Misdirection is the most fundamental of stage magic arts. When you want to accomplish something that you don’t want the audience to see or understand, you distract their attention elsewhere.
It was something that GWB thoroughly mastered in his first four years. Using misdirection to draw the public’s attention away from his failure to find bin Laden, he and his Neocons used Iraq in what Jon Stewart correctly referred to as “Operation: Re-elect Bush.” To draw the public’s attention away from the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US, he managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked. Misdirection. He waved his right hand widely and sweepingly and drew America’s attention away from his true motivations neatly tucked in his other hand. And it worked.
But now we’re into bad misdirection. Because his recent speech could have been delivered a year ago, as if the ongoing war (it’s not an insurgency; it’s a war. Let’s call it what it is) hadn’t happened. As if dead Americans weren’t piling up like cordwood, and weren’t going to be doing so for the foreseeable future. Now the problem is that instead of being distracted by the deftly moving right hand, people are starting to say, “Wait…what’s he got in his left hand?” Bush’s response? A speech that basically shouts, “Look at my right hand! See? Right hand, over here! Look at it, look at it!” His attempts to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again, at a time when more and more Americans are starting to realize that there is no link, are more pathetically obvious than ever before. His manipulation of a shell-shocked America and his naked politicizing of the terrorist strike at the WTC by using it to support a long-standing Neocon war initiative remains one of the most ugly moments in recent presidential history. I think it ironic that Democrats get slammed for invoking Nazi Germany while Bush and his pals continue to invoke 9/11 to support everything from a flag burning amendment to an unnecessary war.
The absolute lowpoint was the following:
“Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq.”
Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hëll has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won’t take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we’ll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that’s right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.
Bush will always have his apologists, of course. Those who embrace the oldest rationalization of all, namely that the ends justifies the means. Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants. But the trickery is becoming more obvious, the misdirection more obvious, and the curtain more frayed.
Most people can quote Lincoln saying “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” But what is less known is the sentence right before that: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
Presto.
PAD
• 
Another example of… dare I say it…
Bush SUCKS!!!
And here I always credited that saying to P.T. Barnum.
I’ve never once thought that Bush had any concern over the esteem/respect of his fellow citizens. I’m dámņ certain he doesn’t give a rip about mine. It’s the Three Card Monty administration, and slowly but surely people are walking away from the card table.
you said it K-nuck!
“And here I always credited that saying to P.T. Barnum.”
See what you learn hanging around here?
Barnum’s best known quote was, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” As will be proven when the sucker shows up to contribute to this thread, oh, probably any time now.
PAD
…and things will likely get worse when they are forced to re-instate the draft. I’m more than draftable age, but my wife – and my students – are not. Argh.
Very nicely put, PAD, as usual. And no suckers have posted yet. But wait, who’s that entering the big tent…? 3,2,1…
Peter and anyone else who cares to comment, I have to ask a hypothetical here. Since I’m a moderate Republican disappointed in a lot of his own party these days, I wonder how soon there’s going to come a time when a Republican leader might be able to unite the country again. Foregoing the frontrunners on the Democratic side, would there be any Republican you’d consider voting for for president in 2008? Conversely, who do you think might emerge from the Democratic party as an aisle-bridging candidate? I guess I ask because I wonder how much people are still able to separate individual members of the parties from the parties themselves.
As far as Bush being the one linking 9/11 and Iraq…well…
“Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq:
“Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
“Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations …
From the October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war. Supported by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid,John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among others.
Jason,
I think that McCain would be able to do it. It’s not for nothing that Kerry wanted him (and I think that a Kerry/McCain ticket might have had an easy victory, though such things are hard to know).
I an growing increasingly dissastisfied with both parties. It seems that as one party gets more extreme, so does the other (case in point, the Antebellum period in our history) I would not be at all surprised to see a powerful third party emerge, similar to how the Republicans emerged to counteract the Whig/Democrat split back in the 1850’s. The only Rebublican I would vote for? Colin Powell. I would like to see him run. I can’t think of all that many Democrats I would vote for. Hillary looks like the front-runner, and she scares me. Maybe McCain could do it. Personally, I say it’s time to break out the Washington clones.
