Perhaps it's because of columnists like this there readership/income is diving and share price is plummeting..hmmm.

Please write more Joel, share them with the NY Slimes, never mind, their shares are already diving also :P

I think this sentence needs to be torn to shreds:

"It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

"No pressing national interest?" To say nothing of Vietnam, what exactly does Mr. Stein think our reason was for going to Iraq? Was it cowboy Bush itching for a fight? Bush-the-dupe of the evil neocons? American imperialism at its blatant worst? And how did Stein determine what's in the national interest? He has lived in NYC for some time. While he was still sitting at class in Stanford for the first WTC attack, he had a front row seat for 9/11. There's rationale in the form of combating global terrorists, bringing liberty, democracy and eventually some long term stability to a region that is vitally important to the world economy, not to mention the pure humanitarian reasons.

How does Stein reconcile his views with the excavation of mass graves, stories from victims of rape & torture, and the pure joy of people who now have a voice in voting on their country's destiny?

Arg. Annoying.

Why is this surprising. It's like when you hear a pro jock say 'It's not about the money' it's about the money. When you hear 'But I support the troops' they don't support the troops.

Hmmmm.

Aren't we fortunate to have such liberal elites to watch over us.

Gotta admit that this guy has some guts (or has a twisted way of wanting attention). As a pacifist he believes that "war is bad and therefore unnecessary". Pretty hard to argue that "war is good", but he misses the issue of necessity. We can argue the issues of whether we needed to be there all day long, but only history will bear that out. For now, all we can do is believe this is the right thing to do for our country and for other potential victims of terrorism. Those of us supporting this effort recognize the guts it took GW to make such a choice, and the courage it takes for our troops to see it through. Mr. Stein is someone who is willing to make a stand for his right to make no choice at all. I am sure he understands that these choices will continue be made on his behalf so that he has fodder for his column.

Mister Tan: While I share 95% of your sentiment, it's disconcerting when I hear people throw 9/11 into the mix as justification for war in Iraq.

Even if the Iraqi's were happy at our fate on that day, it doesn't mean they caused it.

Granted, I have supported Bush's decision for war in Iraq for other reasons- but war is no light matter. I had to think about the fact that Iraq never once attacked US soil. Invading a country that's never risen against your country in a like manner is a touchy subject.

From what we've been told (and I realize by nature that in itself makes the info suspect) the thugs who perpetrated 9/11 were, I believe, all of Saudi Arabian nationality.

Where is retribution against Saudi Arabia? There is a far more clear link between 9/11 and Saudi Arabia than 9/11 and Iraq.

Why do they get a free pass? Is it the leverage they exert by being in control of large amounts of oil? I won't deny that bad relations with them would hurt us in that area.

All I'm saying is, if we're rising against global terrorism as a noble and supreme mission, why haven't we moved against the country that presented those responsible for so many needless civilian deaths on that horrible day?

Am I the only one who thinks about things like this and just wants to see some consistency?

The difference between Joel Stein and me:

I am willing to die so he can be free to believe anything he wants.

He is not willing to do the same for me.

One might also ask what the "pressing national interest" was that put us smack dab in the middle of the Serbian killing fields when the syphillitic hillbilly infested the White House. I seem to recall he got a pass on that one from lock-step leftists like Stein.

Well, at least Stein is being consistent and in-line in his anti-war stance.

Having said that, should the day ever come when the Islamofacists are running over our country, raping women, murdering gays, burning books, blowing up churches and generally taking civilization back to the 7th century, or the Iranians have aided al Qaeda in planting a nuke or dirty bomb in Bryant Park or Times Square or the Embarcadero in S.F., that Stein remembers and is happy with his consistency in not supporting our troops.

What a feckless turd.

There was an interesting local case of a writer doing something similar. A local retired Marine, and Cop, challenged him to a boxing match. He publicised it. With ref and all.

The guy (writer) nearly crapped himself and ran off.

