Semi-Daily Journal

I thought that one of the reasons the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in the 90s was they were infiltrated with spies for the US. If you are threatened with invasion, do you admit inspectors into your facilities if they might contain spies that are collecting information on prospective targets?

SH did deny that they still had WMD prior to the invasion. Other reports say that the decision to invade Iraq was made in December 2002 and nothing SH could have done would have changed that. My suspect that we are victims of a policital bait and switch because that seems to be the case with this administration. What you hear is not what you get. What you see is not what you get. What you get is all you get. What we got was an invasion of Iraq and no WMD.

Well, given the certainty that SH would either be killed or booted out by not being cooperative, wouldn't it be rather stupid to not cooperate just because you'd have spies around?

And I'm not seeing how a decision "made" in December 2002 would somehow be irrevocable. Bush did wait several months before going to war, and had SH opened up with much less recalcitrance, the unjustifiability of war would have gone way up.

it was interesting to see richard perle last night on the pbs newshour defend the actions of the administration

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/wmd_5-29.html

"RICHARD PERLE: I think what drove the administration to the conclusion that we were right in our concern about Saddam's weapons was the work of the United Nations' inspectors who left in 1998."

If those are mobile bioweapons labs and Saddam did destroy his weapons just before we invaded, it hardly justifies the dove position that he was not a threat and was cooperating.

When will the USA allow international supervision of their weapon programs? I'll wait seated.

DSW

The recent speeches by Rumsfeld et al are getting near farce.

Let's get this straight.

Are we now seriously expected to believe that Saddam destroyed his weapons, just as Bush repeatedly demanded, but instead of trumpeting this destruction (and so possibly avoiding the invasion) cleverly hid the fact of their destruction so that the US would invade anyway, and then look like the bad guys??!!

I gues Saddam would do anything, including autodestruction, to make Bush look bad, wouldn't he?

So it seems we now have claims of irrationality on both sides. First, why would Saddam refuse inspectors, if inspectors merely meant spies while refusal meant his destruction? Second, if Saddam did destroy any WMDs he had, why would he keep it a secret when doing so also meant his destruction?

Maybe Saddam himself was ridiculously optimistic.

... or maybe he guessed that letting the inspectors in would not have averted the invasion. And maybe he would have been right in that guess.

This talk of "destroyed" weapons is scientifically questionable. Incinerating chemical weapons is dangerous, leaves characteristic traces, is almost certainly incomplete without advanced equipment (would they bother to ramp up for that, when they need to fund the weapons themselves?) etc. and similar considerations apply for bio materials. It just isn't like flushing dope down the commode.

"Maybe Saddam himself was ridiculously optimistic."

Maybe he was an incompetent irrational murderous psychopath. The question then follows: why do we only liberate peoples (and bring "freedom" to them) from incompetent irrational murderous psychopaths if they happen to be sitting on 20% of the globe's petroleum reserves?

Interesting to note, Syria has negligible amounts of oil; Iran has quite a lot. And of course there is an elephant in the room.

Hmm, Congo and NK don't seem to have much oil.

Tom Slee: "... or maybe he guessed that letting the inspectors in would not have averted the invasion. And maybe he would have been right in that guess."

If letting inspectors in would not have averted the invasion, the least it would do is heighten the case against Bush/US.

Russell L. Carter: "Maybe he was an incompetent irrational murderous psychopath."

Yes, but he can't have been so irrational or incompetent as to not understand how to stay in power, at least from the inside of Iraq.

"The question then follows: why do we only liberate peoples (and bring "freedom" to them) from incompetent irrational murderous psychopaths if they happen to be sitting on 20% of the globe's petroleum reserves?"

My question is, why is there a tendency for people who raise this question to not recognize that people would NOT have been liberated at all, had we abstained from the liberation of a nation with large oil reserves? Better to let thousands die, than to die never having compromised one's (probably faulty) principle?

"And of course there is an elephant in the room."

Assumptions, assumptions....

Mobile biological weapons labs? The politicians have finally caught on to what businessmen have known for years - it is not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the public.

Hey Walter, how come we're abstaining from Cuba, the Congo (sheesh! what about Mugabe??), and NK? What's up with Venezuela? What about all those 'stans? Are the Chinese "free"? It seems your sentiment leaves us off the wagon and on the bus.

"refusal meant his destruction"

Hmmm. But he isn't really destroyed, any more than Osama, is he?

