For what it's worth:  My sense of Obama is that (a) he's a committed friend of Israel (because he's always said so, and, unlike some, you can trust him), (b) he doesn't make a fetish of diplomacy (way back in his Senate bid, he identified Iran and Pakistan as major problems, and said military action might be necessary against Iran -- his view, which I believe is right, and I believe he believes -- is that it's wrong to be against all war, but that it's wrong to be for dumb wars -- a refreshing break from the tired hawk-dove dynamic), and (c) the Lake-Albright-Zbig triad may be worrisome on some levels, but a bit of foreign policy realism mixed in with idealism is not the end of the world -- we could've used a great deal more realism these past seven years -- and Obama is his own man, certainly committed to restoring America's moral leadership.

One suggestion:  Read his foreign policy speeches (I'm thinking of his major one in Chicago some time back in particular), and tell me he doesn't speak to your heart.

What happened to Samantha Power?

Interestng main post and great post by JH (ie, to quote him, it's worth a lot), even I prefer Hillary.

Samantha Power probably couldn't stomach his 179 degree reversal on Darfur or the right to unilateral intervention when it comes to genocide.

Jimmy Carter swears he's a "friend of Israel" too -- and indeed, I don't think a person who wants Israel to offer a lot more than it has in the past is per se an enemy of Israel.   THough I totally believe Obama is very much like 1976 Jimmy Carter (runs against the beltway, aversion to realpolitiks, etc.)

"Pliable" has been Obama's modus of operendi as a state senator (e.g., when he ducked controversial votes for political purposes -- see Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times, who is pretty respected and has repeatedly written about this).  Ask him if he thinks Iran's rhetoric against Israel would justify a pre-emptive attack by Israel in self-defense and he would refuse to answer.  

Did Samantha Power leave his campaign?

I had not heard anything along those lines.

I am sure if Obama were to win the general he would get strong centrists to run state. Campaigning is one thing, governing another. If you have faith in his ability to govern maybe you can faith that he will choose better people to surround himself with (after all, now he can only take who comes, if he becomes President  everyone will come and then he can take who he wants.)

I liked jhilders post too and even sympathize with Marty in this post.  

I'm a bit to the right of Obama, but I trust his judgment in a way that I trust no one else (maybe McCain) and I'm right with Obama in terms of the need to aggressively re-build American soft power (we sould retire that term in this post-Bush era, the semantics of of it are misleading - hence all the accusations of his pliability. I disgree very much with that assessment).  

I think Of Iraq 1 and how 167 countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia contributed troops, money, diplomatic support.  I know I'm rather obsessively cheap, but we came out financially ahead after that war.  Can you imagine?  My grandchildren will be paying for Iraq 2 and excessive, wasteful public debt is immoral.

Not only is this drive to rebuild our soft power smart, it's cheaper in the end and often works better.  Prevention is a hard thing to measure, but being mistrusted by most of the world wastes time and effort for no reason.  I hate to sound arrogant empire-ish, but let's face it - when America is disordered and dysfunctional, the world is too.

Soft power is fine.

But the Democrats need to incorporate some Liebermanism into their fheir foreign policy analysis, effectively laud Bush for sticking to his guns in Iraq for all the terrible mistakes that were made in that sad theatre, know Iran for what it is, not blanche from calling the Revolutionary Guard out for the fascist thugs they are, and so on; and the only one showing any spine for doing that is Hillary.

That is why in the post 9/11 world she has imho the only chance of "triangulating"--if that is what it comes to--the Republicans on these issues.

(Zbig should restrict himself to appearances on Morning Joe.)

I agree with you basman, (although Lieberman is one of my least favorite people in public life).

I've said for awhile that Obama needs to show his inner warrior at some point. But in all fairness, Obama is a progressive liberal and he - to his credit - has never pretended to be anything else.  I like his take on Pakistan, he's been tough, but that's a perfect example of where soft power comes in handy (can you PLEASE help me come up with a new term for that basman?). Pakistan is a highly political culture, threats alone just aren't enough.    

I'd also like to know he'd blast 'em if he needed to.  Most of us have our inner Cheney here on TNR, and although mine has been thoroughly tamed by Iraq 2, it still lurks as it should. This is why I agreed with Marty's original post - some of those advisors are fine, but I'd like to see a fully range - closer to the Paul Berman range.

