What if the anti-war crowd is right? What if we really didn’t have sufficient justification for going to war in Iraq? What if Bush really did lie and it is all one big farce? Let’s say that they convince me – Joe Citizen – that Bush was wrong, that we should have never acted unilaterally. I suddenly find their arguments compelling.
Now what? How do we correct our mistake?
Obviously, the first thing we would have to do is reinstate Saddam as the leader of Iraq. If we had not deposed him, Saddam would still be in power and in control of the country. Since we have not reached a point of no return (after all, he isn’t dead yet) we still have an opportunity to set things right. Since we had no justification for taking military action in order to impose “regime change”, we must accept our moral and legal duty and return him to power.
Some people will protest and claim that it’s too late to turn back the clock and take such action. But why? If we had no legal basis for going to war then Saddam is the legitimate head of the state. That wouldn’t have changed. And if we had no moral basis for going to war then we have no moral justification for not returning the country to its previous status quo.
What possible excuse would we have for not returning him to power? Because he would murder the opposition? He did that before we invaded. Because the country would be unstable? We could stabilize it for him as a means of restitution. If the anti-war crowd is correct in its assessment, then its our obligation to make amends and return Iraq to it rightful ruler. There’s simply no reason for not doing the “right” thing in regards to correcting for our unlawful and illegitimate invasion.
So pack your bags, Saddam. It’s time to go home. We apologize for any inconvenience we might have caused you and hope that we can work together in the future. Now get on out of here, you crazy guy. You’ve got a country to exploit.
Sorry, Joe, but it all sounds like sour grapes to me. You're losing the debate on the merits of the War in Iraq, so you're taking your proverbial ball and bat and going home. Never mind your straw man arguments ("The Left thinks that military action to remove Hussein was unjustified, therefore the Left must believe that Hussein shouldn't have been removed at all.")
What possible excuse would we have for not returning him to power?
Gee, could it be that Hussein's removal is the only silver lining in what is otherwise a very, very black could? Or could it be that putting Hussein back in power wouldn't undo any of the damage we've done -- wouldn't bring back to life any of the American soldiers who died there, or any of the innocent civilians who were killed there? Please, Joe. You can do better.
The "anti-war crowd" had a variety of reasons for opposing the war. No one wants Saddam back in power, but if you could bring back all the dead on both sides, all the money (wasted or invested, depending on how you see it), and restore our tarnished image among our allies and the international community in general, it would be an easy call. I'm of the group that opposed our entry, but feels we now have an obligation to see it through. I will register my displeasure in November.
your generalization of anti-war folk isn't particularly constructive and it's based on misconceptions that imply stupidity and naivete on their part. you may be following the logic of one segment of the anti-war crowd; however, there are many others who understood and accepted the moral obligation to deal with saddam who did not feel that war was the only or best option for deposing him.
these are the same people who accept the obligation regardless of location, regardless of whether we have a dog in the fight or not--a position that stands in sharp contrast with the historical US foriegn policy of allowing sons of bitches to run their countries and people into the ground as long as they were our sons of bitches.
perhaps we're turning over a new leaf in that regard, but it is still ridiculous to think that we tried every available option before going to war. we could have done so many more things to topple saddam, but we never tried them.
the overall problem with using violent means, especially when used prematurely, is that you can't go back to where you started. we can't bring back the hundreds of US soldiers who have died in iraq and we can't bring back the 10,000+ iraqi civilian casualties. and that, in my opinion, is a really serious problem.
Sorry, Joe, but it all sounds like sour grapes to me. You're losing the debate on the merits of the War in Iraq, so you're taking your proverbial ball and bat and going home.
Sour grapes? I’m not the one whining about the war. I think we are on the right track.
Never mind your straw man arguments ("The Left thinks that military action to remove Hussein was unjustified, therefore the Left must believe that Hussein shouldn't have been removed at all.")
Why is that a strawman? Either military action was justified or it wasn’t.
Gee, could it be that Hussein's removal is the only silver lining in what is otherwise a very, very black could?
Sorry, but that’s a cop out. Either you supported the removal of Saddam or you didn’t. You can’t say that we didn’t have justification for committing this “crime” but we should get to keep the “spoils of war” anyway.
Or could it be that putting Hussein back in power wouldn't undo any of the damage we've done -- wouldn't bring back to life any of the American soldiers who died there, or any of the innocent civilians who were killed there?
No, it wouldn’t. But it would return things to as close to the the status quo as possible. That is, after all, what the anti-war crowd wants, isn’t it?