Suppose you were playing a really long game in which the object isn't victory or personal/regime survival over the next six months, but letting your adversary follow out its own logic and assumptions over several years, letting it get into an untenable position that will destroy it? Given the administration's logic, and how it pursues what it wants, and how other countries react to that, couldn't we at least say that the issue is still in doubt? Leaving behind a puzzle that discredits the adversary might not be so dumb after all.

Of course other possibilities exist. Maybe Saddam ordered the WMD/NBC capability and was assured by the underlings that it was there (to save their skins), but they never actually did it. Or maybe things went missing between 1991 and 2002-- they were only "unaccounted for," as I recall, not actually certified as existing. How efficient is any inventory system really?

Of course answering the latter questions takes patience, something the administration has notably lacked. So we're back to the long game again. Who was it who said that people should beware of getting what they want?

"The question then follows: why do we only liberate peoples (and bring "freedom" to them) from incompetent irrational murderous psychopaths if they happen to be sitting on 20% of the globe's petroleum reserves?"

A better question is, "Why do 3/4ths of the people of the world object to liberation of(bringing freedom to) a country suffering under an incompetent irrational murderous psychopath?"

My objection is that Congress never declared war. I can't speak for others, but I *can* speculate: G.W. Bush is a Republican, and many wouldn't have objected, if Bush had been a Democrat. (How many of the people objecting to Bush taking out Saddam Hussein also objected to Clinton bombing Yugoslavia?)

Saddam Hussein and sons were monsters and we were right to work constantly to weaken their dictatorship. However, there does not appear to have been any self-defense reason for America and Britain to go to war. Hussein was strong enough to cling to power in Iraq for a while longer, but too weak to be any threat to us.

"Hussein was strong enough to cling to power in Iraq for a while longer,..."

My guess, including his sons, would be at least another 2 or 3 decades. Perhaps many more.

To see examples of why Saddam Hussein and his sons could easily have ruled for at least another 2 or 3 decades, look at Cuba and North Korea.

Fidel Castro is 75 (Saddam was/is 65). Castro has been in power for 44 years, so far.

In North Korea, Kim Jong Il has replaced Kim Il Sung. The father ruled for 46, and the son has ruled for almost another 10, so far. That's 56 years, combined. Barring something VERY surprising, there will be at least another decade of brutal rule by Kim Jong Il.

This is the key, in my view, to why the Bush administration and its allies managed to somehow turn Iraq from one of the relatively "normal" rogue state that we've had relationships with over the years, like North Korea, Zimbabwe, or whatever, into a target for invasion: they've framed the question in such a way that it's very hard to disagree with them. Basically, the dialogue goes something like:

Pro-war: All things being equal, do you want a free, peaceful Iraq or do you want an Iraq ruled by a homocidal murderer who has historically used horrific chemical weapons?
Anti-war: I want a free, peaceful Iraq, but that being said, all things are *not* equal. There are resources that must be expended on war that could have alternative uses, there's the potential for lost international credibility that will be necessary for other global tasks, and even worse general resentment among the Arab world which could help Al Qaeda.
Pro-war: It strikes me that your basic message is that we should determine our national policy through a form of international cost-benefit analysis. Barring the inherent flaws in such methodology, and the tendency of the risks and benefits involved to be skewed by subjectivity when there's as little information as what might result in better or worse terrorist recruting, for example, isn't that a horribly callous way of looking at foreign policy? Shouldn't we be trying to uphold human rights?
Anti-war: Well, in that case, why aren't we upholding human rights in Zimbabwe? In Liberia? In Laos? In Myanmar? Why do Iraqis alone deserve freedom, if we're going to look at this solely in moral terms?
Pro-war: The question here is Iraq. Why are you changing the subject and setting up a straw man of invading every non-free nation in the world?

In short, the pro-war camp has created a dialogue in which anti-war people come off as either callously calculating or erroneously perfectionistic: it all basically goes to the pro-war camp framing the debate as "We should invade Iraq unless there's a strong reason otherwise," rather than the default feeling that prevails in most times toward most countries: "We shouldn't invade anyone unless there's a strong reason to do so." Basically, the pro-war folks shifted the burden of proof onto the skeptics.

Similarly, the pro-war camp has created a dialogue through analogy to World War 2.

