I had a similar experience to you. I wrote my rep and my two senators. Two of the three voted no at least. The other is a Democrat, and voted yes.

Still, I was glad to see at least some opposition.

Thanks for posting your opinion. I think the news media is not really covering the real grass roots opposition to war.

I for one am not getting carried away with all the war hype. We're not going to invade Iraq, or any other country in the near future.

Wil,
Well, what did you expect from a "Professional" politician like Feinstien? As cynical as this sounds, it's for the most part true: The INSTANT they hit Washington D.C.(tm), they get sucked into "The game". Getting there isn't enough anymore, NOW insted of (Horror of horrors) DOING THEIR JOB, they spend almost ALL of their time trying to figure out how to STAY there! In order to do that, they have suck up to whatever prevailig wind is blowing through the beltway at the moment.

I'm telling you "Gordo", life's a bitch outside of Castle Rock.

Kal

It's funny to see how warlike the Republicans are. When Carter was in office, he bent over backwards to avoid a confrontation with Iran. Once Reagan got in, Iran got scared and the hostages came home. Why?

Carter just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

What will Bush win? There is no Nobel Booby Prize.

-- Just Another Canadian's Opinion

I just think, as a non-american, that it was just a thing waiting to happen. As soon as Bush ran for president I hoped no one would vote for that redneck. (well, not enough people did, but he became pres anyway) He has had war on his mind. All along. Just like his gunhappy dad. And he probably doesn't really give a shit against what country.

Cheat post!
http://www.wilwheaton.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11505

Amen.

I live not too far south of you, Wil, in Downey, so I believe we have the same representation in congress, and I too was deeply disheartened by Ms. Feinstein's stunningly bad decision to take political cover in this issue.

It's been a disheartening couple of weeks for me, someone who holds mostly liberal-progressive to moderate views on most issues. I found myself at various points agreeing with: Pat Buchanan, Robert Byrd, and the CIA. These aren't people I've agreed with on much of anything, ever before.

Pat Buchanan pointed out that what is passing as "Conservative" in Washington is truly radical in its shift from the cold war strategy to this dangerous Bush Doctrine of preemption where we can and will attack any country the President sees as a danger. It's only a matter of time before we attack Libya, North Korea, Iran and many other points around the world. This is not conservative. This is radical.

Robert Byrd, a Democrat who has some perversely unprogressive opinions when it comes to social issues, came out against the resolution, pointing out that this is not the time (just before an election) to be deciding such an important matter.

And Finally, the CIA, which you mentioned in your post, thinks this thing is a Very Bad Idea™. Now, if much of the military says that it's not the time, and the intelligence community says no go, and nearly all of your allies say no go, and there are rumblings in your own cabinet against the war, and a growing majority of Americans are against a unilateral strike against Iraq, what makes this seem like a brilliant idea?

The problem is this issue was demagogued and owned by the Bush Junta and Republicans in Congress who herded the weak willed, running scared, cowardly Democrats in congress.

But the Feinsteins and Daschles of congress know that their jobs aren't in jeopardy from progressive and liberal democrats. Afterall, who else are they going to vote for. People don't vote on ONE ISSUE. There is the economy to consider. There's the environment, energy policy, reproductive rights, civil rights, education, and healthcare to worry about.

So here we are stuck... between Iraq and a hard place. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I can tell you, if Daschle or Lieberman run for president in '04, they can go fish as far as I'm concerned.

Wil, I actually haven't read any coherent argument against the war. By coherent, I mean logical arguments not relying on conspiracy theories, simple anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism, the words "daddy" or "revenge," or will-of-the-people stuff (which isn't a real argument, really). Any pointers to sane logical argument against the war on Iraq? The warmongers can't have a monopoly on reasoned argument, right?

Come on we all now George W. is trying to make his daddy proud by getting back at Iraq/Saddam. Why should we be brought into the mess?

As far as I know we don't have any proof that Saddam was behind the WTC attack.

Shouldn't we spend more money to get Osama/make sure his threat is eliminated? Plus, our economy is seriously screwed up right now. I can't begin to tell you how many people I know have been laid off from work.

Argh...I don't understand why people are so crazy & power hungry in this world.

That really is annoying, I actually thought Feinstien wasn't that bad untill now! I, too, live not to far from you, in North Hollywood, and I am appalled at the idea that a government employee wouldn't do what her employers, the people who pay her, the taxpayers, want. In any other profession that would be grounds for firing...Unfortunately, in this profession, we can only fire someone at election time...oh well

Aside from all of the political reasons not to go to war (which I agree with), there is the economic implications. Hints at war already jolt the stock market now, should the U.S. go for the gusto and engage full on the implications to the economy could be disaterous, especially if any potential war lasts longer than a month or two.

I'm old enough to recall that after the first gulf war the economy tanked and took almost 4 years to recover.

I think if Bush really wants to win a 2nd term in office he needs to let up off the war drums, get the economy going again and focus on the less ambigous threats to American security.

Since when did war ever make sense?

I think if Bush wins a second term it would do all of us good to move far, far away. What do you think he'll do next to distract the general populous from the fact that he's sending America down the toilet?

No WAR! War MALA!!!

Have you checked with each and every one of her constituents? I didn't think so. Saying things like:

"... but she's certainly against the wishes of her constituents, and is therefore unfit to represent us in the future."

Just invalidates everything you said and makes everything you will say about the subject in the future worthless.

Here's a copy of a war-opposition letter I sent to the Dark Lords of Washington (not a Trek reference, but appropriate nonetheless).

For a more proper Trek reference, the Next Gen episode "The High Ground" does a nice job with the issue of terrorism. Our response to the 9/11 attacks makes one wonder what the Federation would have done if the terrorists had succeeded in destroying the Enterprise.
(For a synopsis of the episode, see
http://www.startrek.com/library/tng_episodes/episodes_tng_detail_68426.asp)

Anyway, here's my letter. The auto-response I got from Washington was very nice. "Although the officials won't see your letter, their secretaries will." Very comforting!

As a Massachusetts voter, it is with great alarm that I watch the growing paranoia that seems to be pushing our nation inexorably towards war.

Iraq is no more of a threat now than it was prior to the New York attacks, which no one has been able to link to Iraq. Instead, the nation's attention is being diverted away from the diffuse threat of terrorism, posed by violent individuals angered by US economic and military support of oppressive foreign governments. A single target, Iraq, is much easier to understand and eliminate with brute force.

As satisfying as some might find the removal of Iraq's dictator, doing so alone at the cost of our allies' support, while breeding new generations of people who view America as a modern day Roman Empire that uses its legions to impose its will on the world, would harm our nation far more than any attack Iraq is capable of now or in the foreseeable future.

I urge you not to wage war without consulting with and obtaining the support of the Congress (now a moot point, alas) and our allies through the United Nations.

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history. Let us not attempt to equal or surpass it in the twenty-first.

Wil,
I too wrote to Senators Boxer and Feinstein voicing my opposition to the resolution and was disappointed by Feinstein's vote. I'm not all that eloquent but I do have a voice and it's upsetting that it's getting overlooked.

It's great to come here and read your politicial views and see that they are similiar to mine. I'm always finding myself in the minority with my friends and peers when it comes to my political beliefs. Even worse, many are totally oblivous to what's happening in the world. It's quite disheartening at times. But it gives me hope to see that you and others share my views.

To Derek: Why is it that you ask people who oppose war to give arguments against it instead of asking those who want war to give arguments for it? Is it by default acceptable to go to war against anyone? If yes, then the world should truly fear the US, because then the US is a much larger threat than Iraq.

If no, then what logical arguments are there for a war against a man that the proponents of war claim might have nuclear capabilities and that it is likely have chemical or biological warfare capabilities, but that your own intelligence agency (CIA) claim is less dangerous now than he used to be, but could pose a threat if attacked?

If the CIA is right, the war is pointless. If the CIA is wrong, then the US would be up against a man desperate and mad enough that he might just decide it's worth using any weapons capibilities he has, regardless of consequences.

But do you think Bush is better at analysis the threat than the CIA, despite his practically non-existent foreign policy experience?

If anyone needs to make their case, it is the war mongering lunatics that is willing to send people to their death despite their own intelligence community opposing it as pointless and dangerous,
their allies considering it almost criminal (to the extent that a senior German official compared Bush' way of using war to mollify internal criticism with the way Goebbels did during world war II), and opposition from a large part of their own population.

I'm from Australia - so we are at the moment counting our dead from Bali, a number which may include over 100 of our countrymen and women.

I don't see Saddam behind this. Maybe it was Osama, I don't know.

But when it comes to Iraq, George W. seems to have an uncontrolled personal vendetta against the guy. You guys went into Afghanistan to get Osama and you didn't - maybe he did die but who knows. So there is lack of closure - there is no revenge or justice yet for 9/11. So GWB goes after Saddam.

Okay - I hate Saddam as well. I wish he'd die and the country turns into a democracy. But I feel the same about Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Burma and so on. Should those countries also be attacked? And if so, should they be attacked without UN approval?

Attacking Iraq without without:
1) UN approval
2) Proving a direct link between Osama and Saddam.
3) Attacking other dictatorships.

... will be a great hypocritical tragedy.