I've appreciate Senator Clinton's approach to foreign policy, I was glad she didn't fold on the "apology" mau-mauing from the left and I know the high level military guys actually respect her a great deal. She does know her stuff.  

Soft power means next to zip in the theatres that matter most: East Asia, SW Asia, Russia/Eurasia. Those powers are the ur-realists of the world, and we have shamefully neglected them with our obsessive, to coin a phrase, emphasis on regions to their west.

I'm agnostic on the Zbiggy/Israel/Iran debate, maybe because I'm pessimistic on our ability to halt Iran's drive to join its fellow SW/So. Asian powers in the nuclear club. What's more important IMO is moving our foreign-policy establishment away from its habitual euro- and middle east-centrism to focus on those eastern regions that present the greatest threats to (and opportunities for) the US in this Asian Century. Its this blinkered focus on Europe and the mideast powers, for ex., that has blinded us to the fact that Russia, not any constellation of EU or arab powers, holds the key to solving the Iranian puzzle.

Which candidate will put China-Russia-India-Japan at the top of his f-p priorities?

Marty Peretz wrote: “I am still convinced that he is the genuine article, unlike his opponent, the lady with stick-figure passion and no real humor at all.  And certainly no sense of humor about herself.”

I disagree that Hillary Clinton has “stick-figure passion,” “no real humor at all” and “no sense of humor about herself.”  I think she has got a lot of passion for helping people, for example, she really tried to get health care done because she wants people to have good health care.  And she does have a bit of a sense of humor, for example, when she brought the cake of a shoe for Tucker Carlson to eat.  However, I agree that she doesn’t have nearly as good a sense of humor as Groucho Marx or Chris Rock.  But that is not particularly important in terms of who one should vote for.  Many good leaders haven’t had a great sense of humor.  Lincoln is an example.  Gandhi and Nehru might be others.  Gorbachev might be another.   The most important qualities to consider when voting are the candidates’ positions on the issues, how good they are at justifying those positions and how good they have been in political office and in other phases of their lives up to this point.  Those are the qualities that give us the best indication of how they will do once elected.  Consider, for example, Nelson Mandela and Franklin Roosevelt.  

Marty Peretz wrote: “It did not start with his almost religious faith in diplomacy at one of the Democratic debates.”

Could you elaborate on that?  What debate are you talking about?  And why do you characterize it that way?  

Marty wrote: “Diplomacy should not be a mantra.  Indeed, sometimes it can be as perilous as war.  In any case, the foreign policy that, sadly, Obama seems to have embraced has no rigor.  It is, instead, rigidly pliable.”

Perhaps “diplomacy” shouldn’t be a mantra.  But what does it mean to say that “diplomacy should not be a mantra?”  And is Obama guilty of that?  Are there examples?  Moreover, diplomacy is hugely important.  Talking and interacting with other people tends to prevent violence.  Not always.  Nevill Chamberlain shouldn’t have met with Hitler.  Also, Prime Minister Zapatero probably shouldn’t have entered into dialogue with ETA.  ETA was on the fringes and losing clout, but Zapatero’s gestures have probably given it more legitimacy.  But as prima facie idea diplomacy is a great idea.  Perhaps it would be better for the candidates to stress a strong commitment to non-violence, and indicate under what conditions one thinks violence is justified.  Non-violence is almost always the best way to avoid people getting harmed.  Nevertheless, Obama’s talking about diplomacy is a good substitute, though I would like to see Obama get more specific about what his key commitments would be in conducting international affairs.  From what I’ve seen he has been pretty vague.  And I’d like to see him stress a strong commitment to the United Nations, including expanding the Security Council and ending the veto-power.  The UN is a great vehicle for resolving conflict through diplomacy and non-violence and for promoting democracy and autonomy.  

Tep - if China, India or Russia start creating jihadis I bet they'd get our attention quickly.

Actually Zbiggy thinks China may help us solve the Iranian puzzle. He advocates we cultivate China against Iran (and Russia): www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2007112901876.html

We absolutely need diplomacy-- smart diplomacy, to be sure, but diligent and determined diplomacy-- to break the deadlock with Iran. The central fact here is that the Iranians hold most of the cards, and ours is a weak hand that can be bolstered *only* if we figure out how to cultivate/bribe/play off Iran's powerful neighbors against each other.

That means playing chess, as Zbiggy urges, instead of our feckless, bogus good cop / bad cop routine with the sadsack EU-3 partners for whom the Iranians have only contempt.