Pro-war: So, leaving aside the specific moral issues of the Iraq issue, let's take a broader historical perspective. Suppose we were living in Britain in 1938. Which one of us would have been on the guys saying "We should deal with Hitler and compromise" and which one of us would have been saying "Hitler must be stopped!" Who turned out to be right, retrospectively?
Anti-war: The situation is nothing like 1938. Iraq today is not like Germany in 1938 except in some VERY vague ways.
Pro-war: Yes, I realize that, but that's not the point: who would most likely have been an appeaser and who would have been willing to stand up for what's right, between the two of us?
Anti-war: Okay, I most likely would have been the appeaser, and you most likely would have been the one standing up to Hitler. Now, may I ask a question of my own?
Pro-war: Sure.
Anti-war: Well, since we're making historical comparisons here about who would have most likely been on what side here, without making specific historical comparisons between the agents involved, just who would have done what: if we were both in Germany in 1938, living with constant media reports of the oppression of Sudatenland ethnic-German Czechoslovaks and the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, who, between the two of us, would have been on the side of Hitler invading the Czechs and setting up a puppet government in Slovakia, and who, between the two of us, would have been on the side of those who opposed the German government's actions?
Pro-war: You're comparing Bush and Hitler! I'm sorry, but I don't think I can hold a rational discussion with someone who employs such shrill, trite, radical rhetoric.

The best answer to people who point to 1938 as a reason for war is to point to 1914 - Austria's refusal to appease Serbia in the face of the provocation of the Archduke's assasination led to a catastrophe. The point is that we have to make a judgement of each case on its merits, remembering that our powers of prediction are slight. Taking a position on the basis of false analogies is not wise.

Every time someone has wanted a war since 1938 they've pointed to Munich - are those who run this analogy saying EVERY such war and potential war was justified?

War is a certain evil - the burden of proof should always be on those who want it to demonstrate how it is needed to avert even greater, but less certain, evils. The Iraq war did not even come close to making this case.

Iraq, horrid government nontheless, simply does not appear to have been a threat to America or Britain.

Iraq, horrid government nonetheless, simply does not appear to have been a threat to America or Britain.

"Well, given the certainty that SH would either be killed or booted out by not being cooperative, wouldn't it be rather stupid to not cooperate just because you'd have spies around?"

You also have to consider the other arm of the dilemma - what happens when you ARE co-operative. His chances would have been worse that way. In fact, he reached his present predicament after co-operating; he just misjudged what his masters were after, a decade and a half ago. Ask: who ended up better off, Saddam Hussein or Marcos, and you will know the reward of co-operation.

'A better question is, "Why do 3/4ths of the people of the world object to liberation of(bringing freedom to) a country suffering under an incompetent irrational murderous psychopath?"'

No, it is an irrelevance - because it is not what was on offer. Iraq has NOT been liberated, it has only had regime change (most likely leading to another of the same sort of regime). For Saddam Hussein was neither incompetent, irrational nor a psychopath. As for murderous, well, that's what's on offer for the future too (didn't anyone even LOOK at the Kurds' own track record?). While his successors will be less apt at murder, on the other hand they will have more immediate problems for which it will provide a temporary solution; who can yet say it is an improvement that way?

And it's worth noting that most of the longevity of these bad guys comes from being able to rally resistance to outside pressures. Guess who is providing that, then look at the fable of the sun and the wind.

Only idiots corner rats. And only idiots fool themselves the rats weren't cornered.

I'll stick my neck out and make another prediction: in spite of the very long delay (indicating that the WMD's are either not to be found or have been found but also bear incriminating documentation), not too long in the future, perhaps a month, the U.S. military may very well trumpet the discovery of a huge stockpile of chemical or bio weapons.

Of course, such weapons could be planted, or they may have genuinely belonged to SH but it took some time for the U.S. military to completely erase all evidence that they were originally provided by them for use against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

Nevertheless, the press can be expected to loyally trumpet this discovery, so the naysayers, including the FT, are setting themselves up for a fall.

Unless, of course, they are willing to stick their necks out and openly, publicly accuse the Bush adm. of manufacturing evidence. That will be the day...

To quote Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time."

This is not a necessary condition to win elections or push a particular policy initiative. In the US election turnout is approximately 50% - so let's focus on these. Of these, 20% are hard-core republicans and 20% democrats whose votes you can always count on. No fooling required so far. That leaves 10% of the electorate. To win elections therefore you need just over 5% of the voting population - hence the focus on swing-voters a la soccer moms. If you can figure out a way to fool this 5% consistently you are can get push any policy, win any election. Do you think that the 40% who think Saddam was tied to 9-11 includes this critical 5%? How about those 30% who believe that WMDs have already been found? If so - game, set and match to Bush/Rove. And no amount hand-wringing, screaming headlines, and camping about unhappily is going to make any difference.