Why not spend the money in supporting democracy and freedom and economic development in nations that hate the US rather than bomb them or ignore them?

I have stated for many years that politics isn't for the people anymore. It is for the politicians. I have a sense that when things go the way of the vast majority of voters, it's because the polticians stand to lose something important to THEM if they vote opposite to voter concern. As for this current cooked-up crisis created by a president who would rather pull a trigger (or stand behind the relative safety of our borders and make OTHERS pull the triggers) than work for a diplomatic resolution, I would ask when it became more correct to become an axe-wielding barbarian than a thinking man with a conscience.

Kevin

B. Bock wrote:

"I can tell you, if Daschle or Lieberman run for president in '04, they can go fish as far as I'm concerned. "

At least Lieberman, wrong though he is, has the courage of his convictions - he's wanted Hussein done in forever.

Daschle was so clearly being a weeny on this saying, in effect, Mr. President, I'll support this resolution even though it's a really bad idea - but if anything goes wrong, it's YOUR fault.

I've added him to my flush list.

I'll vote for someone who was against this extraordinary misadventure into the realm of empire if I can.

But if the only viable candidates are those who supported it, at least I want one (like Biden) who GENUINELY supported it, who took responsibility for their vote and who were aware of the possible, frightful consequences (again, like Biden)if our government is wrong.

Here ends the sermon :-)

Peace!

Hi,
I'm from Ireland. We've had enough terrorism to know a little about the subject. I have always considered the greatest threat to the US is not the likes of Saddam, but the person delivering your milk, or the bank manager, or indeed the computer technician, with a belief that an injustice is being done and "God" will look after him.
No matter if he (or she) is one of the murderous Christian fundamentalists (Polynesia last year) or an islamic fundamentalist.
These are the threat.
Not Saddam, there was no massive escallation of weapons research, or mobilisation of troops in the last couple of months. No declaration of war on a neighbouring country. Just Bush, wanting to finish what his father started, and couldn't finish.
Of course his family's oil links have nothing to do with the decisions being made, and his Europuppet Tony blair doesn't have a "Look Maw, I'm with the big boy's now" grin every time the two of them meet. Heavens no!
Security is what the American people deserve, a war in Iraq is just one more excuse to launch a rocket at a military target, or an office building, or a school.

Later,
Dev.

CLARIFYING POINT: Bush and kin are not rednecks!!!

WHY? Because his whole family was born and RAISED in Maine!!!!! (even his drunk driving ticket was in Kennedy-lane Kennebunksport, hello!)

They carpetbagged their way into Texas (while still maintaining their Maine residences!!!) since we DO NOT HAVE A STATE INCOME TAX. Thus, they CLAIM RESIDENCY IN TEXAS, never have to pay extra for their inflated incomes and still "visit their retreats in Maine".

Bush was -=>NEVER

The mistake people made in Texas was thinking that the family was any good... personally I voted for Ann Richards, but his media machine$ got the better of the state by fooling them with a well-oiled and grea$ed media campaign.

And since then we in TEXAS are running into ruin: we are had a SURPLUS of Billions of dollars which the Shrub (as I prefer to call it!) gave back to his wealthy backers (Enron, etc.) and NOW Texas has a nearly 12 BILLION BUDGETARY SHORTFALL.

I am a state employee and I work for adults with mental retardation and other disabilities and I have watched what the Shrub's cutting of the Medicare/Medicaid system has done to us, resources are shrinking all over the place.

And the idea of cutting the Federal Aid was supposed to put the financial burden back on the states, but Texas didn't even have the money since Shrub gave it away before he ran off to DC!!!

As we all know, this war is ONLY so we'll stop asking about his involvement in Enron, the power crisis in California and other shadow government dealings. Everytime anyone starts to bring it up, he drags out a picture of Saddam or whatever.

Anyway, Wil, vote your conscience in November. e all did originally, but somebody got to influence the durn Supreme Court judges.

A bummed out TRUE TEXAS NATIVE,

***THE BEEJ***

Maybe you're judging them unfairly because you disagree with their decision.

Sometimes you want the elected offical to look at the evidence and do the *right thing* regardless of how loudly people shout about one point of view. And sometimes a minority is *right*. It is the job of the elected offical to decide when this is the case and act on it.

The worst kind of elected offical are those who just look at the opinion polls and vote for whatever the majority wants just to ensure their popularity regardless of what they are voting for.

I'm not saying anything about the issue here - just that I'm sure you can imagine a circumstance where you'd think they had done the right thing voting for something *despite* the fact that it may not be the popular choice.

If enough people think that they are consistently making the wrong choice they will vote in someone else.

That's the way democracy works in most countries and in general it's a good thing that every decision isn't a popularity contest.

You don't vote for individual decisions, you vote for the *person* to represent you.

Hey wil, I love your site, and respect you and your viewpoints, and whatnot.

Question: What would you rather have happen? Should we the civilized world sit on our thumbs until Saddam kills thousands of innocent people? (Here you would say, "there is no proof he's going to do that") The fact is that by American laws, GWB is the president, and is privy to far more information than you or I. Do you think that sensitive reports about Iraq that would A)compromise operatives or B)scare Iraq into doing something rash would be released? If there is a chance that Iraq will do something stupid, we must neutralize that chance.

You throw in accusations that GWB is after the Iraqi oil. Seems to me that we could have gone after Kuwaiti oil in 1991 by instating an American Dictator, or some such thing, but we didn't...the other argument is that oil prices are going to skyrocket...I don't remember that happening in 1991...infact, I remember oil falling to $10 a barrel...

I wonder where your public outcry was when Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998? Or when Clinton went in to Kosovo without a UN resolution?

What would you rather have happen? Diplomatic efforts have been tried for 11 years. The all-powerful Bill Clinton couldn't get weapons inspectors in without bombing them. Please elaborate on that instead of "I don't support this resolution". What do you support?

Wil:
Eventhough Puerto Rico only has a Resident Comissioner in DC, and have therefore no say whatsoever in this type of desicions made by the legislative bodies of the US government, because of the whole situation with the NAVY and Vieques, we are very much affected by this desicion. I've only thought about this whole terrorism thing as to how it affects us down here in PR. Your thoughts made me realize that this thing not onlly affects us here in regards to Vieques, but the whole international community. I just hope Sadam doens't take it out on inocent people.

Isn't it curious how when the Bushes are in power, we are at war, or are looking to be in one?

Very interesting commentary and research as well. My comment to your posting would be that even though you think a letter to your hardline Republican representative would be futile, you should still send it. It is akin to not voting because you feel the race is already won.

I would suggest sending all of those mentioned a link to your post and ask them to read all those commenting on it as well.

bob

OIL-OIL-OIL.

It couldn't have anything to do with OIL, COULD IT?

Here is something to consider. Does anyone out there believe Isreal would let Saddam develop weapons of mass destruction? NOT! If Isreal (and you can't tell me Isreal does not know exactly what is happening in their own back yard, they even have a meter to know how much Saddam pisses, how much he pisses and what colour it was) knew Saddam was creating devastating weapons (and I'm not talking forty year old Russian Scuds) Saddam would be squashed like a bug before the US could say OIL.

I'll leave the real reasons for this facade up to the readers here.

OIL-OIL-OIL

Ireland Here.

to continue on from Neil 'Oz' comment re: getting Osama \ Not getting Osama \ Going after Saddam.

It seems to me that the American Government have decided (with or without the support of the PEOPLE of America) that WAR IS GOOD.

Bush didn't get Osama, but his WAR ON TERRORISM goes on. (Believe me I know, Sky News has a permanent BREAKING NEWS banner, but I digress)

So Bush didn't get Osama Bin Liner so he goes after Saddam. "Let us inspect your weapons" says the Shrub, and lo, the gates are opened and Saddam lets the weapons inspectors back in.
But this is not good enough, nope "We're gonna kick the arse offa you varmints anyway" says the Shrub and lo the 11th Commandment is passed by congress "Thou shalt not dispute the word of the Lord High Poobah!"

and what happens if he doesn't get to go to war with Saddam? Who will the next target of the War on Terrorism be?
ETA in Spain? The IRA? The PLO? Oh wait a minute...

Wil, why are you so certain everyone agrees with you and expressed the same opinion to Senator Fienstien? Could it be that ever SOB and their brother in Orange County also wrote saying, bomb Iraq into the Stone Age. Also the oil comments aren't well founded, yes in the short term oil prices will go up. However, in the long term, with a western friendly government in Iraq, the home to the second largest oil deposit in the world, oil prices would drop with their return to major production with help from other countries that are looking to invest in Iraq. The oil companies, the single largest source of unmitigated evil in the world, are not that short sited.

Well DUH. You mean this may have more to do with a grudge between the Hatfields and McCoys ... er Bushes and Husseins? Of course Jr. is trying to take down the bad guy his daddy couldn't get.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bush is the type of President that needs a bad guy to keep himself popular. So far he's had China (remember the spy plane incident?), Bin Laden, Hussein ... who's next? He's ready to throw us into war with everybody who's not our staunchest ally. INSANE!