"and ours is a weak hand that can be bolstered *only* if we figure out how to cultivate/bribe/play off Iran's powerful neighbors against each other."

Ahh, there you go: the wretched realism/realpolitik of Kissinger/Scrowcrift et al that had the U.S. tactily supporting Iraq in the Iraq Iran war and favoring shitheads--"at least they are our shitheads"-- around the world. The good old days, to be sure.

Basman - smirks 'n' sneers are fun, but reality has this unpleasant way of knocking down even the most artful putdown. Let's review, shall we?

Iran: the Bush-EU3's good cop / bad cop routine with Iran has failed. The fruits of these four years of carrots and more carrots, plus huffs 'n' puffs and Don't Make Hieronimo Cheney Mad Again, are a set of half-hearted sanctions that do not even amount to a bad joke.  This gambit's finished, as the diplomats (privately) and Solana (publicly) and Condi (through her changing of the subject to Isr-Pal) all admit. Even the Swiss (!) are jumping into the breach with their own overtures to the Iranians. And you know and I you what Bush and the Iranians both know: there is no way on earth that we can profitably attack Iran and take out all their sites. We are still, as Reuel Marc Gerecht said nearly a decade ago, "flying blind" in terms of intel assets in Iran and the middle east generally.

Iraq: the realism train left the station years ago, and we're simply trying to make the best of a set of atrociously bad options. Not even the most "perfervid" (Spinespeak) or "preternatural" (current pundit-speak) idealist offers any antidote to hard, clear-cut realism on this one.

China: yes, of course we're realists here. Your mortgage is owned by the Chinese, as is a large chunk of the nation's debt. In the middle of a massive and expanding credit squeeze. Oy.  

Russia: easy to be an idealist when Russia's on its knees. Different story when oil's at $100/bbl and Putin's established himself as tsar-in-fact.

Bottom line, the era of the Cold War was a freak that enabled us, uniquely in our history, to align our material and our moral interests without a great deal of inconvenience. In this Asian Century dominated by resource battles, we will not have that luxury again. We're joined at the hip to the Chinese, and Iran and Russia hold excellent hands.

As I say, time to leave aside hollow moralizing that no one takes seriously and start upping our diplomatic game. Different century now.

teplukhin2you wrote: "As I say, time to leave aside hollow moralizing that no one takes seriously and start upping our diplomatic game. Different century now."

Teplukhin2you, could you say more about that?  What do you mean by "moralizing?"  We should make moral choices.  Sometimes those choices are ones that benefit us to a great extent and also benefit other people, for example, the Marshall Plan.  But sometimes a moral decision is to defend oneself.  For example, if I have very good reason to believe that the only way I can save my life is if I punch an assassin in the nose, I should punch him in the nose.  Moral considerations (for instance, my well-being) play a huge role in what I ought to do.  

Tep:

Iran: I find your comments somewhat confused. No one does not want to accomplish ends without rather using diplomacy--including me. All the "huffing and puffing" is bullshit. If there are better, more efficacious  sanctions let them be used. What are they? I do myself do not know. But why would anyone not want to use diplomacy/sanctions /whatever to stave off or slow down a nuclear Iran as opposed to using a military option, if there is one? So if there is something you know about this please say so, or point to what you are reading.  And I don't know that we can't hobble Iran's nuclear development with air strikes even short of total dismemberment. Some say we can; some say we can't. I need to hear smart folks who know expertly what they are talking about  debate the issue to come to a better sense of a military option. There are lot of costs and benfits to be weighed. That issue will be *debated* plenty in the general campaign, and we will then get the popular distillation--and more for those who care to get into it-- of the arguments, as candidiates meet the issue of whether a nuclear Iran is tolerable, if the West has the realistc means to deter it, especially so if in the intervening months Bush ratchets things up.

How do you know, I ask only respectfully, what the West now knows about nuclear Iran? I do know that Gerecht favours tailored, limited military incursion and thinks he knows enough about Iran to so say.

Iraq: If you are saying that realism as such did not inform in essential ways the decision to go to war there. I agree with you. But it is interesting--and I never heard it put quite this way, and I agree with it--that your country's Senator Webb draws a distinction between a strategic disagreement with the original decision to go to war and a moral or principled disagreement. He concedes that on the latter reasonable people can disagree and respect each other views, and he takes his oppositional stand on the former ground and avoids getting into the debate prompted by the latter ground.

