On the subject of complexity, it annoys me when things are blamed on one individual -- for instance, 9/11 is Bin Ladin's fault, so let's not look into our missteps. Or rather, let's ignore (de-emphasize) the wider forces of discontent that is the true danger. The alternative is misguided narrow focus on a person like Saddam Hussein or select evil doers, when the underlining forces that allowed him to stay in power is also a major problem, perhaps the core problem. Many on the President's side would agree with this, since they sometimes make the generalization that we cannot trust those in the region with democracy. I find this an exaggeration, but it has some truth in it -- remember the people of Iraq allowed Hussein to stay in power, even given all the horrible things he did. Why? Well, because the society did not develop enough to demand a more civilized system of leadership. We shouldn't damn them too much either. After all, we supported such leadership for years.

Also, I'm curious if we can oppose the war in Iraq now. I'm just asking because once the fighting started, many said this would just help the enemy. Once we start fighting, people like myself should stop opposing the war so publicly, even if we thought it still was wrong. This "well, yes, it's so unfortunate, but it's a necessary evil" sentiment pisses me off. It also gets darn old. Let's look back, stopping in the 1950s to save time, at a bit of history. We support a corrupt autocratic dictator (am I being redundant?) in Iran because the tenor of the times "required" it. The people eventually rebelled, using religious fundamentalism as a means. Horrors! We need to support Reagan, since President Carter was not strong enough, though, yes, Reagan's social policies might be a bit off. Oh, and we need to support Iraq/Saddam to check Iran's power. It is unfortunate that he is a murderous dictator.

And, then, horrors, he crossed into Kuwait. We must attack, unfortunately, though too bad we were forced into that situation (though, if April Glaspie warned him first ... or if we did not shoot at fleeing troops). And, then, after implying we'd support them, we left rebelling Shiites to Saddam's forces. Skip a decade. We must attack Saddam because he is a murderous dictator. No sense of irony here. And now we must strongly strike back against insurrection, though this might lead to more violence, and so the wheel keeps on turning. Oh, many are complaining that Sen. Kennedy and others are helping the enemy by criticizing the war too much. Thus, it might not be time yet to oppose the war. Maybe, I can do it when it's over.

Two more things. One, if our leadership actually admitted that yes, we supported bad forces at the time, given the realities of the situation, it would have made them look much less hypocritical. Why not say that it was an unfortunate necessity (since they can't admit mistake), but times are different, and we must move on to a better post-9/11 world. It is what many that support the war think anyway, after all. Second, Walter Cronkite on Air America made a good point -- we cannot damn the President for bowing to political pressure, since this is after all what public officials should do in a democracy. I agree to the point if it is not done is too much of an arbitrary and unprincipled way. In fact, I wished the President did it more often, especially given how he was elected. It would also be good in a pragmatic way, like admitting some error (he's a religious man; he knows "to err is human, to forgive is divine."). Sadly, he follows a different drummer.