Save your time - it simply will not happen.
Listened to NPR this a.m. - lead story was of the 2 US soldiers killed proves that the death of Uday & Osay will not reduce attacks on US/UK.

I don't know if I count anymore or not, but I have a post up.

I think Joe means "anti-war" when he says "Liberal". Apparently we're all honorary right-wingers right now.

Not that I care much one way or another. I've always disliked labels - especially when someone's trying to peel one off of a half-empty beer bottle. But then, I hate it when people play with trash at the dinner table...

People's Republic of Seabrook
The Rant.
I started looking myself, early this morning, and that's all I found among the anti-war bloggers (liberal or otherwise).
War Liberal was also happy about it, if you insist on 'liberal'.

I'm checking ones who hadn't said anything yesterday or early this morning. Found another.
the talking dog: "We are saddened to hear of the deaths of Qusay and Uday Hussein, at the hands of American aggressors at a villa in Mosul, Iraq. Not. "

"Apparently we're all honorary right-wingers right now. "
Yeah, I've noticed that...

I sorta liked the post which said, "Freddie and Jason will hear of this."

URL, Tom?

They have such a post up over at The Rant, assuming one considers them liberal as opposed to moderate.

Gee, I guess my still-evolving usage is starting from the wrong end, but I still wistfully think of 'liberal' as the more moderate end of the spectrum on the left.

If we're talking self-identified liberal, instead of anti-war, then there's

Jeff Jarvis

and

Roger L. Simon

But both of them have to defend their liberal credentials a lot these days.

Oh! And Salam Pax.

Really, though, this self-selects for pro-war sentiment. Except for Salam, and he's got other motivations for celebrating the demise of the Horror Brothers. Or, more accurately, regreting their postmortem escape from prosecution, I suppose.

"Really, though, this self-selects for pro-war sentiment."

Not at all, and believing this is the problem. The same reasons motivating Salam Pax should motivate every decent human being in this case. As TIME ably documented and we've chronicled, these people were evil with a capital E. The fact that they're gone is good news, period, and anyone who can't bring themselves to acknowledge that has a hole in their soul.

Even a pacifist could rejoice when Hitler died.

Well Joe, you can count myself as a Liberal happy to see the back of Uday and Qusay.

I am a born and raised Democrat. I switched to the Green Party when I finally realized that the Democrats were owned by the same corp interests as the GOP. But when the Greens came out in support of Terrorists this last year it left me homeless.

I am still very Liberal... I believe that corporations should serve humans, not the other way around. I would protect the environment. And I would pay more to schools than to prisons. I also believe in Evolution and Gravity. I also support separation of church and state. I think this counts me as a Liberal.

But I also support fully our War On Terrorism, especially Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe they are perfect expressions of America's centuries long commitment to Liberalism, in fact.

And I, for one, am THRILLED that two murderous, rapacious, mental cases like Saddam's spawn are gone from the map... course I think they got off a bit too easy considering their past. ;)

Sean

And don’t forget Mike and Roger too.

Is this a trick question? I don't even have to navigate to Michael J Totten, Roger Simon and Jeff Jarvis sites to know they are celebrating? Add in Matthew Yglesias, but I did have to check. Christopher Hitchens is not a blogger. In France (where I live), Pascal Bruckner, Alain Finkielkraut, and Bernard Kouchner (France is not big on blogging yet).

Maybe the question is really about partisan politics: How many ANTIWAR LIBERAL BLOGGERS IN DENIAL are happy with the deaths? If they actually have to celebrate, as in jump up and down in glee, then maybe Yglesias doesn't count.

Isn't this a bit like asking how many pro-impeach Clinton conservatives were happy (and celebrating?) the fact that the constitutionally provided impeachment system did not result in a coup d'état?

I was against the invasion of Iraq. I'm happy the boys are dead. I said so publically. And I'm a liberal.

However, the people who seem to be NOT happy are those who say, "isn't it great that Saddam's sons are dead" for 30 seconds then head off to their favourite liberal bete-noir blog and get all outraged that liberals are still hating America.