Rob,
your generalization of anti-war folk isn't particularly constructive and it's based on misconceptions that imply stupidity and naivete on their part. you may be following the logic of one segment of the anti-war crowd; however, there are many others who understood and accepted the moral obligation to deal with saddam who did not feel that war was the only or best option for deposing him.
I can respect that opinion. What should we have done (that we were not doing already) to topple Saddam’s regime?
perhaps we're turning over a new leaf in that regard, but it is still ridiculous to think that we tried every available option before going to war. we could have done so many more things to topple saddam, but we never tried them.
What would you suggest?
the overall problem with using violent means, especially when used prematurely, is that you can't go back to where you started. we can't bring back the hundreds of US soldiers who have died in iraq and we can't bring back the 10,000+ iraqi civilian casualties. and that, in my opinion, is a really serious problem.
No, we can’t. But we also saved many more lives by removing a brutal dictator.
" I’m not the one whining about the war."
No, you're whining about the fact that more and more people are coming to grips with the fact that the stated excuses for our invasion of Iraq last year were trumped up.
"Either you supported the removal of Saddam or you didn’t."
Don't you realize, Joe, that this obnoxious tactic was completely discredited immediately after it was first used way back when? There are no "Saddam lovers" here to piss on, nor were there ever. As has been pointed out to you previously, the issue requires balancing the costs of NOT invading Iraq with the cost of invading Iraq. Excluding the benefits which would flow to us as a result of controlling the world's most significant oil rserves (not an assured result, but a possible one), are the benefits justified even by the costs we've incurred to date (ignoring the future costs, which includes retribution for the invastion).
Is the world safer since Saddam was overthrown? No, not if you look at the number of terrorist attacks last year and the intelligence relating to current terrorist operations.
Are Americans safer? No. See above. Also recognize that we spent a lot of money on Iraq that we could have spent improving our security measures at home.
Are Iraqis safer? I don't think so. How many Iraqi civilians were killed last year?
Are Iraqis "free" now? Honestly, I don't really give a crap. I'm more concerned about terrorist acts against the U.S. by Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, frankly, and appalling acts of genocide in certain African countries.
"You can’t say that we didn’t have justification for committing this “crime” but we should get to keep the “spoils of war” anyway."
Ha ha. Well, that's exactly what Bush said, isn't it? "What's the difference between actually having weapons of mass destruction and having the capability to make them? Saddam is gone! He's no longer a threat."
It's a pity, too, because there is a decent side to the man, as displayed at the portrait unveiling last weekend. Of course, Bill O'Reilly wondered: "Was Bush too polite?" Can you believe it? Fricking sick is what it is.
"it would return things to as close to the the status quo as possible. That is, after all, what the anti-war crowd wants, isn’t it?"
I can't speak for the crowd, but I personally would like the United States (and the rest of the world) to be safer from terrorist acts and war in general than it was in the months leading up to 9/11. It was obvious to me that invading a Middle Eastern country that was NOT RESPONSIBLE for the September 11 attacks was essentially throwing gasoline on a fire. I could not have imagined that, in addition, we would (1) say fxck you to our strongest allies, (2) wipe our butts on the Geneva convention, thereby endangering the lives of our own soldiers for YEARS TO COME and (3) wage a campaign of disinformation to justify the war.
It's truly disgusting and I think part of the reason the general public has been so slow to wake up is that they simply cannot believe that people would behave the way that the Bush administration does. At some point, fortunately, even the slowest rubes can see through the baloney.
I'm more concerned about terrorist acts against the U.S. by Islamic and Christian fundamentalists...
Okay, that's were you lost my respect, Larry. Terrorist acts by Christian fundamentalists? Sheesh.
"Terrorist acts by Christian fundamentalists? Sheesh."
I'm sorry, have you forgotten about the anthrax threats, bombings and shootings or do you deny that they ever occurred?
To be fair, I should have added "freeper nutcases" to the list so as not to omit paranoid anti-government clowns like McVeigh.
Don't listen to any of these bone heads, you make a solid argument, but they would rather throw darts from the safety of their homes than have to deal with what the world would be like if the lefties had their way.
The reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil. Iraq is sitting on top of the second largest proven oil reserve on Earth. USA is dependent on oil for its economic well being. I am anti-war, but I acknowledge that there was a reason for the war, just not the one that the government is willing to admit to.
There is a big difference between the lone
"nutjob(s)" (The Nuremburg file people or Rudolph) who claims to be doing the Lord's work by blowing up a gay bar or abortion clinic and organized terror groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Al Queda. First, there is no support for people like Rudolph in the mainstream or Evangelical Christian communities, unless you consider groups like Aryan Nation to be mainstream Christian groups (and you know some of you do). Contrast this to the Muslim community where there is almost no condemnation (usually qualified if any) of terrorist attacks on Israel, or the US for that matter. Second, there are no governments or mainstream Christian groups that materially (money, sanctuary, etc.) support "Christian" terrorists, but groups like Hamas and Al Queda operate essentially under the protection of Syria, Iran, and the PA.
