Lucky me. Isn't it funny how often the most obnoxious letter writers use a web based email account to send their bilge? Gutsy of them, don't you think?

My point is that resisting inspections is not a sufficient cause for a dangerous war. It is also incorrect to say inspections have gone nowhere. From 1991 to 1997 inspections continued with some success. In 1997, the UN withdrew its inspectors because of disagreements over Iraq's compliance. In recent months inspections have resumed, again with some success. Obviously the main reason Hussein has been more compliant recently is because of the US troop buildup. Nevertheless, the mere fact that Iraq has not been cooperating with weapons inspections does not necessitate an invasion. The billion dollar question has to be: Which is more dangerous, keeping Iraq under watch with inspections and a military embargo or going to war? Unless you're a complete idiot (possible in your case, Kevin) you have to admit that Iraq is far weaker now than it was in 1991. In other words, sanctions and inspections have, however imperfectly, worked to keep Hussein under wraps. Given that, I think war (with all its very dangerous blowback possibilities) is a bad idea.

What nitwits like you fail to understand is that there are no perfect solutions. Leaving Hussein in power is not ideal (he keeps trying to grab a few weapons, slips a few bucks to anti-Israel militants). However, invading him is also not ideal (we're forced to occupy Iraq for an unknown number of years, leaving our troops vulnerable; we possibly increase the chaos in the region; we create more animosity among Arab states and their people). Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils, as you say below. In this case, I think continuing sanctions and inspections, while not ideal, is better than war. This doesn't make me an appeaser, just a concerned citizen trying to come up with the best solution given a bad situation.

Ah, more idiocy. Yes, we weren't bosom buddies with Iraq. We were merely allies. We gave them equipment, military advice, and satelite intelligence. With allies like us who needs friends? It's true that today's allies can be tomorrow's friends, and vice versa. But that doesn't make Bush's words any more honest. It is hypocrisy to criticize Iraq for attacking its neighbors and using chemical weapons when the truth is we supported Iraq in its attack on its neighbor Iran and we were perfectly aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons while that war was going on. Any way you slice it, this is baloney.

You need help, Kevin. Serious help. Coulter is not a babe. True, she is more attractive than Dick Cheney (or James Carville, for that matter), but all she really has going for her is long dyed blonde hair and a penchant for wearing clothes that reveal unseemly amounts of her rather scrawny form. This does not a babe make. We here at WastedIrony are, of course, far too steeped in feminist ideology to ever label women babes, but if we were to so label, we'd be picking major babes like Salma Hayek, Halle Berry, and Liv Tyler.

Uh, no. Here is the relevant section of my note on contacting WastedIrony: "Rude letters will be posted WITH their email addresses and full names included. Reasonably polite letters (even critical ones) will have their email addresses and last names removed. I am the final arbiter on what is rude and what can be posted. You've been warned."

See, all I ask is that people be reasonably polite. I specifically say that it's ok to disagree with me. Clearly, the Democrats' contention that our schools need more money is proven by Shane's reading comprehension issues. But while his letter was fairly brainless, it was not rude (or not too rude) and so I deleted Shane's email address. Is that so hard to understand, Shane?

Obviously I could be mistaken. I do not know that I am right, although I think I have some good ideas (don't we all?). I do think that Bush has been deceptive from day 1. I began the essay, the flagship essay of this site, with the relatively minor but still disturbing deception regarding his flight to Nebraska, something you do not address, but which symbolizes for me the way this administration has been spinning the terrorism story from the start. On the even more serious issue of attitudes towards Al Qaeda, I think Bush has been more than mistaken, he has been deliberately deceptive. He must know that Al Qaeda and its supporters in the Muslim world have made specific criticisms of American policies and used these criticisms as justification for their attack. They may be lying about why they're doing what they're doing, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Religious fanatics tend to be proud of their motivations; they don't usually try to hide them. Also, people do not tend to crash planes into your buildings just because they don't like what you're doing in your own backyard ("Do you realize that American women on Baywatch wear bikinis?!?" "They must die!!!"). They only get that mad if you're doing something they don't like in their own backyard. Bush's simplistic explanation of the conflict is deceptive and shows contempt for the American people's understanding (perhaps justified, but still wrong). Why does he do it? I'm not sure, but I suspect it has something to do with wishing to avoid considering real policy changes, such as reducing our dependence on mideast oil or reducing our support for Israel.