How much damage do we have to let George Bush do to society (mounting deficits, lack of basic health care, deteriorating education system, Scalia II and III...) before we independent disaffected Democrats get a viable movement (or our party back)?

I could imagine voting for McCain or Rudolph Giuliani if they weren't Republicans: ie, if they didn't have to appoint a couple of nutcases to the Supreme Court as bones to the religious right.

The current disaffection of pro-security (otherwise) Democrats may be largely circumstantial. The far right religious nuts and Buchananites tainted the Republic party in 1996 in a way that was fatal. Today, the loony left is doing the same to the Democratic Party. Even Howard Dean is not per se beyond the pale. If you look beyond the politicking, he actually has (or used to have) a principled and thoughtful sort-of-anti-war stance. He is hardly anti-security or in denial about 9/11. The problem is the taint. And that problem extends to the party as a whole.

A good candidate for the independent-minded pro war liberals is probably Hillary Clinton, and she is not running. Maybe I'll vote for her in 2008. She is a bit polarizing. But then is George Bush not?

Part of Hillary Clinton's credibility on security issues she inherits from Bill, which brings me back to my main point about whether the Democratic party problem isn't circumstantial. Bill Clinton would have handled post-9/11 better than Bush. I don't think Bush would even have taken out an aspirin factory, and on 9/12 after circling in Air Force 1 for 24 hours he looked like he was about to have a nervous breakdown while Rudy Giuliani was running the country. I give him credit for the comeback, but only so much.

Bush is basically conducting a less competent version of a post 9/11 Clinton/Blair policy. Hell, even Al Gore would have done a better job than Bush.

Is that provocative enough? (I still might vote for Darth Vader.)

throw in david adesnik, who still insists he's a liberal (and clarifies things here just in case anyone missed it), and add justin slaughter at the filibuster.

Of the three I listed that were anti-war, I'd consider People's Republic of Seabrook and the talking dog as not only liberal but left-liberal. I'd say the Rant is moderate-liberal.

War liberal, of course, speaks for himself.

If relative lack of liberal blogging about "Udai on Ice(d)" means that liberals don't care about evildoers being killed, doesn't relative lack of conservative blogging about coalition casualties mean that conservatives don't care about. . .no, let's not go there.

Don't get too drunk on moral clarety, my friends. Do you really think liberals are unpatriotic and want the United States to do badly just to score off Bush? Or are you just taking out your frustrations and blowing off steam?

In other words, if one of your liberal targets had knowledge of Saddam's whereabouts, do you think they would call the military to go and the get the bastard, or would they call Iraq with the message "Saddam, they're after you!".

One of my favorite mottoes is "don't argue like an ass". That is, don't argue just to score debating points, argue only when you think something important is at stake.

If you really think your liberal targets would actually betray their country if it made Bush look bad, you should say so right out, and defend that view. But implying that a lack of liberal blogging (a more important activity, I cannot imagine!) about the successes of the Iraq war implies dark things about liberals, and means that liberals want the US to fail, is the epitome of "arguing like an ass".

I'm not a blogger, but I am a liberal.

As a matter of principle, I refuse to be "celebrating the demise of" of any person or show "genuine happiness" about anyone's death.

I completely agree the planet is better off without those scumbags and I have no doubt that God will judge them as they deserve. If I had the opportunity to kill them myself, I would do it.

But don't expect me to celebrate.

Shane -

It's not their death that's worth celebrating. I'd much rather they'd been captured, debriefed, and handed over to the tender justice of their countrymen (and women).

But their defeat on the other hand...their very personal defeat, which means that on a larger scale things should shift faster to the good in that sad country (Fisk notwithstanding)...that's worth celebrating.

A.L.

Roublen Vesseau:

I am not a conservative, but I don't blog about coalition casualties either. Not because I don't care but because I don't want to demoralize myself or my readers by focusing on negativity. Every casualty is a tragedy, and I am very well aware of that. And I mean every casualty on both sides, including the poor slobs that got enlisted to fight against their will for Saddam, and also including innocent Iraqi civilians who get hit by our fire.