He tended to moderate his writing a touch after that, because the image of real consequences filled his mind, his being, and his thoughts.

I think it ruined him without one punch being thrown.

I would have loved to have seen him take the challenge. Apparently he did not have the courage of his convictions.

Perhaps, Jim, 9/11 served to point out that what we had considered an acceptable risk a la Saddam Hussein wan't an acceptable risk any longer. Perhaps 9/11 served to point out that some things can not be allowed to fester. Perhaps 9/11 served to point out that the proper response to terrorism is not to play an international version of "Whack-A-Mole" where the group that causes the latest outrage only gets a whack and all others can sit safe in their holes. Perhaps it served to point out that the proper response was to start taking the "Whack-A-Mole" game to pieces, permanently.

We can argue where the USA should have started, but it is quite clear that after 9/11 something radically different needed to be done about state sponsored terrorism and the illusion of plausible deniability.

Just a thought.

Mikey, good answer. That's my whole point. What exactly are we doing? And why?

Are we spreading democracy? Does our brand really work?

We sit here at home in admiration for the brave Iraqi citizens who are sacrificing for a worthy cause. But is that an accurate depiction? To be sure, the removal of a brutal dictator is worthy of sacrifice. But does not sacrifice require a choice? Those people had no choice. They're not sacrificing anything. They're being penalized for our agenda, because they never had (or made) a choice.

I agree with you that after 9/11 we took pause to consider all that was dangerous and wrong. But have we really taken stock honestly? What's our motive?

The Bible says to put your own house in order first. Have we done that?

The Bible says to remove the plank in your own eye before removing the speck in your neighbor's. Have we done that?

We say our brand of democracy brings freedom and stability- And every day right here at home we legally sanction the killing of hundreds of unborn babies. Where is the freedom that we claim others should sacrifice so much for?

We say our brand of democracy brings freedom and stability- Yet our prison population grows larger every year. Is it really working?

Speaking out against homosexuality is hate speech. Calling a heterosexual a "homohobe" is okay, though. Lopsided freedom? In favor of special interests? Is it working?

Our constituton guarantees freedom of religion. But now, "freedom from religion" trumps that right every day. Where did freedom from religion come from, and how did it crop up from this wonderful model of democracy?

We're so free we can catch a fish whenever we want- as long as we pay off a government agency first.

We're free enough to drive a car at any time day or night- as long as we've paid off the right agency first.

We're free to earn a living of our chosing- while our government robs us of an ever growing portion of the fruits of our labor that they didn't earn- and sometimes gives it away to another, without even asking if it's okay with us. Am I missing the demonstration of how well democracy works here?

Do you understand the disconnect I'm driving at? It's not that I disagree with doing what's in our best intersts, because I don't. But if we go around preaching a democracy that we don't practice with aparent success, how will that message be recieved? Will it be recieved at all? Will we look like arrogant hypocrites and be met with forceful rejection and dissent?

And if it's riddled with problems, why do we spend our time and money pushing it to others instead of taking care of our own problems first?

And when do we honestly admit it's not as great at home as we try to convince others it is?

That brings me back to motive. You and I agree that something needs to be done. So what in the hell is our motive in Iraq? And what do we truly have to offer them as a solution, once we've examined the many things gone wrong in our own implementation?

I don't take issue with our country doing something good. As a former US Marine, I hold our troops in the highest regard. My questions are more of motive and truth.

Jim Price:

Yes, I actually considered the linkage between 9/11 and Iraq as I was posting. There are many articles written by folks with a lot more knowledge than me that highlight the linkages between 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq. Of course, your political leanings somewhat determine whether or not you find merit in the arguments. I, for one, believe that we are striking a blow against Islamofacist terrorists by succeeding in Iraq, and retreat would be have negative ramifications for years for both American and worldwide security and stability.