I doubt a split party ticket is very possible, especially if both members want the big chair at one point. Whoever sucked it up and took a split party vice-president ticket just to get into the White House would run the risk of alienating their own party for future campaigns. They’d have to do a hellaciously great job as VP to overcome that and would consequently have to implicitly trust that guy running for president would give them the power and space to keep their name alive.
My bad. Should have said “guy/gal,” not just guy.
And I think that while the parties are at their most extreme right now, you’ll find it actually tougher for a third party to take root. They’re enforcing party discipline as much as possible, and many folks are still feeling burned over the Green Party 2000 campaign.
Then again, I’d concede that voter dissatisfaction could definitely start a grassroots movement an opportunistic politician might try to take advantage of.
Al Qaeda types have gotten help in Iraq. It’s a documented fact. The Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Hussein. (Sorry, I won’t call him by his first name for a lot of reasons) But you know what? No matter what the ultimate result of our invasion, the fact remains that the focus was taken OFF the biggest bad guys out there. Sure, there are still people after Bin Laden, but Bush, instead presenting this country as pursuing those responsible and justice, has shown the rest of the planet that America is an easily distracted large bully with attention deficit disorder. A lot of people are now calling for the complete withdrawal of troops. THIS IS A HUGE MISTAKE. If our guys get pulled out now, Iraq will be worse off than they were before. We’re committed now. We have to see this through.
As to Bush’s credibility…far as I’m concerned there hasn’t been any to lose. Whoever has the job next is going to have a hëll of a lot of work to do to re-establish the belief in the government domestically, let alone abroad.
Jason,
Personally, I agree–a third party seems awfully unlikely, although it is quite possible that one could take enough away from one of the majors to throw the election (Ralph Nader, anyone?).
I could see a liberal “Take the troops out now” party forming if Hillary seems too hawkish on Iraq but I doubt that they would amount to much. I can far more easily imagine Republicans losing votes to a third party that is focussed on immigration reform (actually, I could see a good amount of the Democrat base going for this as well, but I think that the Republicans would be hurt the most.).
Since I would just as soon see lots and lots of immigrants coming in, this does not plase me but there you are. If Hillary, or any other Democrat could manage to straddle the issue succesfully, advocate immigration controls while not offending minorite supporters, they would probably have a very easy victory.
Jason: I agree with Bill and James. Depending on the other candidates, I may be willing to vote for McClain and/or Powell.
Rat: Don’t just say it’s a documented fact. Please say where those facts are documented, otherwise it’s just your opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact.
He was just following Rove’s lead, taking off on that “when 9/11 happened, liberals did this and that” asinine remark from last week. The Repubs under Rove’s guidance have been very successful at politicizing 9/11 for their own aims, which include misdirection from Bush’s falling poll numbers, the growing disaster in Iraq, etc. etc.
Regardless of whether there was a link between Al Qaida and Iraq at the beginning of the war, the U.S. coalition is fighting Al Qaida in Iraq right now.
I think it’s preferable that Al Qaida terrorists are occupied with fighting the U.S. military in Iraq, instead of launching attacks within the U.S. against civilians. I think is the point that Bush was trying to make with his speech when he was linking the current war in Iraq with 9/11.
From the October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war. Supported by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid,John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among others.
Supported by every Republican who now claims that they are against the war as well.
Neither side is free from guilt.
But it’s Bush that made the insinuations so many times that people believe he actually did say Saddam was behind 9/11.
So, Bush has nobody to blame but himself, because that’s what he wanted people to believe.
Bush has fed us so many different flavors of bûllšhìŧ that none of us have any taste buds left.
Salman Pak: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Now, of course, the person being interviewed by no less a respectable organization than PBS’s Frontline, would be a terrorist. And, according to PAD’s somewhat stumbling statement, one should infer that his “street cred” is either higher than the President’s, or nonexistent.