There is simply too much negativity in the media, and I want to provide a bit of a counterweight. I am also by nature an optimist, so I focus on the positive aspects for that reason, too.

I don't claim to be objective, balanced, or comprehensive.

If you have a good reason for not blogging the good news in the war, I'm all ears. I won't assume you're an anti-American or a Saddam sympathizer unless you say something specific that leads me to that conclusion.

Be anti-war if you want. I think it's a foolish position, but I don't think it's evil unless you actually hope that we lose.

Steve den Beste links to a guy from Democratic Underground who wrote this:

"Doesn't a part of you wish that Queasy and Duh-day were alive?

I'll admit they're scum and rightfully so, but anything that lands as even more humiliation on W's grotesque shrivelled face is that much the better.

It's sad, really, that as despicable as they are, Saddam's family seems to be the lesser of two evils when you compare them to the wretched little bastard occupying the White House and destroying America in the process..."

I realize this is one guy, but yes, there are liberals (I'd rather call them leftists) who are unpatriotic and want the United States to do badly just to score off Bush. You may say that this is just the lunatic fringe, but many of these people are Dean supporters, so if Dean gets the nomination, these would be some of the people who carried him to victory.

"Apparently we're all honorary right-wingers now."

That's not the case, but the fact that you're treated with some commeradere by us villianous, close-minded Conservatives, that we're actually open to feelings of fellowship with people who disagree with us on a lot of things but stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of the country, may be something worth thinking about.

G.G. wrote:

"Bush is basically conducting a less competent version of a post 9/11 Clinton/Blair policy. Hell, even Al Gore would have done a better job than Bush."

Which is why Clinton was able to get the Security Council to unanimously pass a tough Resolution on Iraq when Saddam thwarted inspections in '98, and why the entire problem was wrapped up via excellent Clinton Administration multilateral diplomacy, which convinced the World Community to unite in alliance and deal with Iraq and terrorism.

That is why 9/11 never occurred and we did not have to confront Saddam and invade Iraq this year.

For a less snide rundown, see here, under "The Bad".

A.L. wrote:

"I'd much rather they'd been captured, debriefed, and handed over to the tender justice of their countrymen (and women)."

I'm sure everyone involved in the operation would have preferred that, too; after all, if anyone would know where Saddam is, the brats would. Who knows if they would have talked before he lit out for a new hideout, but it would have been worth a shot.

But, underlaying a lot of these "we should have captured them" assertions is an assumption that we could have if we wanted. Seems like it was a pretty fierce firefight and they resisted strongly, and were not inclined to give themselves up alive.

I'm not sure you're making that error, but it is hard to tell from your comment. All too many people are. In doing so, I'm afraid they show a bit of ignorance about these things and also a potentially cavalier attitude about the lives of servicemen that they sometimes say they value more than we warmongering Republicans do. guys going forward, even stealtily (remembering that this is not the movies or a Clancy novel) to try and sieze them and grapple them down and hog tie them (all five or so of the people in there, without getting shot by any of the others) would probably have been gunned down.

I'm betting they tried to get them alive, but they didn't cooperate.

It may be unChristian of me, but I don't mourn their passing.

This is also telling: for weeks and weeks we've been hectored with "well, we didn't get the big ones, did we? When are you going to get the big ones? How can you call anything a success until you get Saddam and his sons? We haven't found Saddam or his sons yet. There will be trouble until we find them." &tc &tc ad infinatum ad nausium

We get the sons and the same people who were saying that we couldn't start counting ourselves successful until we did minimize the accomplishment and/or turn to other critiques, and start acting like it's really no big deal after all.

Really this isn't a surprise, though; it's the usual pattern.

Here is a link to a very unhappy liberal. (Ahem.) I meant leftist....

Right Porphy,

Which is why Bush's central campaign theme in the 2000 election was greater U.S. involvement in nation-building abroad and opposing Bill Clinton's failure to get tough with the terrorists. Which is why Condi Rice proclaimed in her acceptance speech, "America's armed forces will have to become a global police force. They are the world's 911." Which is why Bush spent the first eight months of his term aggressively fighting terrorism, confronting Iraq and dealing hands on with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Such a visionary.