I also liked very much the distinction Shelby Steele drew between wars of discipline and wars of survival. The notion of wars of discipline is troubling-- I am not sold on it--and pushes the pre-emptiion of the Bush doctrine over the line to prevention and persuasively makes that line rather blurry.

In years to come, I surmise, stock will be taken of the Bush doctrine and my sense is that for all Bush's disastrous ineptitudes as an executve--one who executes--his doctrine may well be seen as an appropriate place to start for its time for a post 9/11 world. Am I wrong to think that Joesph Nye hailed it as a revolutionary and far sseing response to what radical Islam poses, a major and and radical shift in American foreign policy? The Democrats, I argue against you, actually make the realist case now for Iraq: get out! now and say when. American interests are not immediately imperilled by such a retreat, they argue, and its nterests are better served by bringing the troops home as quicky as possible.

Others, mostly Republicans, argue now that surge is working, space is being given for Iraqis to make their own necessary political accommodations, and at some point it will be on them. At that point, I think it is highly arguable, America can phase down its troop levels in such a way as to allow for a  response to any re-nascent radical insurgency and for some basis for trying to deal with radical instability in the region.

It is a cliche that Bush's presidency wil be judged in history by Iraq. Well, it may be a cliche, but who can say so clearly now that some working stability is impossible in Iraq? And should that come to pass,  then what will be said about Bush: possibly, that at his lowest most, grim hours when the shrill cries for "get out" were at their most pervasive, he said "Fuck that" and took his time and then plumped for the surge that, should this scenario come to pass, mid wifed this operational stability.

Should things come to this, then I venture to think, some greatness in him--amidst terrible flaws--will be marked. Scrowcroftian realism had  Bush 41 lethally turn Ameirca's back on thousand upon thousands of dissident and uprising Iraqis who risked limb and life on their reasonable perception of American backing, only to be as lambs to the Hussein slaughter. That is a wretched realism. That in its own way is the Pelosi Reid--and others--prescription. Bush's "staying the course" amidst the onslaught of criticism he faced, especially now in the light of a seeming turnaround in the facts on the ground, as I say, may yet mark him for some partial greatness, as he took the decision to "stick and stay" on a foreign policy premise that utttlely rejected the realism you argue for.

China /Russia: diifferent realities, diferent threats, different concerns as Wandrey noted above. And surely, you make that argument yourself when you say, "In this Asian Century dominated by resource battles, we will not have that luxury again. We're joined at the hip to the Chinese, and Iran and Russia hold excellent hands."

Finally I construe David52194's immediately above remarks as characterizing the issue correctly in a down home but telling way. Some conflicts are existential and some are considerably less than that. For the former, the Bush doctrine seems right to me and unless the Democrats can triangulate that issue--and who but Hillary can do that--without giving up on diplomacy and sanctions if they can be functional--the right Republican--I used to think that was Giuliani, we'll have to see whether he can skate over his now rough patch, I'm betting he can--will prove very problematic for the Democrats in the general election.

(Certainly more interesting and ramifying than whether Karlheinz Schreiber will sink Brian Mulroney and can parlay his willingness to testify into an extended stay in Canada against extradition to Germany as his lawyer Eddie Greenspan, (who taught me Criminal Procedure in law school) also Conrad Black's lead lawyer of choice, plucks every tactical bow in his quiver.)

The above post by basman has come of the most perceptive foreign policy analysis I have seen.  Basman has the gumption to do his own thinking and not be led astray by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The Democrats want to retreat from the Middle East.   That makes no strategic sense, no economic sense and certainly no moral sense.   Are the Democrats really willing for half the world's oil reserves being contolled by Al Qaeda or Iran?  Are they willing to consign millions of people to life under brutal tyranny such as we saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Barack Obama's Speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner

youtube.com/watch

Basman wrote: “In years to come, I surmise, stock will be taken of the Bush doctrine and my sense is that for all Bush's disastrous ineptitudes as an executve--one who executes--his doctrine may well be seen as an appropriate place to start for its time for a post 9/11 world.”