We also know that Hussein did have WMDs, because he used them on the Kurds. We now know they’re not in Iraq, but we don’t know where they went (although we seem to have found them headed out of Iraq toward Syria, Jordan and other points.
As a registered Democrat, I must say that if McCain had gotten the Republican nomination in either 2000 or 2004, I’d have voted for him. He seems to at least be able to find a principled stand (even if other people disagree with the principles involved) and hold it, unlike certain sitting Presidents (not naming names here, of course) who are driven more by pseudo-Texan machismo and insecurity over the fact that they spent childhood vacations in Massachusetts rather than ropin’ dogies out on the open range, than any sort of principles.
Powell, not so much – I may not agree with Eisenhower’s position in his tiff with Truman during Korea, but at least he didn’t knuckle under to what he thought was a stupid idea. Powell stood for a while against plainly bad military planning, then went with the flow, rather than pushing until something gave…
It would take a remarkable candidate with a veritable assload of money to mount a legitimate third party candidacy. Perot had the right idea (in terms of funding it himself), but the whole “I’m a fûçkìņg lunatic” thing sort of brought him down. I am actually very concerned for the Republican party, as it used to be the party of moderates like Eisenhower and is now the party of extremists. I’d love to say the Democrats have been hijacked by extremists, but we haven’t. What we’ve been hijacked by are a bunch of šûçkáššëš who want to play along with the hopes of extending their careers in elective office. I’m tired of it.
I’d like to post the words of Eisenhower, as they were incredibly prophetic (much like his comment on the military/industrial complex, and this is coming from someone who does not think Eisenhower was a particularly useful president):
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” – Eisenhower, 1952
Sadly, he’s wrong on one account. Their number is no longer negligible.
What I find interesting about the Rove remarks is that on the balance, I think the story’s been a no-winner for both parties. Those on both extremes found it energizing because they felt either agreement or offense, and in the wake of the Durbin remarks, those in the middle just kind of throw their hands up and wonder what the hëll’s wrong with all of our leaders.
While there may very well be Al Quaeda members opposing US troops in Iraq, it’s my understanding that the majority of the insurgent forces are Baathists, Nationalists, and Shi’ites (along with as many as 40 other groups).
There’s a bigger coalition of Iraqi/Middle East groups fighting against the US than there are fighting with us. And while we’re off figthing a war against insurgents, Al Quaeda leaders are free to train more terrorists, and make more plans like 9/11.
Maybe Osama is playing the misdirection card on Bush….”look, over there, in Iraq….look at all those terrorists. Go get ’em, boy, go get em.”
Meanwhile, Osama goes around recruiting more and more future terrorists in the unpatrolled areas of the Middle East.
Knuckles, I think there’s extremists in both parties. I just think the Republicans have lucked out with a complimentary set of extremists, while the Democrats unfortunately seem to have run roughshod over a very divergent group of smaller groups. I think the Democrats have been nailed on the lack of ideas thing because they have to work much harder at a platform that covers their bases. They have ideas, but they just can’t agree on what they are.
Howard: Clearly you missed the point of the statement. The implication of Bush’s statement is pretty goddam transparent: Since clearly nothing he (Bush) has said or claimed seems to be being bought by the American public if you look at the polls, he is turning to the words of Osama bin Laden to try and make his case. In other words, “If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Osama bin Laden!” And yes, I find that amusingly ironic (but not in a “rain on your wedding day” kind of way).
From the October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war. Supported by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid,John Edwards, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, among others.
And your point is? Whether these individuals were hoodwinked by Bush’s “fixed around the issue” intelligence or simply jumped on the bandwagon to avoid being tagged as unpatriotic does nothing to mitigate Bush’s actions. As commander-in-chief, he bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision to send our troops into Iraq based on bogus intelligence and without a clear plan on how to run the occupation once Saddam’s government had been deposed.
