Elonka wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Someone said to me today, "If you can't see the difference between the administration and Al Qaeda then there's something ... wrong."

The difference, is the ballot box.

Our administration, like it or not, is a choice of leadership that was made by our country. That you don't agree with that choice, I understand. But that's the country we live in. A controversial issue (like who our leader is going to be) comes up, millions of people vote on it, and the majority wins out.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, was not voted in by anybody. They're a bunch of self-appointed thugs who feel that they know what's better for the world than anybody else. They have no sympathy for other ways of life. They believe that their way is the right way, and to hell with everyone else. They seek to impose their own *very* narrow world-view, upon the entire planet. Our administration, on the other hand, usually bends over backwards to accommodate as many different viewpoints and ways of life as possible.

A further difference is how those two groups (the U.S. administration vs. Al Qaeda) go about exercising their power. The administration has a series of checks and balances. They need to get approval from an enormously complex system before they can do *anything*. And, their power is temporary. A few years down the line, they're gone, and another administration is voted in. If Al Qaeda could have been voted out of power, I think they would have been gone long ago. It is my belief that the vast majority of the muslim world despises the methods that Al Qaeda uses.

Another difference has to do with how power is used, especially when it involves violence. When our administration uses violence, via our military, it is done in a very controlled fashion, with an enormous amount of public debate and consensus-seeking. Nearly every single step is open to scrutiny and consideration by the public, our other leaders, and the rest of the world. Our plans are usually announced well in advance. Further, military targets are chosen with care and compassion. Innocents and civilians are not specifically targeted.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, exercises its power in secret. They have no public debate. They use subterfuge, they use hatred. They use small groups with no public oversight, that seek to kill as many people as possible, with little care as to *who* they are killing. If they could kill thousands or even millions of Americans with a nuclear bomb in the middle of one of our cities, they would do it. And then if they could, they would do it again, and again, against not just Americans but against *anyone* that stood in their way, until they could force the world into the shape and culture that they wanted.

I have no trouble distinguishing between the two sides. The difference between right and wrong is very clear to me. But it flabbergasts me that anyone can say that the two sides are similar, or that the administration is *worse* than Al Qaeda. That shows to me a phenomenally deep loss of center, and in some ways, a blind hatred of one's own country. And that saddens me.

I'm not saying that I think that you and I should agree on everything. I *like* that we disagree, and I think that the process of discussion is a healthy one. But I hope we could at least agree on some basic definitions of the difference between good and evil.

Let me recast this then in a manner that is more clear. I am not disputing that there are huge differences. No, AlQ doesn't bother with elections, no they don't especially care about majority opinion, yes they kill whomever (indiscriminately would be a wrong argument to make though, they know very well what their targets are). If they got their hands on a nuke, yes they'd use it. Their MO is the terror war, maximum casualties for minimum investment to make the "support" vanish and remove an opponent's ability to fight by removing their stomach for a fight.

I am in favor of taking the fight to them and that is what the point of Afghanistan was. I believe my comment at the time is that we should relocate some rubble in Kabul. Well we did, but didn't bother to finish the job. bin Ladin is still out there, Al-Zwahiri is still out there, and while we've nailed some of them, a lot of those people are still out there. Further, while we removed the Taliban from national control, they are still a national power. The majority of Afghanistan is run by tribal warlords who have just as little respect for law and human rights as the Taliban did before them. The only measure of success in Afghanistan is the Taliban is not running things and Al Q and co. have had to move around.

If you want to separate the war in Iraq from Al Q, you are wrong. It cannot be done. When we went into Iraq, the only support they had in Iraq was (and my spelling may be off here) Anser al-Islam, a kurdish splinter group that even the rest of the kurds hated. So did Saddam's regime. There was for all purposes, no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are a major player in Iraq.

So that begs the question, why did we invade Iraq? The stated purposes were, ties to Al Qaeda, and weapons of mass destruction. That's it. Later they added the spreading of democracy line, and I don't buy it. Not for one second. If they actually cared about that, then they would have sent troops into Liberia when that country was going up in flames, and they were BEGGING for us to intervene because the streets were literally (and I mean literally, there are pictures of this) running with blood.

As noted previously, there were no ties to Al Q, and there were no WMDs. That's what Hans Blix had been saying the whole time. That's what Joe Wilson said about the Niger yellowcake fiasco that is turning into Karl Rove's funeral. That's what David Kelley said before he killed himself. That's what Colin Powell was saying privately and why he didn't include the yellowcake story when he tossed up the pile of crap that was "bio-chem trucks" at the UN. That's what CIA started out saying when they were getting asked about it (they later decided to say that they might have them because they figured out that the White House didn't want to hear anything else). As we found out, there were no WMDs, was nothing there to rebuild the programs with (except some parts buried in oil drums in one guys backyard since 1991) and no plans in anyone's mind other than Saddam's to rebuild them.

That's both of the rationales for the war in the garbage. At that point to try to maintain public support they trotted out Woodrow Wilson, which, as noted, was also bogus.

In fact, the administration wanted a war with Iraq, and as noted by Bob Woodward, immediately after 9/11 they were already blaming Iraq publically, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it. They did everything they could to trump up a war, and they got it.

The Hague would call this "waging aggressive war," but they don't really see a point to pissing us off.

Now when you say that the difference is that these guys were elected, I'll agree with you, they were. Where I will differ with you is that your base assumption need to include an informed electorate. Instead, Rove and company had been feeding that electorate a steady diet of half-truths, disinformation and outright lies. There is also the significant point that this was not the number one issue in the last election, of all inane things, the top of the list was "family values," aka gay marriage.

Now, I could go into more detail on the compare and contrast, but that wouldn't serve the point. The point is not that the administration is not Al Q, that's obvious. It was also not whether they were better or worse. In pretty much all respects, they're better. They are still way over on the dark side. Many of the things they have done have gone beyond wrong into the criminal.

This is America, and these guys are acting like the thugs we used to prop up.

RE: Today's Ugly Question