What do you mean by “the Bush doctrine?”  The decision to invade Iraq was deeply unjust.  First, each human life is very important, and President Bush had very good reason to believe that many more people would be killed if he ordered the invasion than if he instead agreed to continue with weapons inspections.  Second, President Bush had reason to believe that more US citizens would lose their lives in an invasion of Iraq than if he instead agreed to continue with weapons inspections.  Iraq was not a threat to the US, at least as the US continued with UN weapons inspections.  And there was reason to believe that many US soldiers would die in the invasion itself, as war usually costs lives and countries often fight hard when invaded by a foreign power, even when most citizens of the country do not like their leaders.  Finally, the United Nations did not authorize an invasion of Iraq.  So, the US-led invasion of Iraq was not supported by the expressed will and considered judgment of the global community.  

What the US should do in Iraq now is more complicated.  It is hard to know whether pulling out some troops now would result in more or less loss of life.  As of today, I wouldn’t pull any troops out.  I’m concerned that pulling some troops out now would result in even greater loss of life than not pulling any troops out now.  The troops act as a law enforcement presence that perhaps tends to cull violence.

Bush Doctrine:

1. fight for and actively promote freedom and liberty in the world.

2. reserving the right of pre emption against states and failed states that insituitonalize and or or harbour radical Islam intent onusing terrorist tactics against the United States and its allies

3. the isolation and weakening to crippling such states and failed states short of pre emptive military action;

4. obstructing or outright preventing of  terror-supporting nations from acquiring  WMDs and stopping those who facilitate their ambitions in this respect.

I'm not following the lead of Senator Webb going to reargue the principled case for the invasion with you. But I will restate some of its components briefly as I understand them and relating some of them to the Bush Doctrine and for what it is worth:

American settled policy of regime change in Iraq.

Hussein could not be allowed to have or acquire wmds.

A political death penalty on Hussein would deter others trying to acquire them .

The wmd argument is by itself enough to justify the war.

The Bush doctrine so oft articulated required follow through. If not, there would have been a collapse of what had been then achieved in Afghanistan,  a huge strategic setback, having negative effects on the region, especially on the war on terrorism.

Realism held that America could be the balancer of last resort, buying off the corrupt governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, policing and patrolling offshore. The combination of Islamic jihad and WMDs after 9/11 made democratizing the Arab world a matter of principle and a matter of American interest in that democratizing the Middle East would make America safe.

Hussein’s internal tyranny and human rights abuses and genocidal practices.

His history of adventurism.

Add to that Steele's just raised intruiging distinction between wars of survival and wars of discipline in a post 9/11 world given the marriage between technology as terror and radical Islam bent on mass destruction.

Basman wrote: “But I will restate some of its components briefly as I understand them and relating some of them to the Bush Doctrine and for what it is worth:

American settled policy of regime change in Iraq.”

That the Bush administration had had a policy of regime change prior to the invasion is irrelevant to whether Bush should have ordered the invasion.  It is more important not to lose lots of lives than stick to a policy, especially when it is a problematic policy.  It would have been good if Saddam had left.  But it is bad for thousands of people to die in order to change the regime.

Let’s say that at time T I implement policy X.  And policy X is to get a loaf of bread.  The policy is in place for two weeks.  Right before I’m about to go get the loaf of bread, a sniper move in to my neighborhood and will shoot if I step out my front door.  In that case, the loaf of bread is going to have to wait.  

“Hussein could not be allowed to have or acquire wmds.”

Sure, he COULD have been allowed to.  The question is SHOULD he have been allowed to.  First, there was reason to believe that weapons inspections were working as far preventing Saddam from getting biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.  At least we should have continued trying.  Let the weapons inspectors do their job to see what he does and does not have. We should have continued with that.  

Second, even if the US had good reason to believe that he had acquired chemical and biological weapons, that is not particularly important as to whether Bush should have ordered the invasion.  Chemical and biological weapons are not widely dangerous to large number of people; they are not particularly more destructive to human life than are conventional weapons.  Finally, even if the US had reason to believe that he had a nuclear weapon, that, by itself, does not justify invasion.  It is more important not to lose lives.  For example, if I know that doing X will result in 50,000 innocent people dying and will prevent a bad person from getting chemical weapons and not doing X will not result in 50,000 people getting killed and the person will get the weapon, I shouldn’t do X.  Each life is important.

“A political death penalty on Hussein would deter others trying to acquire them.”

So what?  It is more important not to lose thousands of lives.  

“The wmd argument is by itself enough to justify the war.”

I strongly disagree.  It is more important not to lose lives than to prevent one from getting weapons of mass destruction.  For example, if I know that doing X will result in 50,000 innocent people dying and will prevent a bad person from getting chemical weapons and not doing X will not result in 50,000 people getting killed and the person will get the weapon, I shouldn’t do X.  Each life is important.  Moreover, continuing with weapons inspections was working as far preventing Saddam from getting biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.  We should have continued with that.  