Wil-

I know you are unhappy with Feinstein's vote, but, as it turns out, she's doing what the founding fathers intended. Remember that the two houses of Congress were created with the idea that the House of Representatives would be the house that swayed on current public opinion, while the Senate could look at the "big picture" and do what they think is right, but not necessarily popular. The six year term gives them some insulation. The idea is that a Senator is more wise than the impetuous public. This may not be the case, but it's the system we've got.

Also, she isn't saying that she's ignoring her constituents. She just wouldn't want to base her vote on just the "squeaky wheels." There are other ways to weigh public opinion than counting the letters in her office.

Wil,

When you source SALON.com as a resource, you make me not want to like you. SALON is a haven for wacky, left-wing, socialist, limp-wristed, bed-wetting, LIBERAL commentary.

Give me something from Drudge, NewsMax, FOX, Rush, Boortz and I'll listen to you.

Steven: at least he didn't list barbra streisand
as a source.

I love the site but you have to also think of all the people who didnt send her their opinion on the subject. As well these people are elected by the majority of the people so obviously people like the decisions she makes and if they no longer feel that way she will not return to office! I know someone is gonna say that the system if flawed, but i challange them to come up with a system that is not. The fact is no matter how government work somebody is gonna be unhappy. You have to live with it and take you chance to help change it by VOTING! Some people may also say Bush's ways of going about gettin the job done are violent or gun happy but the fact is he is getting it done. My grandfater always said "If you ask someone to 'Please pass me the spade' they dont listn but, if you say 'Give me the fuckin shovel' the do it quick"!

Gee Will,
Pardon me for this little slap about our democratic process .. but maybe you shouldn't have so quickly written off your 'republican' US rep - and jumped on the democratic bandwagon.

Sorry man , but folks who only talk to their registered party are like guys who bitch about their boss's annoying habits - but carefully hide it from said boss in fear of being fired or something. Its counter productive.

Its the same crowd of folks who go off and pout when their party's presidential candidate doesnt get in office - forgetting that, there were more folks who wanted them in office. [or at least more votes .. but thats a whole `nother argument.]

It *ALSO* smacks of the same people who bitch about how the country is run .. but *DO NOT VOTE*.

FIRST off .. the republican and democrat parties are just missleading lables now a-days. Joe Liberman is a Democrat . but he certainly passed some restrictive and very conservative laws.

There are an equal number of Republican officers who are very liberal.

My point being .. anyone who runs for high public office now adays .. has a few million in the bank.
Show me ANY politician who is deeply in touch with the plight of his 'fellow man' when they have the luxury of worring if their offshore investments are doing good this week.

The line between the parties is almost non existant. They all say the same things . they just say it in the canned response that eveyone expects them to use. Its like talking to a dog .. you can say whatever you want - as long as its in a nice voice .. they wag their tail.

Talk to *ALL* your reps .. you may not like their party lines .. but last I checked .. people are not issued a certificate at birth stating Democrat or Republican. I'm willing to bet that your officer's values are not so immutable too.
Besides - your stuck with them till the next election. You can't ignore them any more than you can ignore that annoying boss.

I saw Bob Graham walking through the Atlanta airport a few months ago, while I was waiting for a flight. I couldn't work up the nerve to walk up to him, shake his hand, and thank him for representing me (I'm a Floridian).

I wish I had now...

Bob Graham is a Democrat.

Personally, I think Saddam has some naked pictures of Barbara or something... :)

The United States has representative government instead of direct democracy precisely BECAUSE the founding fathers decided that the government ought not to make decisions based on the direction of fickle public opinion.

If you dislike the way things change between Democratic and Republican administrations, just imagine how wide the swings would be if everything was decided based on public opinion polls.

I certainly understand how irritating, frustrating, and anger-producing it can be to have your representatives in the House and Senate act against your wishes; but they really were elected to make decisions for themselves.

In Senator Feinstein's defense, there are certainly times when it is best for a "representative" to vote against the "wishes of the people". The Jim Crow laws were enormously popular with the voting pubilc, but Congress wisely forged ahead with civil rights reforms anyway.

Such times are rare, of course. But I admit that there are certainly times when I think that this whole notion that a million people can be smarter than one is flawed.

On the whole, though, I agree with you completely. I wrote to both Senators and to my representative, letting them know how I felt, and how much I'm looking forward to November so that I can vote certain parties out of office.

Wil,

I don't know what polls of California alone might show on the Iraq question, but, depending on how the question's asked, up to 70% of the nation supports Bush. The vote in the house and senate pretty well reflected the national consensus. So, on the whole, our representative republic form of gov't reflected the will of the people.

Our representatives probably take into account issues which have fervent pro or con constituents. There is an organized anti-war effort at present (including you), but I doubt there's really an organized pro-war effort to flood congress with pro-war messages. They often ignore a flood of messages from activists when the broader polls give such a contrary result. And, maybe Senator Feinstein voted her conscience, or maybe she does believe the intelligence dictated a yes vote.

But, the broader opinion is often ignored on other issues, such as immigration. For years, polls have shown the 2/3's or more believe immigration should be reduced. But, it never happens. It increases, and Dubya and Democrat leaders are presently trying to grant another amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. More than 70% of Americans oppose that, but they keep trying, I think because immigration is not a voting issue for most Americans. Few decide their vote on that one issue. The few who do are mostly pro-immigration, recent immigrants who want more of their group let in. So, rather than following the will of the people, we see both parties loosening immigration laws, and pandering to recent immigrants who will vote that one issue. Representative democracy at work. If it ever becomes a voting issue for a large bloc of Americans, we'll see a dramatic change in how politicians behave on that issue.

But, our representatives know a voting issue when they see one. After the Ninth Circuit ruled against the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, they (especially liberal Democrats) couldn't find a microphone fast enough to register their outrage at such a ruling. Then, that stirring rendition of "God Bless America" on the capitol steps. Whatever you think about all that, they definitely know a voting issue when they see one.

Back to Iraq. I believe that CIA report you said was released was actually leaked. Many in D. C. believe it was a CUA move by CIA Director Tenet, a Clinton holdover. After their brilliant pre-9/11 work, many believe Tenet wanted cover in case things go badly with Iraq. CIA reports are generally not released to the public, and I give the content of that particular one little credibility. It might well have been produced to be leaked.

As one person mentioned, if this is all about oil, why didn't Bush, Sr. and his oilman Sec. of Defense Cheney grab it in 1991 after Saddam had been totally defeated? It's not about oil, but if we go in, we should certainly look after our oil interest with any new gov't. Do any of the posters here use petroleum products?

And, a regime change is not because Iraq can or would pose any direct threat to the US, but because they are a real threat to pass biological or chemical weapons on to terrorists who would use them against us, or some other western nation.
Later, they might pass nuclear weapons on to terrorists. Saddam definitely needs to be history.

Strange no one has yet mentioned the week-end events on Bali. Do people still doubt the terrorists will commit any atrocity they can until they are defeated? Comparatively, that might be as great a tragedy for Australia as 9/11 was for the US. Do we want to take odds on whether Saddam would pass along even more destructive weapons when he has them? One in ten? One of two? One of one? What are the acceptable odds to live with?

If the dysfuctional Arab and Islamic worlds simply stayed at home and lived with their failures, we'd have no reason to do anything but buy their oil. But a significant minority have this grand vision of a new golden age of Islam, and tend to blame their failures of the past 500+ years on the West, and never on themselves. I think terrorism will continue and become much worse until more freedom and prosperity is available to their people. And, how can that ever happen with the assorted repressive monarchies and dictators which presently govern their countries? They have very high birth rates, high unemployment, and little prospect of improvement. That's the real reason to topple Saddam, and maybe some others.

Rust (post number 5) has a point. Too bad the conclusion doesn't follow the same logic. Here is what was said in Post #5

It's funny to see how warlike the Republicans are. When Carter was in office, he bent over backwards to avoid a confrontation with Iran. Once Reagan got in, Iran got scared and the hostages came home. Why?

Carter just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

What will Bush win? There is no Nobel Booby Prize.

-- Just Another Canadian's Opinion

Let's look closer. Hostages are in Iran and NOT coming home with a Democrat in office. Republican is elected and Iran "got scared" and hostages are sent home. Iran "got scared" because they knew that Reagan was not some blow-hard with no real plan to do anything but talk. Iran knew that blood would be spilled in order to free our people from their grasp. With Carter "bending over backwards" they knew they had nothing to worry about. Perhaps Iraq and other countries will not even bother to plot against us when they see that the "stone-age inducing bombing" they get in return isn't worth it. Look to the future of the Middle East. When the oil runs out (predicted in about 85 years) what will they have? WE will move on to other ways to fuel our country. THEY will vanish. No oil means no money from the US. No money, coupled with no way to grow their own food, means no way to survive. National Geographic said this month. "Without oil they cannot live well. Without water they cannot live." What is shaping for the future is something not unlike the Star Trek movie when the Klingon moon Praxis explodes. We will have a chance to "wipe them from the galaxy" and "be in a far better position to dictate terms"
It is JUST my opinion (and worth as much as you are paying to read it) but we are actually assuring the continued existence of these piss-ant countries by doing things like NOT drilling in our own country for oil. If we didn't buy from them, whom would they sell to? Who would pay the costs? Russia? They have their own oil. Japan? A formidable country, but too small to make a dent in the Middle East economy. Canada is large enough, but also has other options. England? Options. Australia? No need for anyone else for any reason. They've got it all covered.
My point (and I do have one) is while we are NOT altruistic in our dealings with other countries we ARE making it possible for them to exist beyond their normal life cycle. Their governments are as corrupt as Ancient Rome, but they don’t have as far to fall to hit the ruin that Rome became. Without oil they will only remain as long as the rest of the world supports them with food and other basic needs of life, and when it comes to our survival our theirs we all know what the choice our country will make.
I know that knocking them around NOW is distasteful in the least, leaving them to attempt to knock us around is even more so. They can live long a fruitful lives if they just leave us alone. We are trying to teach them to do just that.

for what it's worth

Run Wil, Run. The country needs you. We can bitch all day long, or we can do something about it. More progressive celebrities need to get into politics, or we will only be left with lunatic right-wing puppets like Reagan. We all know politics is a show (not that it should be, but it is). What we need is the right people in the roles. Run Wil, Run. If your congressperson is a right-winger, oppose him/her. You can do it. Even just to raise awareness.
-The Real Sam

Not to nit-pick, but Bob Graham is a Democrat from my state, Florida.