I found one of your comments especially interesting: ("I had to think about the fact that Iraq never once attacked US soil. Invading a country that's never risen against your country in a like manner is a touchy subject.") I see your point, but also feel as if the assumption behind it is rooted in the style of warfare that existed in the increasingly distant past. First of all, don't forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait to begin with. So while Iraq didn't attack the US directly, it was the aggressor to stability within a region crucial to the world economy. Also, while Iraq would never realistically be able to take on the US in a conventional war, what about sponsoring country-less terrorists that are hostile to the West? Does the potential development of WMDs change the equation, in that a militarily insignificant country (or group of people) from a conventional standpoint could inflict major destruction on us or an ally? Do we need to wait for someone to attack us in order to respond, or is there a role for pre-emption? I admit that there's concern about a slippery slope here, but if we look just at Afghanistan and Iraq for a moment, I feel that both were justified.

This post is getting overly long, but the issue of Saudi Arabia you raise is interesting. I have to admit that I haven't thought through that much. But I'd hazard that being at least a nominal ally, the way we combat terrorism with Saudia Arabia ought to be radically different than how we did so with Iraq; we needn't have a consistent response to two very different countries.

I actually admire Mr. Stein. He is telling the truth for all to hear. This is something liberals have learned never to do.

He is saying what a large plurality of Democrats are thinking but don't want the rest of America to know because we would call them unpatriotic or traitors.

Thank you Mr. Stein for clarifying the disloyal opposition's position for all of us.

Jim P.

Sorry to be a buttinski, but I believe a few of your points need clarification:

I had to think about the fact that Iraq never once attacked US soil. Invading a country that's never risen against your country in a like manner is a touchy subject.

First sentence is true to in the most classic sense of being invaded. However, Ramzi Yousef, the chief architect behind the 1993 bombing of the WTC and the nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM), was assisted by an Iraqi bomb maker and known Iraq Intelligence Service agent named Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin proceeded to flee back to Iraq where he surfaced for a short time then disappeared and has not been seen or heard from sense but is believed to still be in Iraq.

So, while that's not invasion per se, it's certainly a state-sponsored attack, as was the attempted assisination of the first President Bush.

...the thugs who perpetrated 9/11 were, I believe, all of Saudi Arabian nationality.

Mostly, but not all. There were also from the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon (aka: Little Syria).

Where is retribution against Saudi Arabia? There is a far more clear link between 9/11 and Saudi Arabia than 9/11 and Iraq.

The retribution has been backdoor diplomatic pressure in nature, but no military response. In return, the Saudis have cracked down militant groups and terrorists within their borders (though probably not as much as most of us would like to see) and have likely assisted in interrogations of captured terrorists.

...why haven't we moved against the country that presented those responsible for so many needless civilian deaths on that horrible day?

Quite simply, it is not just one country that perpetrated 9/11. It was and remains a regional socio-politcal dynamic/movement that is has been infested with hatred for Israel and the West. Thanks to oppressive theocracies (Iran), dictatorships (Saddam's Iraq), monarchies (S.A., Jordan to some extent) and thugocracies (The Taliban) that feed the beast of Islamofacism by not allowing and deeply restricting basic freedoms and rights, we get the nuts that brought us 9/11. That's how they get and stay in power.

Let me ask you this: If President Bush had said during his 2002 SOTU, "Listen, America, here's the deal. It wasn't just Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. It was the entire culture of the Middle East, one where oppression and hatred rules supreme. Yes, we're taking care of the Taliban and AQ, but this cuts a lot deeper than just them. The entire Middle East is the problem, and if we can plant the seeds of democracy, maybe not one exactly like ours (Lord knows, that's probably not possible), but one with some basic human freedoms and rights that might inspire and motivate others in the region to overthrow their oppressive and murderous regimes, are you for it? It's a big gamble. but one we have to try. And the perfect place to start? A country known for its terrorist ties, pursuit and, perhaps, possession of WMD and that's really vulnerable in the heart of the Middle East: Iraq. Would you be for it? Or should we just go back to our Whack-A-Mole approach that really hasn't worked? Oh, by the way I'm going to ask Cogress to make a formal Declaration of War."