P., A.L. has a very keen understanding of exactly what would have been involved in that raid. Keener, I suspect, than anyone else in this comments section. He's been through some interesting training - they don't call him ARMED Liberal for nothing.

The crux of the problem is simple: We independent liberals support at least the heart of Bush's security policy (if not the details of implementation on which I will not nitpick) but also want a realistic progressive social policy at home. And no, they are not inconsistent, despite the views of extremist libertarians (the latest fad).

Bill Clinton - love him or leave him (that was for Hillary) - and Tony Blair, despite the rearview mirrors, laid the groundwork for such a policy, however imperfectly, in their positions on Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, which were carried out DESPITE the international community and despite the French. The British-American no-fly zones were a "unilateralist" policy, which did not have U.N. blessing. Neither were or are unconditional multilateralists. The leading proponent of just such an interventionist foreign policy - and one that does not force us to swallow the damaging and economically unnecessary giveaways to the rich and general neglect of domestic social issues - remains Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton out of office.

Criticizing Clinton for 911 (where were the Republicans anyway?) is the conservative version of Bush-Lied-About-WMD.

I still consider myself a liberal, and I'm happy.

But I'm one of them pro-war liberals. . . .

""Apparently we're all honorary right-wingers right now. "
Yeah, I've noticed that... "

sigh Too true. But there is coming to be a critical mass of liberal prowar bloggers, and I predict this is a political constituency which will influence 2004 and Bush's 2nd term.

Here is an anti-war liberal who is glad they're dead - just a snippet to prove the case, she has a little more to say on her site:

While I'm glad they're dead, though, it still doesn't mean I feel the war was justified.

Different Strings

"Which is why Bush's central campaign theme. . ."

And Gore certainly was campaigning on going after terrorism and dealing with the Middle East decisively, right?

The thing about your answer is it is utterly non-responsive and slips the actual policies Bush has implemented since Sept. 11th down the memory hole. If we look at records, Bush has been imperfect but he has done more on this front than Clinton did - Clinton tabled the problem at each stage, and you are claiming that he did better.

If you're going to make such a claim convincing, you'll have to argue the case and refute the points I made inregard to Clinton's record against terrorism and in dealing with Iraq vs. Bush's.

Your reply was, instead, a non-sequiter that implies to me that you know full well your claim that Clinton was handling it better is false on its face and cannot be rationally argued.

I wasn't criticizing Clinton on 9/11 - I was refuting your assertion that he had better policies on this (you'll re-read my comment and find absolutely no mention of 9/11, you'll also search my website archives and find nothing blaming Clinton for 9/11 in that fashion- not to any greater degree than I blame Bush); this is a straw man raised to attempt to delegitimize counter-argument to the point you made; such tactics are below you.

Joe wrote:

"A.L. has a very keen understanding of exactly what would have been involved in that raid. Keener, I suspect, than anyone else in this comments section."

I haven't undergone such training but my Uncle has and a Cousin has. If I seemed to over-react to what A.L. said then I apologize.

I have seen far too many posts by people, or people talking on TV and whatnot, simply assuming we could have caught them easy if we wanted to, and few if any of them have anywhere near any knowledge whatsoever of what is involved, nor do they appear to understand that in combat the other side's actions influence the outcome too. Lots of people - almost entirely on other sites (but some of the commenters here, though not A.L.) seem to hold two contradictory visions in their head: we're simultaniously complete screw-ups and on the other hand all-powerful in our ability to get things to work out exactly as we want, and if (for example) we didn't capture Uday & Qusay alive it's because we didn't want to (for whatever sinister reason) or just didn't try hard enough or didn't think at all about how it might be valuable to get them alive, and just cut them down in bloodthursty Cowboy style because we're vengeful or something.

A bit more: I've always said that we didn't take terrorism seriously enough before 9/11; that is not the same as claiming Clinton's to blame for 9/11, and "we" isn't "Clinton" - it's America (and the world).