What galls me the most is the fact this is administration is willing to send young Americans to their death to make their oil buddies even more wealthy. And if it helps them get control of the Senate and turn us into a theocracy along the way, bonus!

And the scariest thing is the so-called 'Liberal Media' is so completely controlled by big business that very few dissenting voices are being heard.

Wil,

Nice balanced use of sources. Lets see, you quoted a liberal source, then a liberal source, followed by a liberal source, and topped it all off with a liberal source. I would also like to note that in a recent poll 55% of Californians approved of the way Bush is dealing with Iraq (compared to 65% nationally). So by that argument, you Senator did infact vote for the wishes of the majority she represents.

With all this talk of "Secret Reports" and confidential information, how can you actually believe either side though?

I can not believe there is anyone involved with politics who has "nothing to lose," and until I can see those secret reports myself, I can not pass judgement on who is right.

Do I want us to go to war? No, I think it's overreactionary. Do I want us to take no action against Iraq? No. The deal was that he let the inspectors in. That stopped. Something should have been done about it in 1998, before they had four years to change the status of their arms situation.

"Then there is the awkward matter of the CIA report on Iraq released last week, which concluded that U.N. inspections actually worked before they were halted in 1998, leaving Saddam's military and his chemical-weapons program weaker than they were in the 1980s."

If they worked, why were they stopped?

This country is in a strangle hold by the US Political System. The Republicans and Democrats will NEVER do what's in the best interest of the country if it's not in the best interest of the party.

So how do you know who to believe?

Whose reports can you trust? Salon.com and miami.com? I tent to take anything with .com at the end with extra grains of salt. Even cnn.com.

Yes, this is a circular arguement, because I'm not for or against what is happening. However, I don't think we can blindly say that just because one politician or another agrees with what WE think, that they must be right.

Why doesn't Graham have anything to lose politically? He's a politician. This is his livelyhood. He has EVERYTHING to lose with every decision he makes. Granted, he's probably smarter than Feinstein in realizing that if the party ousts him he can switch over and his supporters will stay loyal to HIM, not the party.

We live in dangerous times, not because of the rest of the world, but because of ourselves.

Mr. Wheaton I love your site, I admire your talent, writing as well as acting, and look forward to reading the book.

I've got to agree,(in principle) with the comment made about what sources you quote as references. If you only listen to those who agree with you, you'll never be fully informed. I read Salon, Slate, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, National Review, The Village Voice, The Daily Standard,Foreign Policy, Jane's Information Group,The Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, and any number of fifty plus foreign papers on the web depending on the issue and area at hand.

The reasons behind the coming war with Iraq is very complex,and it is inevitable that it will come. Is oil a part of the reason? Of course it is. Is it because Bush and his "buddies" want to make more money? Of course not. Our economy has a symbiotic relationship with the oil economies of the Middle east and Russia. Tha's why we have such a love hate relationship with Saudia Arabia. They hate everything we stand for, but their economy, (mismanaged as it is) would collapse without us. That would destabilize an already volatile area to the brink of war and beyond. If anyone doesn't understand that this is the area that could in a very short period of time could bring on another world war then they are very uninformed. And for the gentleman who "knows" so much about Israel, "your argument would be much more effective if you could spell the name of the country correctly.

Wil,

I've been active and attentive to politics since I was 14, through a YMCA program called Youth and Government (www.calymca.org... but they have it in almost every state). It's amazing how few people in this country vote, especially when this November is such an important election.

Thanks for being policitally active, thanks for using your site to bring attention to the dire need to vote, I knew there was a reason I came here to read you everyday.

I dont think it makes any sense in this day and age to write a detailed letter. They dont have time to read it.

Rather, print or write onto a postcard in big letters with a simple message like:

"NO UNILATERAL ACTION ON IRAQ PLEASE".

This way, the gov office processes it in 3 seconds, and maybe the mail people will see it to.

I couldn't agree with you more Wil! There is no compelling or urgent need to wage war against Iraq. It sickens me to see that there is such a push in this direction by our government on such laughable evidence.

For those that may be in disbelief of just how laughable the evidence is, take a note and answer these questions: has the alleged evidence about Iraq been made public? No, why not? Is our govt. trying to protect the Iraqi government by not telling us the full truth of what they claim to know?

Think about it. We gain (most credible) intelligence from satellite views and word of mouth from ground operatives. The latter of which aren't terribly many or very reliable. Yet there are claims of 'hard evidence' against Iraq.

However, despite this so-called evidence all we get from Pres. Bush and other supporting pols is a redress of past history. Yes, Saddam has gassed people and yes he's killed people. No distinction is ever made to the fact that he's done these things in the PAST. Instead it's presented as an everyday occurrence in Iraq so we should go to war!

The reason that 'evidence' is not being revealed is because it's not so hardline conclusive on anything. To wit, of the crimes Bush attributes to Saddam Hussein, and all are heinous to be sure, the U.S. knew about them at the time they occurred AND DID NOTHING!

Are we to really believe that an attack on Iraq is justified by what Saddam has done to his people? When we never attempted to stop him in the first place? Furthermore, if our govt. is so very concerned about the well-being of citizens in other countries why are we buddy buddy with China? The Chinese govt. has a long and ongoing history of human rights abuses. Why aren't we set to go to war with them?

Evidently, people being abused in countries that we see developing economic ties with is okay. We have no such views of economic bliss that will benefit us with Iraq.

I can remember watching the news one night and in one segment they mention that the U.S. has already built a staging base to launch off into war on Iraq, in Qatar. Later on they show satellite images of Iraq saying that Saddam's forces appear on the move and girding for war!

Gee, I don't know about you but if I knew someone was across the way setting up a place to attack me from... I'd damn sure be getting ready for it too! Iraq has a right to protect itself.

Bush has watched his ground swell of popularity wax and wane. The hunt for Bin Laden a failure, he needs something to drum up support for his presidency. He doesn't want to be a one-termer. Iraq is the perfect patsy! We battled them before and Saddam is still there so he still must be BAD! We should battle them again and take him out. Little boy Bush wants to finish what his father began.

That there is no undeniable proof to wage war on Iraq is irrelevant. If need be the U.S. will create the needed proof. Don't believe that? History tells those who bother to look that the war in Vietnam came about from an attack against a U.S. military ship BUT it was the ship that provocated the attack. Think we can't provoke an attack on ourselves again? The govt. can and will do it at some point in effort to provide the one thing they lack... something concrete to validate going to war.

They've already got a base setup and roaring to go in Qatar. Don't believe me though go and educate yourselves:
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/jul/07012002/nation_w/749848.htm

Whatever we do as Americans, we must not let ourselves be blindly led into a war.

The tone of your site is changing rapidly to just another extreme place of harsh views.

What's next, pop up ads?!?

Learn to swim before you drown (yourself). imho.

I wonder if Levar Burton has a web site?

It is all based on interests not power; yet if power is our goal, then war will only hinder our actions.

Reminder: this site is not a celebrity site, it is one of opinions shared by a community of thinkers monitored by an activist whom many respect and admire.

Long time reader, first time poster here.

As others have pointed out, Bob Graham is a Democrat, and a damn fine Senator and former Governor of Florida. There was talk of him being selected as Gore's running mate in the last election, and I wish he had been -- certainly, the Florida mess wouldn't have happened, as Graham is VERY popular here and they could have easily swept the state.

Besides, Lieberman scares the heck out of me, especially in combination with Gore (neither one is exactly a sterling supporter of the First Ammendment), and I voted for them only in effort to keep Dubya out. Given the way things turned out, I should have held to my convictions and voted for Nader. But I digress.

I wish Graham would run for President; he'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

To hell with the people that are giving you crap over the political commentary, though, Wil. You're a sharp guy and I enjoy reading your views. And yes, I largely agree with you politically, but I'm interested in reading anyone that can express themselves intelligently, and you, sir, are doing just that. Keep it coming.