What if Bush had said that?

Funny thing is, he has for a couple years. Just that very few people want to hear it.

Jim:

First, while some Iraqis have been caught up in the current turmoil (esp. in the Sunni Triangle), I'd hardly say they're being "penalized for our agenda." That's debatable at best. I'd say that the majority Shias and the Kurds would consider life under Saddam to be a much stiffer penalty.

As to your many points on whether we have any right or responsibility to look after our interests outside of the US when we still have our own problems, I think if you take the long view, the answer is a clear yes. The point is that I don't think we can afford to stick our heads in the sand about problems abroad that will affect us eventually. And while I totally don't mean to dismiss your concerns about problems in the US (I agree with you actually), it's like a man who says he wants to cure the rash on his neck before he tackles the skin cancer on his leg. We won't ever have a perfect system, but that's no excuse for inactivity when a problem is identified.

Okay, gotta get back to work!

Behind all the bravado to the contrary, the Pentagon is definitely analyzing what went wrong in Iraq Iraq "is clearly a one-off," said a Pentagon official who is working on the top-to-bottom study, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. "There is certainly no intention to do it again." It appears that 9/11 was not quite the Damascus like experience for the Pentagon that it was for so many conservatives like Rob and Jay. Reading between the lines of the study, it seems very critical of way the Iraqi war was conducted and the less than coherent military and political strategy. The review makes the observation that "Rumsfeld has long opposed an increase in the size of the military, in part because of cost" but no one is suggesting that he as Pentagon secrtary doesn't support the troops. In any event, the budgetary focus of the American military bulidup in the next few years will not be on' the global threat from terrorism' as we may have been led to believe but on the growing threat to American hegemony from China, according to these officials.

"There is certainly no intention to do it again."

Wow -- so the Pentagon wants to avoid "fighting the last war," a habit for which military planners have been pounded for generations.

I don't really see the downside to that, Crick. It demonstrates a recognition that military strategy rarely survives first contact with the enemy.

And that's something us armchair generals have been pointing out for ... generations.

But you keep right on trying to turn that into a political problem for Bush. It's what makes you such a charming fellow.

This is wrong on so many levels it's revolting.

First of all, Mark doesn't appear to understand how this all works. This is a republic. We vote on the people who make the decisions. Once its decided, the soldiers follow orders - period. That's it. If he wants to stop the war, then it has to come from changing the minds of the President or a majority of the Congress. You don't blame the people who are following orders: it's not their call.

Secondly, he doesn't seem to understand what a pacifist is. If you're a pacifist, then you're anti-war. So sending troops to Kosovo and the Balkans, where we bombed people from high altitude without UN approval in an operation that doesn't do much of anything for US national security is not being a pacifist. Where do these people come from? They are against War, because War is a terrible thing, but they constantly want to send US troops to every hotspot on the planet as long as it doesn't benefit us.

And finally, we have a lot to gain and a lot to loose in Iraq. If Mark doesn't believe that, then fine, let's vote on pulling out or let's here a plan to end it. Oh, that's right: we did. Rep. Murtha's plan to cut-and-run went down in flames, and Rep. Pelosi says that the Defeat-o-crats will not put forward any proposal on Iraq for 2006. They have nothing to say -- nothing constructive to add to the conversation.

I'm glad that the LA Times is going broke.
It's like all those years when I had to fly Eastern Airlines. When they went under, I said, "Good! They deserve it."

The LA Times, The Eastern Airlines of journalism: "We don't meet even our low standards" or "We're not happy 'til you're not happy."

Stein may be a failed comedian, and a rather desperate attention whore, but he's not hiding behind some chickenshit "nuanced" answer that 99% of the rest of the "anti-war" crowd seems to have taken on. None of this "I support the troops but not the war" crap, which is so utterly dishonest that it makes me ill when I hear the vast majority of the Democratic leadership spouting it.