His recent attempt to link Iraq with the War on Terror have also been deceptive, a point I also made in the essay. He knows there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Yet he and his minions have tried to hint that such a link exists. And this is a lie.

The reason all these lies upset me is that they make hard for us, the American people, to clearly understand what is going on with this War on Terror. In the end, we are his employers, and we deserve a full accouting of what he is doing with the business we own. If he don't start doing that soon, I suggest we fire him in two years. Ok, so I'd probably say that anyway, being a Democrat and all. I will say there are plenty of Republicans who I'd be happier with. For example, I doubt that the straight shooting John McCain would have behaved or spoken in the same way as Bush and Co.

Here's a quote from a Bin Laden statement picked up in a recent RAND corporation report on terrorism:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Obviously it's an over-reaction. The guy is a fanatic who deserves a cruise missile between the eyes. Remember, it's my city the bastard hit, and I'll never forget or forgive.

Let us not ignore some other factors behind that support. (1) It is useful for us to have a cooperative ally with a strong military machine in the region. (2) New York, Florida, and California. No political party wants to offend a big voting bloc in key states. Furthermore, the strong Jewish lobby--and the ignorance of many Americans--helps to maintain our pro-Israel attitudes. (3) Finally, there is the Christian fundamentalist support, stemming from their belief in biblical prophecy and Israel's role in its fulfillment.

These pro-Israel forces are not overwhelming powerful, but they have no strong counter-weight in American policy. Politicians love to support groups who have no strong domestic opponents (I exclude the lunatic fringe of far far right anti-Semites).

Keep in mind that this American support, supposedly inspired by "altruism", was pretty tepid in Israel's early years (when most of their hi-tech weapons were French) and only became strong in the 1960s and later.

If altruism truly motivated American foreign policy, why have we done so little to help Cambodians, East Timorese, or the Tutsis of Rwanda? All of these groups have suffered genocidal slaughter in the 20th century, but we don't seem to give a damn. Oh wait, there aren't a lot of Tutsis, Timorese, or Cambodians living in this country. Funny coincidence that.

I grant your definition, for the most part. Certainly Hitler was evil. In my eyes, so is Bin Laden. But simply labelling them as evil is not enough. It is important to understand them, to understand their motivations, and to understand the motivations of their followers. The better we know them, the better equipped we are to stop them. Calling them evil, as Bush does, is bad if he uses that label as an excuse to stop from examining the rational behind their evil.

For example, the same RAND report I mentioned earlier (Deterrence and Influence in Counterterrorism: A Component in the War on al Qaeda by Paul K. Davis, Brian Michael Jenkins - 2002), differentiates between "Type A" and "Type B" terrorists. Type A terrorists are simply fanatics who you'll probably have to kill. Type B terrorists, however, have specific and rational (in our eyes) goals; goals that it might be wise to deal with so as to reduce the popularity of that particular kind of terrorism (the report offers Palestinian nationalism as an example).

To connect to your Nazi analogy, we really didn't have any choice but to kill Hitler (although it still might have been useful to understand him so as to figure out how best to kill him, or thwart him), but many of his followers were not obsessed racist murderers, rather they were nationalistic Germans upset at perceived wrongs such as the harsh Treaty of Versailles (1919). It might have been in our interests to grant those Germans some concessions, or at least admit that we may have been wrong about the Treaty of Versailles (as most history books do), as a way of reducing support for Hitler or future Hitlers.

Finally, sometimes you are forced to deal with evil. By any sane measure Stalin was an evil man, yet we negotiated and cooperated with him where it seemed necessary. If we had simply labelled him evil and done nothing else, Hitler might have triumphed in WWII.

Invective? Beyond calling the current administration a bunch of liars, have I really used invective?

Much as I love irony, one can't be using it in every essay.