Wil:

Senator Feinstein is one of my neighbors. I've actually seen her on the street a couple of times, but mostly she's never home. Next time I see her, I'm going to ask her if she's still a democrat - not that it matters much these days. Democrats don't seem to be the opposition party anymore.

-Chris

"RUN WIL..RUN!!!!!" PLEASE.

Hey Wil,
I totally agree with you.
My friend and I were discussing this last night. We're the same age and can remember watching the Vietnam war on the evening news every night as kids. I NEVER want to see anything like it again. Attacking Iraq is another Vietnam waiting to happen. Pointless, costly, and dangerous.

Those who said George W is trying to: finish what Dad started or didn't finish, make him proud, or make himself look good, are absolutely right.
Didn't his Dad go on record saying HE opposed this? I seem to recall he did.
Well "W", there's one reason out the window. Should we address the others? None of them are valid excuses.

Lastly, to "Beej", very well said. I'm a native Texan too and I really miss Ann Richards.

God help us all and especially the poor kids George sends to do his bidding. How does he sleep at night? Oh right, he sold his conscience for public office.
How liberating.

Peace,
Billman

I wonder how fast that 70 percent approval rating would disappear if the draft were reinstituted -- covering ALL people of draft age -- including the sons and daughters of the wealthy and well-connected?

It might look a lot different if Bush's two partyin' daughters had to face the draft wouldn't it?

Someone up there commented that we should be drilling our own wildernesses for oil. Why not take it a step further and forget drilling for oil here -- why not make alternate fuels more attractive? Costs can't be more than the endless cleanups we have to pay for after oil companies get through trashing environments and their employees' 401k accounts...

Wil,

I'm willing to grant you your sources about CIA reports and such, and Feinstein's comments are phenomenally annoying.

But why do you assume that this Iraq thing has to do with Oil? Obviously you missed the AP story last week about Africa. The world's oil companies have had enough worrying about oil coming out of the middle east and have been investing TONS of money in western Africa in recent times. Geological surveys show (according to the article) that there is more oil off the shores of western africa than in the Persian Gulf.

So if Bush was clamoring to start invading some western african nations (and making them the 51st+ states) then I could say this is All about oil.

Bush might be war mongering to keep his numbers propped up, but I won't buy that this is just about oil.

I can't agree with you here Wil. Saddam has been shooting at our planes, and the planes of our allies for 11 years now. He has repeatedly refused to obey the terms of his surrender. This will allow us to attack and finish him if he does not follow the current UN resolutions allowing weapon inspectors back in. We need to be able to bite, as well as bark. Empty threats mean nothing, but now, he will see that resolution passed. He will realize that if he screws with us, he will pay. Thus, he will be less likely to cause any trouble. My 2 cents.

Wil,

Not being there, this is only a question, but could it have less to do with democratic representation and more to do with something like on-line polls (or some other equally slanted, er, I mean, *accurate* "other factors")

Recently, there was a stand at Farmer's Market where people could write letters to their representatives. They encouraged us to write to Boxer rather than Feinstein, as Feinstein wasn't likely to listen to our feedback.

I'm sad to hear that they were right.

I couldn't agree more; I wrote a long rant about this at kuro5hin on thursday when i was still distraught about it. But a quick side note --- Feinstein was up for re-election two years ago, so you can't hold it against her this November; you have to hold on to that rage and remember it when she's up again in 2006.

Well put, Will. Our Washington State Senator Cantwell seems to have misplaced her spine as well. She will not be getting my vote in her next election, and I've told her as much. Murray and Jim "I'll go to Baghdad and tell the President this is a bad idea from there!" McDermott both deserve big pats on the back.

In his recent book, Stupid White Men, Michael Moore asks the Democrats to stop moonlighting for the competition. It seems that the two-party system line grows more and more grey with each passing day. To them, I am inclined to agree with Moore when he says, "If you can't clean up your act, fuck you and the donkey you rode in on."

Keep fighting the good fight, Will.

Wil, I don't always agree with your politics, but I really respect the guts it takes to say what you think.

As for me, I think Iraq needs to be disarmed. That's really the point of the inspections. If war is necessary to disarm Iraq, then we should go to war. If war is *not* necessary, we should not.

I don't think we should try to link Iraq with Al-Queda. There may be links but I don't think Saddam had anything to do with September 11. If he's smart he recognized (as Arafat did) that the World Trade Center attack was the worst thing that could have happened to him.

Iraq hasn't changed in the past two years or so. We have. If anyone can convince me that we should have attacked Saddam in 2000 I'll support an attack now.

Graham

Funny. Feinstein was one of the most vocal opponents of the Iraq resolution. Good to know she caves under pressure.

Time for term limits.

I'm from the Bay Area, wrote my Rep's and have similar feelings about Feinstein. I'm not surprised about her vote, given her ideas on what stability in the Mid-East is about.

What pissed me off about the vote was the way it was rushed to be done before the Novemeber elections (blatant politics) and the vey bad precedent it sets for foreign policy. With pre-emption we can now blow the crap out of anyone who we preceive as a threat (and of course the CIA intelliengence is always right, huh!). We used to condem countries that used this as a reason to go to war.

If you are under 35, this impacts you greatly. The post-war plans for Iraq include a U.S. military gov't similar to that in Japan at the end of WWII. If this goes on for any length of time, our volunteer army won't have enough troops to go round. Can you say the words "I'm being Drafted?"

i've been a life-long liberal dem and this issue of war with hussein goes beyond black and white. it's not JUST about the oil. i take issue with wil's assertion that "in 1998" a weaker WMD program within iraq equates to a current "lesser" threat in 2002. four years is a long time in which one can redevelop chem/bio/nuke weapons.

and i do not doubt saddam will take the offensive if we go after his head - his life is all about remaining in power.

and if this were such a bad idea, why has there been no outcry in the muslim world about going after saddam? because he's a dictator who kills his own people as well as targets his own kin. there was more of a brouhaha by islamic-ruled nations prior to the afghanistan invasion.

and as far as a representative voting for what they believe is right vs. what their VOCAL constituency wants, well, that's a double edged sword. a vocal minority could sway reproductive rights for women and that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, no matter what the letter writers believe with all their hearts.

anna

Uncle Willie,

There once was a man from Crawford,
who wrestled with grammar and the spoken word.
While the economy sank in to the doldrums,
he pounded his war drums,
promising the salvation of every Shiite and Kurd.

But his great nation was unsure,
about the lengthy war they'd endure.
"Frettle not," he did heartily proclaim,
I must topple evil Sad-dam His-saim,
And they fell for it hook, line, sinker and lure.

Peeking nervously from under my desk in mid-town Manhattan,

Nephew Eric

Well worded Wil! I too was disappointed to see that both my Senators & Congressman voted for this war; however, I wasn't too surprised as Virginia's representatives have gone along with every one of Bush's ideas since he got in office.

The sad thing is, despite the number of people who oppose this war, the people we elected to represent us do not seem to really take this into account. The only recourse we have is to attempt to boot them out of office every couple years, something I keep trying for good old Senator Warner in Virginia. Alas, in Virginia, we are still stuck with war crazy Republicans representing us.

I'm a California resident too, and not a fan of Senator Feinstein. I have yet to see her ever fail to support whatever Israel wants, and Israel wants us to take out Iraq -- that's my best guess to explain her vote.

Rust-
Look at American history and you will see the majority of wars have been under members of Democratic party. The only ones you can point to are Nixon, and he was elected after the war started, and George The Elder. Just food for thought.

WWI- Wilson, Dem
Nicuragua, FDR, Dem
WWII- FDR, Dem
Korea- Truman, Demo
Bay of Pigs- Kennedy, Dem
Dominican Republic- Kennedy/Johnson, Dem
Vietnam- Kennedy/Johnson, Dem
Gulf War- Bush - Repub
Somalia- Clinton, Dem
Bosnia, etc- Clinton, Dem

So, 'weapons of mass destruction' are bad. Iraq can't have them. Neither can anyone else. Wait, except the US. We can have them, I guess. Where is the logic in that? Leave Iraq alone and let those guys kill each other and start worrying about what is wrong with the US. I hate Bush - he's an idiot of massive proportion. The guy can't even talk in press conferences without screwing something up. What a fuck-up. Who voted for this ass?

I oppose war with Iraq unless these conditions are met:

1)Hussein refuses to allow the UN access to any site.

--This would suggest Hussein has something to hide.

2)The UN approves action

--We shouldn't give our friends the finger. Our allies are important. It's important that they feel that way. We don't need any more enemies!

3)Hussein refuses to disarm

--provided weapons of mass destruction are found.

4)Hussein has supported Al-Quaida

--if there is hard evidence of this, screw the first three criteria and get his ass. Sadly, I don't know if I would believe anything our government tells us.

I'm very dissapointed in the way this situation has been handled. While I agree the world should never have allowed Hussein to break UN resolutions in the first place--I'm disgusted by the way Bush has treated our allies. And I'm afraid that Bush has sent Hussein a message that he's going to be ousted from power no matter what he does. If Hussein's back is against the wall... if he really does have all these terrible weapons...Why would he not use them? I'm afraid the actions of our government is going to be the catalyst for more attacks on us and our allies. Do you ever wonder if we are playing right into OBL's hands? He's always been a step ahead.