His message is wrong, he has no grasp of history, he's bad at faux-comedy, and his writing sucks, but hes got the moral fortitude to stick by his position right-or-wrong and you can't say that for most of his ilk.

McGehee, Bush has repeatedly said "failure is not an option, stay the course"..He has continously raised the stakes by urging 'bring them on' and so forth..that it is definitely more than a just a political problem for him..It (the Iraqi war) is an 800 pound gorilla in the room..and it didn't have to be...We are now finding out why a such a ruthless thug (Saddam) managed to stay in power for so many years..except that we as 'the infidels' already unloved and not the native sons can't imitate him, with a police /authoritarian state, this close to Mecca..I support our troops because they have been thrown in into such an impossible situation. Yes, the 9/11 hatred that caused 19 men to deliberately fly into the Twin Towers and Pentagon is very real, in the Muslim Arab world. (I think Bush even has understimated this) Therefore, our strategy should be at containing that hatred, and capturing Al Queda ringleaders and eliminating their Taleban protectors as it was, not further inflaming them by deciding to finish Saddam off, because it was an opportune time..In hindsight, it was a very inopportune time to settle old scores, through an invasion that has become a long costly ocupation.

...Therefore, our strategy should be at containing that hatred, and capturing Al Queda ringleaders and eliminating their Taleban protectors as it was, not further inflaming them by deciding to finish Saddam off, because it was an opportune time...

To what end? So our grand children can deal with it later?

B Moe..Saddam apperars to have been wobbling and the 'fact' that he was willing to contemplate allowing so many American inspectators in gives credence to the theory he really had no WMDs.

How fortunate for Mr. Stein that he has the freedom to choose who he will support and who he will not.

Maybe in his next column he will thank the soldiers that provide him with that luxery, with or without his support.

Crikey, Cricky -- where has that vaunted and terrible Arab Street been, if it's so formidable and so dedicated to our destruction?

Last I saw them they were protesting terrorists and Ba'athists -- not us.

I think people are looking into his column the wrong way. He never said "I hope they die". He just stated the stance the most liberals have, but are afraid to say. I may not agree with most of his column, but as a military member (who served in Desert Storm, Desert Shield, Desert Fox, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Iraqi Freedom), I support his right to state his mind. We can not change everyone's opinion on the military. I accepted that a long time ago. I do agree with this one line:

But, please, no parades.

Yes, no parades. When I come home, I want to see my family and wrap my arms around my wife and son. Go home and spend sometime with them. Watch my son play hockey and help my wife make dinner. She had it much harder than I did. Parades would just get in the way of making up for the time I missed with my family.

Not inflame them more? How could that happen? By dousing them in gasoline and tossing a lit cigarette at them?

Look, a group that takes on the greatest military power head-on by attacking both that power's greatest city and its capital has no self-esteem issues at all, and to then declare that any response will only make them more angry is...words escape me.

Forget it, Steve C., there isn't a coherent response to that statement of yours except dismissal. Thank you for playing, sir; enjoy a complimentary copy of our home game.

Rob:

What is wrong with honoring the job our troops have done in Iraq?

Nothing...they are doing the job that they were ordered to do; they do not shape policies or make decisions about going to war. I have friends who went over there, and I feel that they are brave and good people. I do not envy what they are called to do, however.

They went there to defeat a truly evil ruler prone to feeding political dissidents into plastic shredders and ordering rapes as a solution to voters who cast their ballots the wrong way, and defeat him they did.

Do you really think that's the reason they went there? Hussein was doing that shit a long time ago, and we didnt have a problem then. We had a problem when he stopped doing what we told him to do. We havent had a big problem, in the past, with supporting nasty dictators who toe the line.

I argue that if Hussein had kept doing what we felt was acceptable in a political sense, we NEVER would have attacked Iraq, regardless of what he was doing to his people. That pretty much shoots down the whole argument that we're there for humanitarian reasons.

Remember: We