I guess I'm not quite as up to speed as I should be:

Aren't mobile bioweapons facilities a violation of Iraq's requirement to disarm?

What is the purpose of a mobile bioweapons facility?

Aren't they designed to prevent UN inspectors from finding them?

Isn't it a fairly safe bet that UN inspectors would have never discovered them?

How much anthrax/whatever is needed to kill a few million Americans?

How hard is it to hide a couple of liters?

How many Americans do you need to be able to kill to be a threat?

Did Wolfowitz say we didn't expect to find WMDs or did he instead state ANOTHER reason to get rid of Saddam?

"Iraq has NOT been liberated,..."

Would you care to offer any facts that support that statement?

I'll be happy to provide some facts that totally contradict that statement:

1) An estimated 500,000+ Shiites engaged in a religious pilgrimage to Karbala in April 2003. This pilgrimage had been forbidden for decades. So Iraqis have freedom of religion that they didn't have under Saddam.

2) In Karbala, groups chanted, "No to America! No to Israel! No to the Devil!"

Then "Death to America!" --

Would groups have been allowed to chant, "No to Saddam! Or "Death to Saddam!" during his reign of terror?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/23/sprj.nilaw.religious.rivalry/

So there is freedom of speech that didn't exist when Saddam was in power.

3) There are newspapers in Baghdad, critical of the U.S. interim government. Were there any newspapers in Baghdad critical of Saddam Hussein, while he was in power?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-6-2003_pg3_5

So there is freedom of the press that didn't exist while Saddam was in power.

These are facts. There is religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, none of which existed during Saddam Hussein's regime.

What are YOUR facts, that support your statement, "Iraq has not been liberated..."?

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.journal02jun02,0,2757396.column?coll=bal-nationworld-utility

More of the overwhelming evidence that there is freedom of the press in Iraq that didn't exist under Saddam Hussein. In fact, press freedom that exists in Iraq now is greater than exists in any other Arab country!

'"Iraq has NOT been liberated,..." Would you care to offer any facts that support that statement?'

Sure.

Who's running the show? Looking beyond, to whom might control be handed if the US withdrew? Thus, no liberation. True liberation can only ever occur with an internal element taking up control, even if others set it up to happen (which they haven't, so far), as you will realise if you think about it. Anything imposed is just that, even if it includes every specific step that would have been done freely (which this doesn't, so far - just some of them).

As for the rest, that does NOT contradict my (edited) assertion, that the story so far was not liberation but regime change. It is entirely consistent with mere regime change. You got more of that sort of "freedom", giving them plenty of rope and a loose rein, under Frederick the Great or Napoleon III. What counts is not what they are now provisionally able to do but whether it's their call, whether it is a mere privilege that can be snatched back.

As I said, who's running the show? Not the Iraqis.

Mark:

You say, "My objection is that Congress never declared war." Huh? Like it or not, Congress overwhelmingly authorized this war last summer. There wasn't even any ambiguity of the Security Council "serious consequences" type. As numerous legal scholars, such as Eugene Volokh, have pointed out, the authorization does not have to explicitly state, "We declare war..." for it to be a constitutionally valid authorization

Mark and I don't often agree, but I'm with him on this one. What the Senate did last summer was to give Bush a blank check, i.e., the freedom to attack Iraq whenever he felt like it, and essentially for whatever reason he chose to put forward. This is definitely not in the realm of Congress acting as a check on the President's power, nor of it assuming the Constitutionally mandated responsibility of declaring war.

Even if the Senate statement had not included the explicit words "Declaration of War," it should have stated clearly that the administration was given the authority to act _immediately_, and for precisely worded reasons. The fact that the administration did not immediately invade, but spent the next 8 months in a vain effort to obtain UN approval for an invasion, clearly indicates that the Senate's resolution was not a Declaration of War in any meaningful sense.

I'm not a lawyer, but the Senate's resolution to me indicates that they were abdicating their authority to initiate war, as stated in the Constitution, and handing it to the executive branch. To me, this is unconstitutional regardless of what scholars like Volokh may say.

"Who's running the show?"

Well, except for the curfew from 11 PM to 4:30 AM, the Iraqi people are basically running their own lives. There are very few government-provided services in Iraq (e.g., police, trash pickup, electricity)...but there are also no charges (to my knowledge) for any of the services provided.