We also know that Hussein did have WMDs, because he used them on the Kurds.
That was during the 1980s and, of course, St. Ron’s administration (including Ðìçk and Rummy) did everything they could to downplay the significance of it at the time. Since then, nothing. He didn’t use them in the first Gulf War and he didn’t use them during Bush’s invasion. Not a shred of credible evidence has been found to support that there were any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq in March of 2003.
We now know they’re not in Iraq, but we don’t know where they went (although we seem to have found them headed out of Iraq toward Syria, Jordan and other points.
The idea that the WMD’s were shipped to another country is completely unsubstatiated and the official intelligence report found no credibility to it. The fact is, with the exception of mustard gas, any chemical or biological weapons that Saddam had acquired (such as the ones Ðìçk sold him) in the 1980s would have long since degraded anyway.
Of course, if Bush’s poll numbers continue to slide, I have no doubt that we’ll hear so sabre rattling towards Syria sometime in 2006.
As for a republican I would consider voting for in 2008, either McCain or Powell could earn my vote if they presented a plan for getting the Iraqi military back on its feet, or at least its knees, and enable them to secure their country for themselves.
Of course, neither man has any respect from the military neocon faction that controls the GOP today, so their odds of getting the nomination are about the same as mine.
Supported by every Republican who now claims that they are against the war as well.
Er, well, ok, but my point had nothing to do with opposition to the war.
Perot had the right idea (in terms of funding it himself), but the whole “I’m a fûçkìņg lunatic” thing sort of brought him down.
LOL. Yeah, that can be a major probalem on the national scene. I’m sort of amazed how totally Perot vanished from the picture after Gore handed him his ášš during their NAFTA debate (the one time I thought that Gore actually had what it took to be president).
Meanwhile, Osama goes around recruiting more and more future terrorists in the unpatrolled areas of the Middle East.
I tend to think he’s less of a player than Zarchawi (sp?) at this point. It would be great to catch him for the sheer vengefull justice of it all but there are probably people who would be better targets from a tactical sense.
What I find interesting about the Rove remarks is that on the balance, I think the story’s been a no-winner for both parties. Those on both extremes found it energizing because they felt either agreement or offense, and in the wake of the Durbin remarks, those in the middle just kind of throw their hands up and wonder what the hëll’s wrong with all of our leaders.
Update: Rick Santorum still hasn’t apologized for comparing the filibuster to Hitler’s invasion of France.
My thoughts on Zarchawi are that he is a trusted Bin Laden commander, sent to Iraq as part of the misdirection campaign. Maybe he really is acting as a leader of the insurgent efforts…but he’s just focused on distracting the US military. Which he’s doing very, very well. It’s like Zarchawi is the bright, shiny penny that distracts the simple of mind, while the dull, dirty, and unimpressive looking silver dollar sits on the ground unnoticed.
Which isn’t really a great analogy, ’cause I can’t explain how the silver dollar is going around recruiting an army of terrorists…darn…
Jason & Bill: At this time, I think I could root for McCain, at least waiting to see what I object to. But at the same time I worry because twenty years ago, being from Wyoming, I thought at the time I could live with Cheney in the White House. It took awhile but I’ve changed my mind on that one.
Yes leading Democrats signed on to the resolution to go to war. The were being subjected to the same arm waiving and misdirection that the rest of the country were. Being a member of one party or the other does not provide a magic filter that allows anyone to recognize the unpolished truth of the evidence the other side is presenting.
I have a friend who is strongly in the democrat camp who fears the next election will be Condi vs. Hillary. He doesn’t seem pleased at the prospect.
Hillary will get her ášš handed to her. I have nothing but admiration for her, but the level of hatred directed at her by most of the right (and a chunk of middle America) is unbelievable. That, and her continued insistence that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea will hurt her on the left. Badly.
