Just finished a New Yorker article about our relations with Syria. The general gist was that since 9/11 the administration has been more concerned with Iraq (and Israel) than finding OBL. Thus our relations with Syria have been icy; they are willing to help us defeat Al Quida but not Iraq. What this, and other articles don't explain is: why? All arguments for regime change were just as true on 9/10/01 as they are today. Why the change? The lying might be forgivable if we knew the real reasons.

Mike, how about "Shock and Awe" for a metal band?

I havn't gotten to that New Yorker article yet, but I think the Iraq war a mistake because we should have been beating up the Syrians and Iranians instead. We wouldn't have to invent the international terrorism and WMD charges with them. They're the real deal. Bomb the Bekaa Valley, not Baghdad. There, that's what I'll put on my bumper. So why did we go to war against Iraq and not the real threats? That's the big question. If it was just a question of finding an easy target, Syria probably qualifies. Finish what we started? For the sake of finishing what we started? Or maybe this really was about getting the folks who tried to kill Daddy?

In the related post's comments below, Jim writes:

"So your answer (to whether the war was justified) depends on how you personally interpret the word 'justified.'"

Jim is hitting the nail on its highly-subjective head. "Personal intrepretations" are everything in this erstwhile post-war Iraq debate - a "debate", by the way, that's still only happening within spitting distance of certain parts of I-95.

Many of the same people who agreed Clinton should bomb Bosnia condemn Bush for invading Iraq. But if they objectively examine the breadth of both of those pre-war situations, they will see that the identical principles justifying or not justifying a humanitarian war apply. And if they consider that Milosevic, like Hussein, either once possessed or planned to (again) possess WMDs, and if they consider the regional or global instability such possession might cause, they will see that the identical principles justifying or not justifying a preemptive war apply.

So what's the difference in their personal intrepretations of those two wars? For many of them it comes down to the fact that they generally supported Clinton and generally oppose Bush, which often stems from whether they're Democrats or Republicans, left-of-center, or right-of-center. It's human, but rather than analytical, they're being highly "personal" and subjectively "interpreting."

At least we can all now agree that the Iraq war was perfectly legal.

Here's what the 16 words mean to my old buddy Bill Clinton, who had this to say on Tuesday:

"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it we might have none of it. But we didn't know.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be a regime change, not just continued sanctions.

"But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile."

Don't you mean "porn star" ?

This is an interesting take on the yellowcake question.

How strange. Mike -- did you know Noah at Yale, or is this just a coincidence. He was in the other room on my floor Freshman year (ah -- the entryway system).

Per Mike's link, I checked out Noah's blog - now the 2nd blog I've ever seen. I don't know where he finds the time to research, think and write all that, but it's some pretty astute stuff. His dissection of the Democratic presidential race is more realistic and insightful than anything I've seen in the commercial media.

And NS, was that "porn star" to me? If so, you should also know I credit the man with making "slick Willie" a double entendre.

No, I didn't know Noah. Just a freak coincidence.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure "porn star" was a reference to this:

Oh, and how long until we get a pop star calling herself Yellowcake?

Here is an interesting short piece on the war's popularity and the intel flap. Basically, they are not connected. While war approval is still a majority view, it is shrinking because the death toll of Americans is rising. Ironically the same thought process that caused the 16 words' inclusion (We believe it because we want to believe it) may hoist Bush in the end (All these Americans dead, it is not my fault, I never would have supported this war if Bush hadn't lied to me). People make decisions first, find justification later.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/schneider2003-07-23.htm