...you know there is something wrong when you are more afraid of Bush that you are of Hussein.

Thanks for the heads-up, dude. I'm voting against her next time.

The politician would be a much more rational creature if it didn't have to be elected. Just pick them at random from the phone book. Except for Florida. Florida elections provide good entertainment, and should remain unchanged.

On Saturdaay I read in "The Guardian" newspaper,that recent Galup polls had estimated that support for the War had dropped to 50% of those American Citizens who were polled. If thats true (and Galup is a respected and long standing system), then thats a hell of a lot of people who are opposed to war with Iraq.

Im not suprised. When the evidence for Saddam's arsenal is nebulous, weak and often based on estimates from 4 years ago, then no wonder people are questioning its validity. Ive seen a copy of the infamous "dossier of evil" that Tony Blair (Wannabe-President and full time lapdog), presented to Parliament. It was so full of "maybe"s and "Could have"s and "mights" that half of the time it said nothing at all. Sources were quoted as "Intelligence services believe that...". There was very little hard evidence in it at all. Whats worse, is that even if Iraq has got all the weapons its supposed to have, it would still not have the biggest arsenal in the Middle East. That honour falls to Israel, a member of the Nuclear Club, and guilty of human rights abuses and flouting of UN resolutions.

The truth is, we have no solid evidence linking Saddam to Al Quaeda or September 11th, nor can we be sure that he will obtain or use Weapons of Mass Destruction against his neighbors or anyone else. We CAN be sure that he will use them, if he has them, if Iraq is invaded. Saddam needs to be dealt with, but maybe "jaw-jaw" would work better than "war-war", and cost fewer lives. I'm worried that the hawks have convinced themselves that war is the only solution and are not looking for alternatives.

People think that the whole thing is connected to OIL because there is not much solid evidence supporting all the other reasons we have been given, and the US is the biggest OIL using nation in the world, and Bush's election campaign was funded by OIL companies, and the Bush administration has said that if a US military control of Iraq ever came about, then one of the benifits would be US adminstration of the OIL fields.
Why this shift towards Iraq? Why don't we hear about whats being done to stop Al Quaeda. They were the ones who commited the atrocity of Sept 11, and are most likely behind the bomb attack in Bali. If we need to remove Saddam because he is so evil, then why arent we going after Mugabe and Sharon?

Let face it, if we attack Iraq without UN backing, then we will become rogue states too. Lets not be too quick to hand out more death. Too many have already died, and there is no garauntee that bombing the shit out of Iraq will kill only those who deserve death, or prevent terrorism from continuing its blood-soaked excesses.

You present some interesting points and counterpoints. We had a split vote in MA also. I'm curious who the "people" are who allegedly are behind Bush. Bush is after oil interests, plain and simple. That and retaliation for his daddy. I can only hope we avert his disaster and it makes Bush look really bad in the long run. Vote carefully in November.

amen wil!

W,
I mean Wil,

Just to get off on the right foot, I agree with you about a potential war in Iraq; it's stupid. The resident tyrant in Baghdad is not a complete idiot having survived for more than two decades. It is unlikely he will launch any type of first strike against the US or Israel risking obliteration certainly by Israel if not us. He may sell WMD (acronyms suck) to other nut jobs, but the evidence is hardly conclusive that he has done so to date and is likely quite traceable. Again, why risk Baghdad being made into a glass parking lot?
My question is, How many people has Saddam killed in the US in the last three weeks? And how many by the wackjob in DC? Perhaps Georgie and his own goon crew ought to be focusing on "homeland security".
One last note: Contrary to your note and the sentiments of most of your writers, Senators are not selected to represent the people. That is the purpose of the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers set up the Senate with equal representation from each state to act as a more thoughtful and deliberative body than the House which represents the "will" of the people (Look at the Newt Gingrich revolution of 1994). Yes, we elect Senators, but we are supposed to select those whom we believe will think clearly and do the right thing. I too disagree with my Senators on many issues, but I think the problem arises from lack of clear thought on their part and more attention to polling data. It is the Senators who have forgotten their original purpose and thus so have we. Campaign reform. But I digress.

Demosthenes

Wil, why don't you run for office! Hell yeah.. I'd vote for you.. you have a better head on your shoudlers than most of the corrupt (and non corrupt, if any) politicians.

Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President! Wheaton for President!

A few notes:

Thank you to everyone who pointed out that Graham is a Democrat. I don't know how I got that wrong. Doesn't change the way I feel about Feinstein, though.

I am thrilled that people are talking about this, and even more thrilled that so far the discussion here has been rational and respectful.

There is a good point that I should have written my US Rep. regardless. You're right, but each time I write him all I get back is a fundraising letter, and his voting record shows that his politics are clearly opposed to mine. Think whispering in a hurricaine.

I don't buy the argument that I only cited "liberal" sources, therefore invalidating my opinions, though I see what you're getting at. When someone only cites Rush, or O'Reilly, or NewsMax, or something, I have the same reaction. The articles from Salon drew from the AP and Knight Ridder wires, though, which I wouldn't refer to as "liberal" or "conservative" sources. Just something to consider.

Final thought: it is folly to assume that because one opposes the Bush administration, one automatically supported the Clinton administration, or would presumably support a Gore administration.

I'm with you on this one, Wil. I wrote Feinstein, Boxer, and my representative (Henry Waxman) about Iraq six or eight months ago when I first noted its appearance on congress.org. Of the two senators and my rep, Feinstein was the only one out of those three who refused so much as a response. At least Waxman was upfront about his intent on the issue, but I too will remember this vote come Nov. '06.

This whole situation is played over and over again like a broken record in human history. There are never any positions of purity on such extreme measures as war.

Unfortunately, now the stakes are higher. Bringing war to Iraq can only bring disaster, domestically or abroad. Either he has the capability Bush and Chaney claim
and will use it when we corner him in his palace (wouldn't you if you knew you were on the hit list?), OR this is just another smoke screen for other Bush agendas
(i.e. obfuscation of ties to corporate plundering and corruption, manufactured crisis like the California power situation, fixing of gas prices by the oil companies,
etc...) . Distracting from these issues will kill any hope of reform.

Either way, the American people lose. In fact, all involved will lose and lose big. Going to war risks the release of bio agents, and massive U.S. military casualties for
what purpose? Does anyone think making a parking lot of Iraq will end terrorism? Imagine what we would be saying if we went into Iraq. We will be saying, among
other things:

Ok China, take back Taiwan.

Ok India and Pakistan, last one to Kashmir is a bum!

Ok Russia, roll over Chechnya at all costs.

We would be setting this dangerous example. We cant fix the world. And we have to accept that other cultures will sometimes accept things that we would not.

We cant move off the planet so we have to deal with what is here (the good, the bad, and ugly) and we have to keep in mind that polarization and posturing begets
the same in return. I agree that terrorism must be stopped, but force alone will never solve that problem.

The best weapon against terrorism is a more even keeled world economy. Prosperity gives people something to lose when they get extreme. By "prosperity" I mean,
food, shelter, clothing, medicine. These types of things go a long way toward making friends and giving people something to think about losing by extreme action.

Instead we offer, pre-emptive strike options and a "you may be next" doctrine. Believe me when I say that Im sure that many people around the world are losing
sleep on that one. Some may be involved in terrorism, but many more are concerned about their families and being in the line of fire. That may work in the short term
but it only breeds resentment and anger in response.

People are much simpler than cultural differences suggest. In the end, all people want a working peace (not total peace which I believe is an impossible dream and
goes against human nature). We cant deny who we are as a species. We are competitive, territorial, and constantly succumb to greed. However, these traits in
moderation and with a working peace, have proven to spawn, innovation, survival, and an ambition to expand our boundaries and knowledge. I would like to see
"win/win" situation presented instead of the constant "game over, insert more coins". That to me, is the best weapon.

SpunkyKnight

The best comment yet on this topic was by Tom Tomorrow a couple days ago (at http://www.thismodernworld.com ) :

"I'm beginning to think that if the Democratic party were on fire, it wouldn't be worth the trouble it would take to piss on them."

I applaud Boxer for taking a stand and voting no.

Feinstein has forever lost my vote. I will work *very hard* to bring her down come next election.

Ah the ramblings of someone who actually thinks there are significant differences between democrats and republicans. Your rep did the right thing taking general polls into consideration. The majority of Californians and Americans for that matter support Bush, so where do you get this idea that she isn't representing her citizens? Really one-sided rational, Wil.

Make a real difference and push for a libertarian. Dems, Reps, and green party loonies are all the same...

i dont' believe in war and certainly dont' want lives lost...esp. american lives and american soldiers...but its so hard to come up with a resolution to this situation with the middle east...they have been the way they are since before Christ so how can we just charge in there and expect to change anything suddenly (w/violence)...war is not the answer...i really dont' know how to feel about all this...

http://www.internationalanswer.org/

god, if i wasn't depressed enough...

Me again. Still no coherent argument against the war in Iraq posted here. Links anyone?

And for those who say the vote was timed for the election are displaying their ignorance. Say you're against the war. You know Feinstein is for it. Had she been up for re-election (like 33 senators and all the House are), when BETTER to know how she stands?

