed what is probably second in importance in her world only to her own life- her son. I'm sure that all right-thinking Americans would want to show the utmost respect and consideration for her.

And, beg your pardon, but her opinions (of any kind that I've read) do *not* match a test for immediate, demonstrable, malicious harm in the way that shouting "fire" in a theatre does. I hope you can understand the distinction I'm talking about. To make controls on free speech any more murky is simply inviting tyranny, whether it is from the left or the right.

And after all, why should intelligent people need a ban on free speech? Why should the intelligent majority care if the minority disagrees? They know they're right, after all! And surely they wouldn't want to be accused of holding the most important national U.S. values as less important than their own opinions....

"Steven"

Actually, it seems that the intelligent majority agrees with me about free speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084651/

Actually, it seems that the intelligent majority agrees with me about free speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084651/

No quibble here re. free speech - I was referring to responsible free speech as opposed to hate speech the KKK esposes & the distorted free speech Ms. Sheehan employs.

Actually, it seems that the intelligent majority agrees with me about free speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084651/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No quibble here re. free speech - I was referring to responsible free speech as opposed to hate speech the KKK esposes & the distorted free speech Ms. Sheehan employs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can't take away free speech from anyone. Even those you we disagree with. So, hate speech and "distorted" speech must be fought on the same playing field, with more speech.

While it may be true that suppression of terror is a noble cause, and it may even be true that the current U.S. administration does in fact intend and act to suppress terror, it is the essence of democracy that dissenting political viewpoints are tolerated.  To imply that having and expressing a dissenting viewpoint is somehow unpatriotic or conspiratorial with an enemy seems to be missing the point of what it is American patriotism is about- which is to say, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which were written in a context of assuming that the State could become too powerful and that dissent should not be vilified.

Naturally, some statements (like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre) of free speech must be regulated for public safety- but I think the test to determine those statements must be very strong, and test for very direct, immediate, malicious harm; otherwise any statement can be twisted into a form of sedition and censored by a tyranny.

I have seen arguments both to the effect that free speech against the war harms U.S. soldiers by emboldening the enemy, and that the war itself harms U.S. soldiers by putting them in a place where bombs blow them up.  Who knows if the second of these statements is true or not?  However, the first one (in my view) is certainly less patriotic, because it lacks respect for one of the freedoms for which the soldiers are theoretically fighting- in other words, the freedom to disagree.

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I must have gone through those same exact arguments with Boon Me over and over, and I think he still doesn't get it. Some people never will.

Excellent rebutal btw, but don't hold your breath for a constructive reply from Boon Me and friends.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither." -- Thomas Jefferson (a liberal hippie)

We can't take away free speech from anyone. Even those you we disagree with. So, hate speech and "distorted" speech must be fought on the same playing field, with more speech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I guess you would agree in principle to have Iman in US Mosques preaching about the evils of the West and how to destroy the US ?

How far would you accept free speech ? or should the KKK be the only organization to get a free ride ?

There are some additional limits on free speech in the context of calling for violent overthrow of government, for example, or certain forms of hate speech against certain groups. However, these limits have generally been agreed to through the legislative process, which once again is driven theoretically by the will of the people (though I never heard anyone convincingly explain how this explained the universal breaking of the formerly universal 55 mph speed limit in the U.S.).

Speech dissenting from the war neither impacts any identifiable minority group (in terms of federal definitions of such groups), nor has it been prohibited specifically by any sort of legislation. If the law truly is representative, then by the results of the poll cited above it never will be forbidden. Therefore it is permitted.

I'm afraid, Boon Mee, that you do not define "distorted" clearly enough for me to understand what you mean.

"Steven"

I'm afraid, Boon Mee, that you do not define "distorted" clearly enough for me to understand what you mean.

"Steven"

'Distorted' as in the recent case of Mother Sheehan referring to America 'the biggest terrorist country' on earth and OBL was 'allegedly' behind 9/11. While it's her right under the Constitution to proclaim this viewpoint, she, along with the Hanoi Jane's, seek to undermine resolve on the WOT.

By no means should she be muzzled but it's unfortunate the outcome tends to embolden the 'enemy'.

No doubt there are elements of the antiwar argument which make common cause with some arguments of those who wish to harm the United States. On the other hand, it seems to me there are also elements of the prowar argument which give the enemy succor- for example, the recent acknowledgement by the British government that their presence in Iraq has led to an explosion of anti-government terrorist recruiting activity in that country, and that the British government has been aware of this for some time.

"Steven"

No doubt there are elements of the antiwar argument which make common cause with some arguments of those who wish to harm the United States.  On the other hand, it seems to me there are also elements of the prowar argument which give the enemy succor- for example, the recent acknowledgement by the British government that their presence in Iraq has led to an explosion of anti-government terrorist recruiting activity in that country, and that the British government has been aware of this for some time.

"Steven"

Well, the argument could be made too then that Hitler would not have bombed London with the V-2 rockets if it were not for Normandy?

This story is absolutely THE Jaw-Dropper of the Day.

You can use the f-word in class (but only five times)

"A secondary school is to allow pupils to swear at teachers - as long as they don't do so more than five times in a lesson. A running tally of how many times the f-word has been used will be kept on the board. If a class goes over the limit, they will be 'spoken' to at the end of the lesson."

Read the rest...

No doubt there are elements of the antiwar argument which make common cause with some arguments of those who wish to harm the United States.  On the other hand, it seems to me there are also elements of the prowar argument which give the enemy succor- for example, the recent acknowledgement by the British government that their presence in Iraq has led to an explosion of anti-government terrorist recruiting activity in that country, and that the British government has been aware of this for some time.

"Steven"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the argument could be made too then that Hitler would not have bombed London with the V-2 rockets if it were not for Normandy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All these arguments can be made. The question is which are most likely to be correct. The discussion is academic, as we can't really rewind time to see what would have happened in a world where Mr. Bush didn't invade Iraq. However, in terms of management success, intelligence, strategy, and planning, one can ask the question "Which of the things happening now were not predicted by the managing process?" and "Is the administration being honest and open with itself the American people, the Iraqi people, and its allies about the past, present, and future situation in this conflict?" Also, a question that Colin Powell once felt was very important: "What constitutes victory in this 'war?'," or "What is our exit strategy?"

If the answer to the first question is very long, and the answer to the second question is no, and there is no clear answer to the third, then it seems to me that there is a strong case for the antiwar argument on the basis of administrative incompetence and corruption alone- no need even to touch the issue of whether things might have been better done otherwise.

It seems to me, though, that even among those who are supposed to be Mr. Bush's political and military allies that many find the answers to the questions I pose above to be problematic for them. Therefore it seems natural there is a strong antiwar movement and Mr. Bush has only his team's failure to blame for it.

To believe otherwise would be to hold them unaccountable for the results of their actions.

"Steven"

Hey Boon, you need to read this

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=3494

Great, isn't it ?

Hey Boon, you need to read this

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=3494

Great, isn't it ? 

Off-topic, Dude...