By the way, who's "running the show" in Australia? Did you vote for him/them? If not, do you consider yourself "unfree," merely because you didn't vote for the government de jour? And if you *did* vote for the people "running the show" in Australia, do you consider that those who didn't vote for those people to be "unfree"?

"Looking beyond, to whom might control be handed if the US withdrew?"

To me, yours is an amazingly statist and illiberal mentality. Unfortunately, it's one that is the predominant view around the world, at this time...and throughout history.

The purpose of government (to a liberal!) is not to "control," but to SERVE. The People ought to control the government, the government ought not to control The People.

"True liberation can only ever occur with an internal element taking up control,..."

Well, then Cuba is truly a liberated country. :-/ Internal elements are definitely in "control," there.

Liberty is not properly measured by who is in "control," but by how well governments protect the liberties that people possess, as inalienable rights.

When I was growing up in the country formerly known as West Germany, I was not less free, simply because my parents did not vote for the government "in control" (SERVING!) that country. I was free, because the laws of West Germany were not substantially less restrictive than the laws of the United States. That's what freedom is about...not who is "in control."

"...even if others set it up to happen (which they haven't, so far), as you will realise if you think about it."

I expect I've thought about the matter as much as you. (In fact, I already have the outlines of a Constitution for Iraq in my head.)

"What counts is not what they are now provisionally able to do but whether it's their call,..."

If they are able to do it, then they are free. That is the definition of freedom...able to do things without intervention by force.

"...whether it is a mere privilege that can be snatched back."

NOW they are free. (Once again, by definition.) If those freedoms are "snatched back" then they will be unfree once more.

"As I said, who's running the show? Not the Iraqis."

I suggest you read Fareed Zakaria's "Illiberal Democracy: The Future of Freedom Here and Abroad." The notion that democracy equals freedom is dangerously wrong.

I tell you what: Would you like to bet on what Freedom House's freedom rankings of Iraq will be for 2003, 2004, and 2005?

When Saddam Hussein was in power, the freedom rankings for Iraq were the worst possible...a pair of 7's...the least free ranking possible. I predict those rankings will improve (go to lower numbers) in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

I certainly take Freedom House's rankings with more credibility than your assessment of what "liberation" is.

"Huh? Like it or not, Congress overwhelmingly authorized this war last summer."

You show me bills from the Senate and House that have a line that contains all of the words, or forms of the words: "U.S. Congress," "declares," "war," and "government of Iraq"...and I'll send you $50.

"As numerous legal scholars, such as Eugene Volokh, have pointed out, the authorization does not have to explicitly state, "We declare war..." for it to be a constitutionally valid authorization."

If "numerous legal scholars" and Eugene Volokh have "pointed out" that Congressional declarations of war don't need to "declare war," then that is their opinion. I value it no more than a bucket of warm spit.

I hold such "scholars" in far more contempt than ordinary U.S. citizens, who I at least give the benefit of the doubt, in not having time to research constitutional issues.

When "scholars" like Eugene Volokh say things like...

"The word 'war' is appropriate to use in reporting on the U.S. campaign against terrorism, Volokh said. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but nowhere does it say that the only way to fight a war is through declaring war. He pointed out that the United States entered World War II not because Germany formally declared war. Japan's sudden attack on Pearl Harbor created a 'state of war.'"

http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/volokh.php3

...it boggles my mind.

We were at war in the Second World War when Congress DECLARED war against Japan...and not one minute sooner.

And the idea that we can be at "war" with "terrorism," under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws, is ludicrous. (And the paragraph contains so much other completely irrational babbling...e.g., "...not because Germany formally declared war" that I simply don't have time to address it.)

The Founding Fathers wrote an incredibly clear and consistent document. But the document is worth no more than the amount that The People of the U.S. force Congress, the President, and members of the Supreme Court and judiciary to follow it. Which means that the Constitution today is a worthless scrap of paper.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be ‘frivolous.’ I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

...Unfortunately, the Honorable Dr. Paul is in error. Most Americans DO think the Constitution is outdated or frivilous, and do not demand that Congress follow it.

"Well, except for the curfew from 11 PM to 4:30 AM, the Iraqi people are basically running their own lives."