Perot put in a good effort, but he came across as paranoid loon. He made the mistake of taking Bush I’s political attacks personally and it cost him. What’s sad is that the Reform Party had a decent chance building itself into a lasting moderate third party even after he had left the scene. Unfortunately, Pat Buchanen hijacked it and made it into a paranoid isolationist nutjob party. That pretty much guaranteed it would die. I mean, when people started looking for Perot to come back as the voice of sanity, you know the party’s in trouble.
I really don’t see any third party on the horizon with any hope of getting the numbers Perot had in 1992. The Greens are probably the closest, but they’re so far to the left that if they do start pulling in real numbers, they’ll just push the Democrats back to the center, which will help them and hurt the GOP.
As Bob Herbert reminds us in todays NY Times; About 1500 american casualites ago our fearless leader thumped his chest and told the insurgents to “Bring it on!”
It seems they listened.
Two questions- Should the Iraqi people thank Bush for turning their country into the central battleground in the war on terror?
Second, if we are “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”, and we want to turn over the military side of this to an Iraqi force. Does that mean that ultimately we will be relying on the Iraqis to keep our country safe?
I would also say that McCain looks like the best shot for winning my liberal vote as far as the republicans go.
As for what Democrat do I think could possibly bridge the gap? Personally, I would like to see General Wesley Clark run. I think he would stand a decent chance of getting some red votes.
I have a friend who is strongly in the democrat camp who fears the next election will be Condi vs. Hillary. He doesn’t seem pleased at the prospect.
Your friend should cheer for it. That match up would favor Hillary simply on the telegenic basis alone. Everytime I see Condi on TV, she always looks like she just smelled someone cut a massive fart.
Jordan: In my opinion, Wes Clark is the best Democrat in the public eye. Fûçk the red vote, I want the best candidate running (and I feel that most Americans want the same). A John McCain v. Wes Clark campaign would be one of the most exciting matchups I can imagine. Two men of great intellect and integrity facing off over what they feel is best for the nation AND the world, rather than what is best for their bank accounts.
I was the county chair of his campaign in Washington (which didn’t mean squat, really, as it was totally a volunteer and catch as catch can campaign), but it was very invigorating. Of course, it was also incredibly deflating to watch people hopping on the John Kerry bandwagon when I was pretty goddam certain he had no chance. Clark in ’08 would be a dream come true for this man (As a matter of fact, I have a Wes Clark bobblehead on my desk at home, right next to my melmac bust of JFK).
We also know that Hussein did have WMDs, because he used them on the Kurds. We now know they’re not in Iraq …
And we were supposed to believe that Saddam had the weapons, used them, and still has them to use against us.
Also, as for him shipping them out of the country, we’re supposed to believe that he stockpiled these weapons to use against us, and then shipped them away when we massed on his borders to invade. Does that even make ANY sense?
————————–
Maybe Osama is playing the misdirection card on Bush….”look, over there, in Iraq….look at all those terrorists. Go get ’em, boy, go get em.”
Actually, it’s Bush playing this game.
Also, as for him shipping them out of the country, we’re supposed to believe that he stockpiled these weapons to use against us, and then shipped them away when we massed on his borders to invade. Does that even make ANY sense?
Apparently it does a Bush supporter. I guess since the alternative is admitting they were wrong, they’d rather believe that Saddam would hand over the one thing that might have given him a chance to hold our forces at bay to another country. That’s akin to if the US military were to suddenly hand control of our nukes to Mexico just as the Russians were launching a first strike on us.
The interesting thing to me about 2008: if Hillary becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate and someone like McCain gets the Republican nod, would the GOP ticket add a woman as the VP, either because it was someone qualified for the job or as part of a sinister right wing conspiracy, to deflate the support of women Hillary would likely get? Think about it; 2008’s probably one of the best chances we’ve had yet to have a woman in either the highest or second highest office in our government. I don’t know how much of a chance, but better than what we’ve had so far.