After you toe the party line and vote for her since she has a (D) next to her name? Then two weeks later, she votes for the war? Where's your sense?

Votes like this ARE PERFECT right before the election! In fact, if it weren't for Dubya's pressing of the issue, you know the Congress would have delayed it until after. They KNOW some of their jobs are on the line!

It shouldn't come as any damn surprise that wil is coming out against this war. For god's sake, he thinks that left-wing kook Michael Moore is a godsend (for all you right-thinking conservatives out there, make sure to get the word out to people to avoid seeing "Bowling for Columbine" - make sure that Michael Moore doesn't get the chance to make one more left-wing movie rant against America ever again!)

As to the war, yeah...I suppose that over 20 years of evidence pouring in from ever corner about the evils of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime wouldn't be enough to sway the heart of any liberal - not even a smoking gun would be enough to push them to war (if it wasn't enough after Sept. 11, it will never be enough). Let's just forget that the tyrant has violated one U.N. resolution after another, or that he gassed his own citizens, or that his regime is founded on the basis of terror, or that he DOES fund terrorists (he hands pay-outs to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, and there is evidence suggesting he helps train them as well).

There isn't nor has there been a cogent liberal argument for opposing the war that hasn't been founded on a knee-jerk anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism , a rant about President Bush trying to finish the job his father started, or the drive to get to Iraqi oil. Each of those arguments has been soundly debunked and exposed as the frauds they are. It's even become so ludicrous that liberals and leftists are trying to paint Bush as some new Hitler (apparently that is the opinion of some very stupid German Justice Ministers). To compare Bush to Hitler or to any dictator is ridiculous, yet this is part of the scope of the left-wing argument. Hell, when you see Pat Buchanan and the left-wing agreeing on ANYTHING, you damn well know that there's something wrong with that particular position.

The fact that the Iraqi people are SUFFERING under the boot of that tyrant will never be enough for you bleeding heart liberals. The FACT that Saddam has used biological and chemical weapons isn't enough. The fact that evidence HAS been unearthed that ties Iraq to al-Qaeda isn't enough. If Saddam nukes Washington, D.C., that probably won't be enough.

You are all on the wrong side of history, just like the America Firsters previous to WW2, or just like your precious Soviet Union. People like you have always bowed down to tyrants, sacrificing your dignity to your own petty whims and fears. If it were up to people like you, the world might just be in the grip of a Nazi superstate and a destructive Japanese Pacific empire. Thanks to people like you, the people of Vietnam lost their one true chance at freedom.

When the people of Iraq are finally free thanks to American guts and know-how, just remember that NONE OF YOU had a part in it, and never will.

Wasn't Boxer the one who wasn't sure that the attack on September 11th were carried out by Osama and his buddies?

And let me ask these few questions. If we (the US) pull out of every country (Taiwan, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, etc) and leave them to their own choices and battles, what do you really think is going to happen?

Is China going to respect Taiwan's independence?

Are the radical Islamics in Saudi or Kuwait going to agree with the current regime?

Do you think Slobo and his boys are going to give the Serbs their little country?

If you have answered yes to any of the above questions, go back and redo your homework. We got involved in these countries because of the atrocities (or possible atrocities) that would be carried out against their own people or their neighbors.

Although the analogy might be a bit out of place, what would you do if you saw some parent beating up on a kid? You would call the police or just jump in there and stop it, right? Think about that, and now apply it to a much larger slate.

Stenek wrote 'The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history. Let us not attempt to equal or surpass it in the twenty-first.'

I'm afraid you may be too late. We already have Sept 11th, and now Bali. I have read that American newspapers aren't carrying coverage of this attack, or if they are, only to say how many Americans were killed. Bali is in Indonesia, which is a hop, skip and jump away from where I am - New Zealand. Osama 'the Monster' and Al Queda are far from me. Or so I thought. Now I am starting to get worried. I (perhaps naively) thought terrorism was something that happened elsewhere. I need someone to comfort me. Lie to me if you have to, but tell me it will all work out...PLEASE. We have one confirmed dead Kiwi. But one is too much. Fears for all those still missing. I don't pray - maybe I will start.

Iraq started a war. They lost. When you lose you have to do what winners tell you to do or you get beat down again. It's Iraq's war. They lost, the deal was "We'll top kicking your ass if you lets us inspect your weapson, enforce no fly, etc etc". Iraq didnt' do that...so what now? They just get away with it? let them walk? If Japan had not held up their part of deal after WWII, the US/allies would have taken over Japan too. Japan was under far far more restrictions than Iraq ever was and they complied. Ditto for Germany (took two tries there)

Enough is enough, the stalling, the lying the BS, the 'almost' inspections. THEY LOST. Iraq not complying is like the Twins showing up for the world series and not leaving the field....

JON

Wil --

Sorry you're not happy. I'm not happy either (I think we should have gone back about ten years ago, when the inspectors first ran into trouble; he's had ten years to prepare that we shouldn't have given him.) But that's not why I'm posting.

You seem to have a fundamental mis-understanding of "representative democracy". The duty of your congress critters is to make the best decision that they can [i] for the country as a whole, [/i] regardless of the popularity of that decision in their state or district. What you seem to expect is that they should act like some kind of voting machine, tabulating the decisions of those who might have voted for them (ignoring those who didn't?) and voting according to that total (rather like the Electoral College, in a way.)

Is it just me, speaking from an English viewpoint, or are all American's now against the President. I am terribly confused, to say the least. Did you all not vote for him or have you since changed your minds?
I would state my opinion but I'm scared I might get a slap in the face.
But amen Wil, very informative stuff.

thanks, Wil, for having the courage to speak out. I've written to my representative twice (San Diego area) though I knew it would be worthless. I'm impressed with the level of debate on this topic -- now for more action?

In listening to the congressional debates on the radio, and the arguments of the pundits in the papers and on TV, I have often been reminded of the excellent book "The March of Folly" by Barbara Tuchman. It is a history book which explores times where governments have persisted in actions which are clearly against their interests, despite people at the time recognizing it, and despite other alternatives. The perpetrators get focused on one aspect and refuse to see the bigger picture and the alternatives. For example, the American Revolutionary War was fought because the British Parliament (chiefly Lords) refused to consider any compromise with The Colonies, because they thought any compromise would be the death of The Empire. The Colonies must remain subject to the mother country. So they asserted claims again and again that they could not enforce, despite the fact that the taxes they were trying to win were far,far smaller in value than the value of the colonial trade they were going to lose. Other examples are the Trojan Horse, Hitler's U-boat war (which brought the US into WWII), Hitler's invasion of Russia (and refusal to retreat), and the Vietnam War (or else the Domino effect will get us.)

Back to the present: I hear pundits say things like "We must support the President's plan, because after what he as said, to back down now would make him look bad and encourage the terrorists." I hear "opposition" congressmen say things like "I don't think any Americans oppose action against Saddam, we just want to make sure we have a say in how it is done" and limit the debate to what conditions The President must meet to pursue his plan. And I see saner minds who go to Bagdad and report that war is a Bad Idea are villified as traitors. And I consider 1 BILLION Muslims that may be upset by what they may see as an Imperialist invasion.

I don't have much hope left. But I will be voting.

Anyone who hasn't seen it yet should check out presidentmoron.com.
I check out this site regularly, and it is dead on with it's humor.
Personally, I agree with you Wil.
In my opinion -and many others obviously- Bush Jr. is a brainless idiot who can barely speak let alone run a country. Everyone knows he is a puppet.
There is actually a quote attributed to Bush Jr. (that I have seen on more than one site, and many credible sites) that he said to the president of Brazil (which also has humanitarian issues that sicken me), and I quote: "Do you have blacks here too?" Oh yeah. He is what we want for president.
The people who defend Bush seem to always be the same type of person. A sheep. Someone who is so blindly caught up in the Super Patriot, ultra Christian mindset, that anyone who differs from them is automatically called Un-American.
Islam is being persecuted. It amazes me that that is not obvious to everyone. Bush wants Iraq's oil as well as revenge for Daddy. And, until Bush and the US "government" reevaluate their relationship with Israel, tension and terror will continue. I mean that should be obvious too. It is unfair to say on one hand that the terror that Palestinians perpetrate is worse the the ones Israel does. And then on the other hand, defend Israel when it bombs hospitals and private homes. It attacks Arafat's residences with Arafat inside, which is a direct violation of UN Charters. They are not allowed to assasinate a world leader, but they can destroy the building he is in? Huh?
Hey I am not saying that Arafat is a great guy; he is not someone I admire, but seriously, fair is fair. The same rules need to apply to everyone involved. And, the US were the ones who refused to discuss the problems occurring in Israel with the Palestinians in the last race summit, and then proceeded to walk out.
My Senators also voted no. Thank God. But, they were in the minority.
It is funny that the people who want war with Iraq can not offer tangible reasons why. Ask the average person on the street who happens to aggree with Bush why they agree, and they say: Because Iraq could attack us. Ok, why? Response: Because that is what I heard on tv. Whoa.......
Bush doesn't care about going to war because there can not be an election held during war time. That suits him just fine. I bet no one in his family will be over there fighting a stupid and pointless war.
I am more than a little disgusted by the UN too. They need to stand up to the American propaganda machine and say "No, you will not wage a war that is completely unfounded." But they won't. Oh, well.
If the US does go into a war with Iraq, I will move to New Zealand. I swear. I want to be as far away from the craziness as possible.
One more point: There are far more threats to our security coming from other countries of the world at present, but -Oops, right, there is not that vendetta issue, or Oil.
Wil, keep posting your point of view. It is like having a light in the darkness.
And, you are cool, and so are most of your readers and posters, well except "me":

"Have you checked with each and every one of her constituents? I didn't think so. Saying things like:

"... but she's certainly against the wishes of her constituents, and is therefore unfit to represent us in the future."