Basman wrote:

“Bush Doctrine:

1. fight for and actively promote freedom and liberty in the world.

2. reserving the right of pre emption against states and failed states that insituitonalize and or or harbour radical Islam intent onusing terrorist tactics against the United States and its allies

3. the isolation and weakening to crippling such states and failed states short of pre emptive military action;

4. obstructing or outright preventing of  terror-supporting nations from acquiring  WMDs and stopping those who facilitate their ambitions in this respect.”

Given what you mean by the Bush Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine is highly problematic.  And it should not be a model for US dealings in international affairs.  First, freedom and liberty are not worth much if you are dead.  So, we should not try to promote “freedom and liberty” if it means killing lots and lots of people.  Here is a link to a conservative estimate on the number of Iraqi civilian death that have occurred in the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Second, that states harbor terrorists is not sufficient for violence to be justified.  What if there was reason to believe that getting the terrorists would result in 10,000 innocent people dying and not getting them would result in no innocent people dying?  Then we shouldn’t get them.  There are hypothetic scenarios when invading a country would be justified.  And getting those we have probable cause have done, or will do, terrorists acts is one variable that should be relevant in that equation.  However, it is hugely important to weigh the human cost before making the decision to invade.  

Third, isolating and weakening states can be a bad idea if that means that innocent people will die of hunger.  For example, I strongly opposed the sanction against Iraq, as there was good reason to believe that lifting the sanctions would have helped the Iraqi people in general.  So, the idea of weakening of states that harbor terrorists should balanced against the cost to human beings.

Finally, it is reasonable to work through the United Nations to try to ensure that certain states don’t acquire nuclear weapons.  And we should even take reasonable measures to see that certain states do not acquire chemical and biological weapons, though I am not nearly as concerned about those as I am about nuclear weapons.  However, seeing that certain nations don’t acquire certain weapons should be balanced against the cost to humans beings, human life and human well-being.

Basman wrote: “The Bush doctrine so oft articulated required follow through. If not, there would have been a collapse of what had been then achieved in Afghanistan,  a huge strategic setback, having negative effects on the region, especially on the war on terrorism.”

Are you saying that the US should have invaded Iraq to avoid problems in Afghanistan?  There was no reason to believe that not invading Iraq would have caused problems in Afghanistan.    

“Realism held that America could be the balancer of last resort, buying off the corrupt governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, policing and patrolling offshore. The combination of Islamic jihad and WMDs after 9/11 made democratizing the Arab world a matter of principle and a matter of American interest in that democratizing the Middle East would make America safe.”

I don’t know what you mean by “realism held?”  So what?  There was not reason to believe that invading Iraq would result in fewer US citizens getting killed than would not invading.  For one thing, there was very good reason to believe that many US citizens would die in the invasion itself.  Second, with UN weapons inspections, the global community was keeping a close eye on Iraq.  

“Hussein’s internal tyranny and human rights abuses and genocidal practices.”

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  That someone has done bad things is not sufficient for someone to justifiably do something that will result in people getting killed.  For example, let’s say Steve harms Mike.  And let’s say that I have very good reason to believe that if I try to apprehend Steve 20 people be killed.  And I have very good reason to believe that if I don’t try to apprehend Steve, no one will be killed.  Then I should not try to apprehend Steve.

Also, Humans Rights Watch had a report that Saddam Hussein’s regime was not committing widespread humans rights violations close in time to the invasion.  I’ll try to find the report.    

“His history of adventurism.”

So what?  It is more important not to kill lots of people.

“Add to that Steele's just raised intruiging distinction between wars of survival and wars of discipline in a post 9/11 world given the marriage between technology as terror and radical Islam bent on mass destruction.”

Huh?  It is more important not to kill lots of people.  

People like David52194 have made a religion out of cowardice, masochism and sheer foolishness.  Oh the poor Muslim terrorists, they’re just people with delicate feelings.  If only we were more sensitive they wouldn't have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  Is anybody really dumb enough to believe that garbage?  Yes, there are a lot of really stupid people out there.  But I suspect that people like David52194 suffer more from neurotic self-hatred than from simple stupidity.  It’s most likely about neurotic self-hatred, combined with the desire of the village liberal to demonstrate his superiority to all those dumb rednecks out there in Middle America.