If the DLC still holds any pull at all on the national level (and I’m thinking with Dean in the driver’s seat, they do not) then Hillary will be the nominee. If they do not (pleasegodplease), someone like Clark or Tom Warner or Brian Schweitzer (whom I truly hope does NOT run) might have a chance. The Dems need someone from outside the leadership core to be their candidate. And if Edwards gets the goddam nomination, I refuse to vote.
“Maybe Osama is playing the misdirection card on Bush….”look, over there, in Iraq….look at all those terrorists. Go get ’em, boy, go get em.”
Actually, it’s Bush playing this game.”
()
See, I don’t know that Bush is playing that particular misdirection game. If you take this administration at their word (more the fool you, if you do) then they are pursuing Al Queada by staging their war in Iraq. But there’s no good information as to how much of the unsurgent force is comprised of terrorists, and how much of it is just plain regular Iraqis fighting for their notion of country. But there’s just enough Al Queada presence to make it seem like we’re fighting against terrorists.
I think it’s all a big feint, and Bush has totally fallen for it. Which is Very Bad News, because the purpose of a feint is to ennable you to strike at your enemy in a vulnerable location.
Or, I could be totally wrong, and Bush knows dámņ well there’s little terrorist presence in Iraq, but doesn’t care, because his goal all along was to destroy Saddam.
Let’s see. We knew Al Qaida was operating along the Afghan-Pakistan border where we already had our military in place, so let’s invade another country hundreds of miles away and lure them there to take the fight to the terrorists.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Den, maybe the terrorists didn’t get Bush’s invite?
You know, the one that said “Rumble, Iraq. Be there or be square. Losers.”
I would vote for Richard Lugar, the Republican Senator, in addition to McCain. Lugar’s the smartest-sounding politician I’ve ever seen speak, more authoritative and genuine on policy than McCain or Clinton, who can be awfully good. After swinging the US over to support of Aquino after viewing elections in the Philipines, he was punished by the far right for attempting to put together similar support for change in South Africa, losing his senate chairmanship to Jesse Helms. In the ’96 election he took out Phil Gramm (kind of a proto-Ðìçk Cheney) by calling the Senator out on the character issues Gramm wished to apply against the Democrats. He was a mayor, and a farmer.
Alas, Lugar is too old to run now.
Not a shred of credible evidence has been found to support that there were any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq in March of 2003.
And just as important, it was Bush’s claim that Saddam had them NOW and he would use them NOW.
Not 15-20 years ago when, as stated, some of his Administration worked for Reagan and Just Didn’t Give A Ðámņ.
As for a republican I would consider voting for in 2008, either McCain or Powell could earn my vote if they presented a plan for getting the Iraqi military back on its feet, or at least its knees, and enable them to secure their country for themselves.
I agree. However, I think Powell has lost not only alot of my respect (because he worked for Bush), but alot of respect from everybody because, well, he worked for Bush and he’s the fall-guy that had to tell all the bs to the UN.
I tend to think he’s less of a player than Zarchawi (sp?) at this point
Only because:
A) Zarqawi is in the center of the action in Iraq – where he wouldn’t be at all if not for our invasion, btw.
B) The Administration has said that they no longer care about bin Laden.
Either way, by design or by sheer stupidity, our attention has been diverted away from bin Laden, who should have been and remained our #1 priority after 9/11.
Was that the hidden meaning behind “Bring it on”, Bobb?
I would be delighted to see a Clark-vs-McCain election in 2008. Both of them have impressed me with their intelligence and their strength of character in the past.
Paul
Ðìçk Lugar is one of the few remaining “not John McCain” Republicans in Washington that still appears to have integrity. Chuck Hagel as well.
“That, and her continued insistence that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea will hurt her on the left.”
IMO, AN (stress an) invasion of Iraq to take down Saddam was a good thing. I mean, this guy is the first dictator since Pol Pot or Stalin who can really be compared to Hitler, what with the whole genocide thing. I think we did the right thing, for the wrong reasons (oil, revenge Daddy Bush) and that it is takin’ way to freaking long. Pity, a competent guy could have gotten us out by now. Or at least in another year.