NOT the point. A teenager might be running his life in the same sense, but he isn't free. Just look at Jerry Pournelle's site to see an acknowledgment of how the occupiers are retreating ever further from allowing real self determination. Benevolent occupation - I will not call it benign - is still not liberation. Even benign occupation isn't. What you've got, is something paved with good intentions. I'm not giving credit on that.

There follow rhetorical distractions pointing at Australia, accusations of illiberal statism followed by tests against statist criteria (redefining liberty that way, for instance, and not noticing that freedom on sufferance is no freedom), and failing to notice that while Cuba in general is unfree, that part which is foreign occupied is even less free.

I imagine that MB would be a sound supporter of the principles of virtual representation.

I stated and restate, what the Iraqis have is foreign occupation and regime change, NOT liberation.

I wrote: "Well, except for the curfew from 11 PM to 4:30 AM, the Iraqi people are basically running their own lives."

"NOT the point. A teenager might be running his life in the same sense, but he isn't free."

Well, I don't know about the freedom of teenagers down there in Australia, but here in the U.S., just about everyone (including the teenagers themselves) thinks that the average teenager is free: she may say and write what she wants, worship whatever or whomever she wants, wear what she wants, associate with whomever she wants, and petition her government for redress of grievances.

This is especially true of teenagers that have reached the age of 18. They can vote, drive, drop out of school...everything except drink beer or liquor (in many states). Unless you define freedom *solely* on the basis of being able to drink alcoholic beverages, teenagers of 18 or older are every bit as free in the U.S. as any other adults.

So you'll have to explain to me and the rest of the world how *your* definition of freedom is different/better than ours: how are teenagers "unfree," in a way that corresponds to adults in Iraq?

Alternatively, I'm willing, for the sake of actually accomplishing something in debate, to concede that you will perhaps never accept what *I* characterize as "liberty" to be "liberty." Therefore, I've proposed that we both yield to Freedom House's characterization of the state of liberty in Iraq.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2000/methodology.htm

"There follow rhetorical distractions pointing at Australia,..."

Heh, heh, heh! It's amusing when someone characterizes arguments he can't refute and questions he would rather not answer (as his answers would devastate his "case") as "rhetorical distractions." It's amusing, but it doesn't win debating points. In fact, it's essentially an admission of defeat.

Once again (but with a slight alteration of my questions): 1) Are you free? Are the citizens of Australia free ("liberated")? 2) What about "resident aliens" in Australia (as in U.S. citizens who have lived in Australia for decades, and plan to continue to do so for the rest of their lives)? Are *they* free?

"I stated and restate, what the Iraqis have is foreign occupation and regime change, NOT liberation."

You "state and restate" this, but you provide essentially NO evidence! I gave you three examples of how Iraqis have been liberated: they now have freedom of religion (which they didn't under Saddam), they now have freedom of the press (which they didn't under Saddam), they now have freedom of speech (which they didn't under Saddam), and...

...*four* examples: they now have freedom to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances (which they didn't under Saddam).

I have provided EVIDENCE to support how Iraqis have been liberated. Other than the freedom to vote for a national government (which they didn't have before, anyway)...you have provided no evidence of how Iraqis are equally unfree, or less free, than before.

I have also volunteered to submit the assessment of the degree of freedom in Iraq to an neutral authority: Freedom House. If Freedom House rankings for Iraq don't improve in 2003 and 2004, I will conceded that Iraqis haven't been liberated. If those rankings DO improve (which I am virtually certain they will), I say your statement about Iraqis not being liberated is merely a reflection of your bias against the U.S. government. (The present one, at least.)

"Mark and I don't often agree, but I'm with him on this one."

Uh-oh! Better check my position on this, then! ;-)

"I'm not a lawyer, but the Senate's resolution to me indicates that they were abdicating their authority to initiate war, as stated in the Constitution, and handing it to the executive branch."

Absolutely right. But let's not forget that this isn't a new wrong. Gutless cowards in Congress have been abdicating their authority to declare war for a depressingly long time.

"To me, this is unconstitutional regardless of what scholars like Volokh may say."

I've looked at Volokh's website. He seems to be surprisingly erratic in his use of logic. And, like I wrote before, his (presumed) statement about the "war" on terrorism is absolutely pathetic:

"The word 'war' is appropriate to use in reporting on the U.S. campaign against terrorism, Volokh said. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but nowhere does it say that the only way to fight a war is through declaring war. He pointed out that the United States entered World War II not because Germany formally declared war. Japan's sudden attack on Pearl Harbor created a 'state of war.'"