Guess what folks. New Yorker and New York Times reading liberals are parasitic on the lower middle class and working class men and women who have the guts to fight for this country.  Freedom has a price.  Liberals today want the benefits of freedom but they don’t want to pay their share of that price.  That is why they deserve the contempt of honest people everywhere.

Bulbman wrote: “People like David52194 have made a religion out of cowardice, masochism and sheer foolishness.  Oh the poor Muslim terrorists, they’re just people with delicate feelings.  If only we were more sensitive they wouldn't have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  Is anybody really dumb enough to believe that garbage?  Yes, there are a lot of really stupid people out there.  But I suspect that people like David52194 suffer more from neurotic self-hatred than from simple stupidity.  It’s most likely about neurotic self-hatred, combined with the desire of the village liberal to demonstrate his superiority to all those dumb rednecks out there in Middle America.

“Guess what folks. New Yorker and New York Times reading liberals are parasitic on the lower middle class and working class men and women who have the guts to fight for this country.  Freedom has a price.  Liberals today want the benefits of freedom but they don’t want to pay their share of that price.  That is why they deserve the contempt of honest people everywhere.”

That is all ad hominem.  Not one sentence is relevant to whether Bush should have ordered the invasion of Iraq.  For one thing, even people who have all the traits you mentioned often get things right.  I recommend Irving Copi’s book Introduction to Logic.  Copi has a pretty good section on the ad hominem fallacy.  

Here is an excerpt from Copi's  section entitled  "The Argument ad Hominem, Abusive":

"It is very common in rough-and-tumble argument to disparage the character of the opponents, to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to question their integrity, and so on. But the personal character of the individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the person says, or the correctness or incorrectness of that person's argument. To contend that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by ‘radicals’ (of the left of right) is a typical example of the fallacy ad hominem, abusive.

"Abusive premises are irrelevant -- but they sometimes persuade by the psychological process of transference. Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, the field of emotional disapproval may so extend as to include disagreement with the assertions that person makes.

"There are many variations in the patterns of the ad hominem abuse, of course. Sometimes the opponent is abused for being of a certain persuasion – an atheist or communist. Sometimes a conclusion is condemned simply because it is shared by persons who are believed to be vicious or of bad character. Many contend that Socrates, at his famous trial in Athens, was found guilty of impiety partly because of his close association with persons widely known to have been disloyal to the state, and rapacious in conduct. ‘Guilt by association’ was repeatedly suggested in the United States during the 1950s, by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, when misconduct was alleged in part because of the support given by those accused to political causes (e.g., civil liberties, and racial equality) supported by the Communist Party. Because argument ad hominem, abusive commonly takes the form of attacking the source or the genesis of the opposing position – which is not relevant to its truth, of course – it is sometimes called ‘the Genetic Fallacy.’

"A legendary example of the abusive variety of the ad hominem also arose in a courtroom, in Britain. There the practice of law has long been divided between solicitors, who prepare the case for trial, and barristers, who argue or ‘plead’ cases in court. Ordinarily, their cooperation is admirable, but sometimes it leaves much to be desired. On one such occasion, the barrister ignored the case completely until the day it was to be presented at court, depending upon the solicitor to investigate the defendant’s case and prepare the brief. Arriving at court just moment before the trial was to begin, he was handed his brief by the solicitor. Surprised at its thinness, he glanced inside to find written: ‘No case; abuse the plaintiff’s attorney!’”

Bulbman wrote: "Oh the poor Muslim terrorists, they’re just people with delicate feelings.  If only we were more sensitive they wouldn't have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

I'm not sure how those two sentences are relevant to what I wrote.  But that someone has bad things is relevant to how others should act toward the person.  For example, if a person has committed a terrorists act.  But that someone has bad things is not sufficient to justifiably do X.  For example, say that Steve has murder someone else.  And let's say that I have very good reason to believe that if I try to apprehend Steve, he will murder five more people.  And I have very good reason to believe that If I don't try to apprehend Steve, no one will be murdered.  In that case, I shouldn't try to apprehend Steve.  

I have my qualms, as you may know , about Barack Obama, and most especially about what his foreign policy

Greg Gutfeld framing of Obama's recent total loss of cool over what President Bush said on the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood gets right to the point: So let's get this straight: Obama thinks it's wrong for Bush to say, on Israel's birthday, that