Just invalidates everything you said and makes everything you will say about the subject in the future worthless."

Right, and the people who want war obviously are so led like the sheep they are, they didn't care enough to voice the approval of the war resolution, now did they?

If the war proponents took it seriously they would have equalled or outnumbered the people who called in the first place. But they didn't call in in the numbers that people who are opposed to the war did. That should tell you something. Using more than one percent of your brain might be a good idea....

Oddly enough, the only persuasive argument I have ever heard against going to war with Iraq came from a conservative friend of mine who is against the war for just this one reason:

"I don't want American boys to die on Iraqi soil."

All left-wing excuses and anti-war posturing pale in comparison to that. But then, the left-wing never did nor still doesn't care about the conditions of the military men who go out every day to protect _their_ freedoms. That's why they go out of their way to come up with false reason after false reason not to go to war with Iraq.

May I also remind the dumb left-wingers here that Saddam LOST the Gulf War, and is thus expect to follow through every last condition of the treaty which ended that war, which includes complete disarmament of his WMDs, which he has NOT done, and is therefore in violation of said treaty, and is now rightfully subject to military action by the U.S. and its allies.

Derek, Pro-American. Did you actuall read my post, or did you just skim over it and dismiss it as liberalism?

Heres an argument for you. The evidence FOR war is unconvincing, and not enough to justify more death, and there is a great deal of evidence that a war would make the situation in the Middle East worse...not better. There is NOTHING that can be applied to Saddam and his regime that cannot be applied to at least 5 other countries, sometimes better, and some of those countries are apparently our bosom buddies. After all we are still selling them weapons. Just like we sold weapons to Saddam when it suited us.
Has anyone else seen this evidece that ties Saddam to Al Quaeda? I haven't. And I've been looking for it.
Arguments against the war? Hows this...a cornered bear is the most dangerous, especially if its claws are sharp. If Saddam does have WMD then he will undoubtedly use them the moment he gets a sniff of an invasion, which tells me that an invasion would not be the best course of action.

Its interesting that the hawks are demanding reasons NOT to kill people, while providing unclear and murky evidence to support bombing the crud out of anyone who pisses them off.
Am I liberal? Damn right. 3000 people died on Sept 11, and at LEAST 3500 people died in afghanistan. Is human life really so cheap to you people? or do you think that only American lives are worth anything?

To theothercourtney:

A billion muslims against the US for invading Iraq? Give me a break. We thought we were going to run into huge opposition when running into afghanistan. The only problems we ran into were the local populace trying to get the GIs to bring in satellite dishes and radios from the US and Taiwan to sell.

People LIKE being free to do what they want, living in a dictatorship/religious state just tends to piss off the middle class and oppresses the poor even more.

Can someone show me a better government than the US? I would love to see an example...

When do we get to make our own planet? This one is obviously hooped.

It's pretty sickening that the lines between countries are emphasized thus obscuring the fact that we're all one race on this planet. Truth be told: Goverments are NOT bigger than the world.

I have always supported the Constition. It gives us our most basic rights such as free speach and self defense. I also support our right to have a voice. I also think that someone of your stature should be a little more responsible in what you post. You have influence over a multitude of people. You usually try to promote positive issues. You do your homework. You try to give an informed opinion. Did you stop to think that this time, you can't. Yeah, Congress wasn't unanimous in their vote. They couldn't even get a unanimous vote to give themselves a raise! No matter what the threat, no matter what the reason, there will always be people who oppose war. It doesn't change the fact that war is a necessary evil. My husband is in the Persian Gulf defending your right to have your opinion. He is defending your right not to do a damn thing to defend our country. He is willing to give his life for this country and its people. That includes you. SHOW A LITTLE RESPECT!! Just because you and most of the other people our age are too cowardly to stand up to the people threatening our way of life, don't diss the people who aren't. This is not about oil. This is about people who deliberately kill civilians. Would you be so quick to judge and to criticize if you lost a loved one on the USS COLE ,in the World Trade Center or in the Pentagon?! Have you forgotten about those people? Have you forgotten that this isn't about you. This isn't about money. This isn't about convenience. This isn't about looking good. This is about freedom. This is about our very way of life. This is about being able to live in a place where your wife can wear what she wants. This is about living in a place where daughters are not circumcised or stoned to death for looking at a boy. This is about a place where sons learn to carry a gun and to hate before they learn to read and write. This is about our children having a place to grow up where they won't have to be afraid of their shadow. What about Nolan and Ryan? Did you think about them and their future or were you too busy thinking about your political beliefs and cozy moralities. Well, guess what. Not everything is as easy as obeying the Golden Rule. Not everyone cares that you are a really good guy. Not everyone cares that you are a talented actor who has made a difference in peoples' lives. They would kill you for being a different. So please, the next time you want to rant about not going to war, think about Nolan and Ryan and how you want them to grow up. Think about what their kids' lives are going to be like. What do you want for their future? Are you willing to do what needs to be done? What would you do to defend them? Would you stand idle knowing your next door neighbor was planning to hurt them? What would you do? It is easy to criticize, but what about solutions? I don't see you coming up with a better plan to defend our country? Rant about that. If you can't, the least you can do is respect those that are trying. Thanks.

Fluffy,

Thank you for posting the thoughts I didn't have time to waste on the warmongers who I know wouldn't listen anyway. Don't worry though, Derek and pro-American will be on the frontlines, riding their shining white steeds with purple feathers in their caps, crying, "Tally Ho Boys! Once more into the breach!" Should all us cowards ever need to be saved from oppression. Let the flames begin!

Uncle Willie's Nephew Eric

From Neil:
"Goverments are NOT bigger than the world."

No, but living in anarchy would probably have hindered the development of the following.

Jet Engines
Rocket Engines
The Internet
Society as we see it today

While government itself is no where near perfect, it DOES allow the general populace to have a reasonable voice and allow for the specialization of certain skills (because of the local government, I don't need to know how to build a road, a stoplight, or have to cart anyone I care about to the hospital when they are severely hurt).

No, government isn't the answer to everything, but it does answer the few things we do need quite well.

A plea for freedom from Tehran:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-tehrani101502.asp

And to Angela Thomas, WAY TO GO GIRL! Show those thankless left-wingers what it means to be an American, not to mention a lover of freedom :)

And as for us "warmongers," we listen very closely to all of your liberal arguments against the war. It is by listening to them and reasoning them through that we know you're all _dead wrong_ on Iraq.

This little offf Wil's subject.
Here's the bottom line of it all if Bush does invade unilaterally (using the media's new favorite word), invading Iraq will be against international law. The resolution that has passed by Bush has forfieted a check and balance laid out by our forefather's that will be very hard to overturn, and will be inherited by any new president.
An invasion of Iraq without UN approval will cause many unsettling scenarios.
1.) chances are there will be a lot of casualties on both sides.
2. if We win the US may not be able to finacially or politically restructure Iraq and may inadvertantly give rise to someone even more of dictator than Saddam (its happened before when we put Saddam in power orginally).
3.if things go as cheery as what Bush hopes for, there is still the big issue of oil that might ignite conflict with larger contries such as Russia, China, France, and other nations who are contracted to Iraqi oil.
4.)invading Iraq may give rise to more anti-american culture in the middle east and spark terrorism against Americans far beyond what we have seen yet.
5.) there the unpredicted scenario never thought to crossed our minds.
Granted these are all scenarios that might not happen, but one or more may happen, that is something anyone can be sure. Nothing ever works as we hoped or predicted it to happen, and I don't think our current leader realizes that fully.
It puzzles me that every option has not been explored. If we are so desperate to change Iraq's regime why not try something that may not cost as many lives. It's a crazy idea that I've only heard a few experts express, but: Why not use our international court to indict Saddam? It may not be successful, but such action would strengthen diplomacy amongst our allies and other nations, and force the international community to forcively remove Saddam. Its an option that should be expresed by us American citizens to all our local leaders and the leader in Washington DC.
So write to your leaders and express some new options to present. And if anything threaten not to vote for your leaders if they don't listen to you.

*Sighs* why do Right-winger people believe the left is totally against war???? I read in the editorial of the Sun newspaper which is a concervative canadian paper, that leftys are antiwar and they shouldn't stand in the way of Bush's war on terrorism when dealing with Iraq. *Aaaaagh!* I ....a lefty...am pro war on terrorism. What I AM against is war for oil which is trying to be sold to us as part of the war on terrorism. Hello!!!! isn't indonisia or some other countries warrant war more than Iraq on that excuse?? Pluhease!

One thing this discussion points out is that it's difficult to pinpoint the mood of the