To the extent to which Clinton Administration policies have come up in this regard, when I write I have always said that Bush's weren't any different, any better, before 9/11.

I think this is a fair analysis. However, it does not support a contention that Bush's policies now are worse or less competent than Clinton's were.

To reply to the effect that I'm then "criticizing Clinton for 9/11" is specious; at best it makes my eyes roll. Especially since you were replying to a comments where I didn't mention terrorism, much less 9/11; the topic was the handling of Iraq.

Amygdala

G.G. Wrote:

>The current disaffection of pro-security
>(otherwise) Democrats may be largely
>circumstantial. The far right religious nuts and
>Buchananites tainted the Republic party in 1996
>in a way that was fatal. Today, the loony left
>is doing the same to the Democratic Party. Even
>Howard Dean is not per se beyond the pale. If
>you look beyond the politicking, he actually has
>(or used to have) a principled and thoughtful
>sort-of-anti-war stance. He is hardly anti-
>security or in denial about 9/11. The problem is
>the taint. And that problem extends to the party
>as a whole.

Yep. Letting your party get taken over by barking moonbats does that, but two points: Pat Buchanon was the Reform Party's 1996 candidate. It was his performance in the 1992 Republican convention, and in particular his prime time floor speech, that tainted Republicans with the general public until Bush in 2000.

The problem for pro-war Democratsis that Democratic fundraising has become a ideological monoculture compared to Republican fund raising. That is why Democrats lack an identifiable pro-war presidential candidate. It doesn't pay campaign contributions to be one.

Bitch about the Religious Right as you will. their fundraising methods are what has prevented the Republicans from suffering the same fate.

Having a large base of "subscription" small contributors is how the Religous Right runs its mega-churches. Republican activists copied this model with their mailing list contributors in the 1970's and it is why they have such an institutional hard money advantage despite all the campaign reforms since then. Every level of Republican organization and individual candidates has its or his own list of "subscription" contributors.

If pro-war Democrats are serious, they would do well to duplicate the Religious Right's fund raising methods so they can have a pro-war candidate.

A.L. wrote:

>It's not their death that's worth celebrating.
>I'd much rather they'd been captured, debriefed,
>and handed over to the tender justice of their
>countrymen (and women).

Celebrating the death of monsters is always worth it.

Bush 41's lack of celebration and dancing on the Soviet Union's fresh corpse is part of the reason he was a one-term President.

G.G. wrote:

>A good candidate for the independent-minded pro
>war liberals is probably Hillary Clinton, and
>she is not running. Maybe I'll vote for her in
>2008. She is a bit polarizing. But then is >George Bush not?

Watch Hillary's voting record on the Daniel Pipes nomination in front of the Senate.

Hillary is in the thrawl of the State Department, the Mid-Eastern Academic establishment and the Wahhabi Lobby.

Ok Porphy, Ok Trent,

Fair enough. Porphy at least phrases the terms of the debate correctly: Bush's actual policies versus Clinton/Gore hypothetical policies (extrapolating - fairly - from prior policy in a different context). I actually give Bush fairly good marks on handling of post 9/11 and Iraq. I do think Clinton was simply more competent and would have handled the diplomatic aspects better, with a somewhat better result, tho' I have no illusions of French troops fighting alongside us. (But hell, who knows with the French?) I frankly do not distinguish much between Clinton policy and the new (emphasis on new) Bush policy largely building on Clinton precedents. It's maybe harder to see that post 9/11. The best evidence for me is Tony Blair. Clinton and Blair had a "unilateral" as "get tough" policy on Iraq as could reasonably be expected in the pre-9/11 world: no fly zones, Kurdish protectorate, "Monica strikes" of both questionable timing and policy, etc. Blair and Clinton have been extremely consistent on the Iraq question for the last 8 year, more so than Bush or the Republican Party as a whole. The same is true of Hillary Clinton, who as a non-candidate is not handicapped by the lunatic left pushing her over the McGovernite cliff (The Pipes nomination is interesting, but not litmus test stuff for me. Wahabbi lobby? Come on.)

But that was only a subsidiary part of my point: My main point is that there are national security Democrats - probably most of them - who could do as least as good a job on foreign policy and, for my tastes, a far better job on domestic policy. The Democrats' problem is that they need to show more of the Tony Blair in them but are handicapped by the hardcore left side of the party that opposed the war, are obsessed with the lying about WMD theme - no more idiotic btw than Republicans obsession with lying about sex (talk about barking moonbats!) - and are coalescing around Dean in the (delusional) belief that he is a leftwing peacenik. Dean's problem, like that of the other Democrats, will be tacking back to the center where they really belong. Right now they are playing to their short term strengths in Iowa and New Hampshire. But this may be just the Democratic equivalent of visits to Bob Jones University. It's more of a strategy than a substance problem, unless they tie themselves into read-my-lips type non-interventionist commitments, and I don't see that happening. The bottom line, come election time, is will they be seen as trustworthy on national defense or as mortgaged to a core peacenik constituency in denial. I'll wait and see.

They are also handicapped by an incumbent wartime president who appears larger than life but who, at bottom, is no Tony Blair or even Bill Clinton. He is in fact an appalling president in virtually every respect except in the crucial area of national security, where he's got it basically right.

Maybe I'm not going to vote for Darth.

(Luke Luke! Trust me! Use the force...)

He is in fact an appalling president in virtually every respect except in the crucial area of national security, where he's got it basically right.
IMO that really is a perfect description of Bush.

The problem with "progressive" social policy as it exists on the left is that it is based on putting a a gun to people's head to get what you want.

Nowe no progressive I know would go up to some one and threaten them with a gun in order to get a desired social result.

Nor would they hire the gunning out.

What they would do is claim that once they had the magical 50.1% then their putting a goverrnment gun to people's heads is perfectly OK. Good even.

Do you know what they call a country whose social policy comes from the barrel of a gun? A tyrany.

Now why do "progressives" think tyrany is preferable to liberty?

This is the problem Hayek pointed out with all social policies enforced at the point of a gun. They have to lead to varying degrees of dictatorship. Once you start working against peoples' intrinsic motives the costs start to rise quickly.

Drug war any one?

The very best thing about the closing of the cases on Saddam's monstrous spawn is that NO lawyers were involved in the process at ANY time.

The total abscence of any legalism in this process is one of the reasons that so few of the Left are rejoicing. They are absolutuely committed to a world in which the State is the only institution that matters and ANY significant activity performed outside the rules & regulations of a vast political apparatus, whether it is the rough & tumble of the battlefield [Armies are creations of states but only fools think they work like one] or social changes wrought by new technologies.

Another thing that seems to really bother some people that the priority on this mission was taking these scum down without losing any of our troops. No search warrants, no "reading them their rights", no "probable cause", just "we have hard intel, let's roll!" and "surrender or die, your choice." It just does not fit their view of the world.

GG - I think your characterizaton of Clinton's policies are somewhat overstated; I think that the primary emphasis was on legal responses to terror (arrest and trial), and as I recall, they batted better than .500 in that area.

But they never went far beyond that.

And that fundamental mischaracterization of the problem is a part of what brought us 9/11.

A.L.

Well, the thing about hypothetical policies is one can only go by the evidence we have. Quite a lot of people have come to different conclusions and been happy that it is Bush rather than Clinton or Gore handling things, including a solid number of pro-war Gore voters in the bloggosphere.

I think we could go around in circles on that; the only support we have is past practice and what Clinton and Gore have said.

I think, likewise, that many of the things Bush is criticized for "botching" or mishandling are things that it would have been hard for anyone to do better on - things like "we didn't get all the allies on board". As you allude to re. the French, it's hard to convince someone who isn't open to being convinced. Which was a point I made in "Gore Speaks" - those who are asserting that Bush simply mishandled things and if, say Clinton had been there, then those who opposed us in the UN would have supported us are arguing from a flawed premise, because no amount of persuasion was going to move those who were committed to the other side.

A bit more behind the scenes "bullying" might have, threatening them with consequences more dire than they feared they'd lose with the fall of Saddam. But the usual criticism is that any "stick" is unacceptable; and refusing to point out negative consiquences leads to a "moral hazard" - if they have nothing to lose from opposing and can only gain - if only by not sharing the costs and risks but managing to get people to convince us they should retain all the benefits - then there's only an upside to opposing and no downside, so guys like Chirac are going to go for it; thinking they have nothing to lose from trying to protect Their Man in Baghdad, they'll go for even low-probability strategies. Why not? If you tell me I can play high stakes roulette and all my losses will be covered but I can keep my winnings, I'll play games with low odds. No reason not to.

That, unfortunately, appears to be the Democratic message and when Clinton and Gore have decided to speak on that aspect of things, theirs too. Given that, IMO it's debatable whether Clinton or Gore diplomacy would have achieved as much as Bush has.

But, setting that aside, a lot of the criticisms we're seeing are really things that amount to the world being imperfect; you'll notice in that "Gore Speaks" post I didn't assert that Clinton could have gotten stronger support; my implication, indeed, was even the opposite of that. This is because many people are acting as if we're the only Decision Making Actors in the world and others just respond to the input we give them with feedbacks. But they take up positions and commit themselves to them, too.

Similarly, those who are asserting that there was no plan or we're screwing up in Iraq or Afghanistan due to incompetence fail, IMO, to take into account that "Shit Happens". It happens in our own lives, we should understand that it especially happens in things like war and major projects.

This isnt to say there are no valid criticisms and that we can't do better - I have raised criticisms. But many of the most common, generalized criticisms are off base for those reasons. You can be as competent as hell but the other side may not be stupid and incompetent (not completely) and thus can throw wrenches into things; also, in a world of finite resources, there isn't always the capacity to do everything one might want to as quickly as one wants.

In sum, though: would Clinton or Gore have done better? I don't think you'll convince me you're right and I doubt I'll convince you you're wrong. IMO at best they would have done about the same, about as well.

As for domestic stuff, I'm going to avoid debating that here and now.

AL - Who was batting better? Did Bush articulate a policy during the 2000 campaign or his first 8 months in office even addressing the issue? It just wasn't on the map. Everyone missed it.

Porphy - Agreed one hundred percent. See my comments on AL's post re: Bush's supposed lack of an Iraq-War on Terrorism-Al Qaida etc. strategy.

G.G. - Continuing the Diplo theme, on that aspect of things I don't believe our view of the history is that different; see Dividing Lines for a recent post I made that referred to the events you mention.

However, IMO it is partly because of the tensions that were emerging then that I don't think that many of the criticisms of Bush's diplomacy are valid - IMO A.L. is on-point a bit with an overstatement of Clinton's policies on your part but I'm setting that asside.

But on the Diplo front, it was becoming increasingly difficult to get support from certain countries for anything, regardless of who was in the White House or how skilled or unskilled their diplomacy was.

The reason was differing viewpoints and perspectives, divergence in interests and attitudes that cannot be bridged with fine words and persuasion.

To put it another way, on a smaller scale, no amount of persuasion on Bush's part would be likely to convince Bernie Sanders to support Bush's tax cut program, even if it was the best sell-job ever, because they have differing philosophical outlooks and at this point in his life I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to give up Socialism and change his views and become an apostle of Milton Friedman. Likewise, vice versa - even the most competent diplomacy on Sanders' part wouldn't persuade Bush to adopt a Socialist policy agenda.

IMO, competent or incompetent diplomacy played far less of a role in whether or not France was going to veto the Nth (2nd, 17th, 19th, whatever) Security Council Resolution or not (and I would hardly call French or German diplomacy blameless; as is rather typical and not unusual at all over the decades, whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House, undiplomatic remarks towards the U.S. from European officials are far more common than the other way around and even this time whatever, say, Rumsfeld said pales when compared to many of the remarks issuing from there).

I can't restate everything I've expressed on this over the last ~8 mo., but if you're interested I recommend this post and this one which is part of a series that continues here and here. The intra-blog links (to my own previous posts) connect to some of the other things.

this post on Collectivist Internationalism