Wait a minute! I've been listening to Bush & Co. tell me how happy the Iraqi people are now and how much they hate Saddam. I'm sure they would never want to return to the era of being arrested for being guilty by association and then being tortured (or worse) in Iraq's prisons. I'm sure they wouldn't want to be under seige in their own country again. Isn't that why we're there and why they love us so much? The Iraqis would still be throwing flowers at our feet if they hadn't run out of them I'm sure!
In all candor, if the country isn't stable enough to house one powerful political prisoner than it certainly isn't stable enough to govern thousands of them as well as a series of ethnic populations with a history of animosity. This is why Bush I didn't roll into Baghdad in Gulf War I and why Powell told Bush II "if you break it you own it" before he finally signed off on this fiasco. But as usual, Bush II took the ideologue route over the real world analysis route and we have yet another screwed pooch to deal with.
What would you classify as a Saddam lover anyway guys? Would that be someone who gave him weapons after he had a history of mass murder? That would be Rumsfield in the early 1980's ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ ). Perhaps it would be someone who was willing to have business dealings with him after Gulf War I and the shrugging of weapons inspections throughout the 1990's. That would be those sinister Germans and Frenchmen of course. It would also be Mr. Cheney and his glorious government fleecing corporaton ($8 billion in waste in Gulf War II alone) ( http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm ). Are these the Saddam lovers you were speaking of? Of course not, they good fine right wing Republicans. They couldn't possibly have done any wrong.
joe:
thanks for your respectful responses to my post. i would suggest reading (though from previous posts i know you don't have time at the moment) a force more powerful: a century of nonviolenct conflict for countless examples of nonviolent approaches that worked to overthrow even the most brutal regimes, including hitler, pinochet and communist russia. here's a shorter article by the authors of the book dealing specifically with iraq.
using violent means always leads to violent ends; using nonviolent means significantly lessens this possibility. of course, nonviolence is usually a much longer and more tedious path to take (witness gandhi in india), which is why it's rarely considered by those in power. usually nonviolence is only used by people who are in a position of weakness and have nothing left on which to rely.
that's what we could have tried to use to our advantage in iraq. a dictator is only able to maintain power as long as the people over whom he rules give him that power. if millions of iraqis flooded baghdad and refused to obey saddam, we could have seen a genuine iraqi revolution. yes, there most likely would have been a violent response from saddam's soldiers. but at that point two things could happen: 1) the soldiers realize a turn in tide and stop obeying saddam, marking the beginning of the end for the dictator, or 2) the killing gets to a point where the international community can no longer ignore it, leading to a deployment of international force.
well that's a beginning to a wellspring of information and ideas that i personally believe are better options for conflict resolution.
"Don't listen to any of these bone heads, you make a solid argument, but they would rather throw darts from the safety of their homes than have to deal with what the world would be like if the lefties had their way."
Ditto
polarization never works and yet people keep trying it here. the same argument could be used against many on the right ("throw darts from the safety of their homes").
most serious anti-war activists have worked, at one time or another, in a war zone and are perpetually dealing with what the world is like because people who advocated violence got their way. and people across the political spectrum have been involved in both of these activities.
You're missing the big picture here, Joe. The racist left doesn't love Saddam because he was a good guy, but rather because he was evil. He reinforces their stereotypes that only educated whites should be allowed to enjoy democracy and freedom. This is why even liberals (except for the one posted above, who posits that the Third Reich could have been beaten through nonviolent means) can muster up the moral resolve to dispose of an Adolf Hitler, but can't get off the couch when genocidal maniacs are yellow or Arab or black.
Pol Pot? Mao? Saddam? Castro? Amin? Aidid? No problemo. What would a dirty Arab or Cambodian or African do with his vote anyway?
that was my post above.
Keep up the good work, Joe.
I notice no good anti-war argument that invalidates your point -- what do the Bush-haters want now, for Iraq? If it was wrong to boot Saddam, it must be right to put him back. If he shouldn't be put back in power, it must have been right to boot him.
The US/ war caused deaths don't affect the rightness/ wrongness of booting Saddam. Unless the idea is that, while Saddam deserves to be booted, it's too expensive to do so. Such a critic would now be focusing on the costs, deaths, and tortures and cash; but NOT Bush reasons for war.
Other criticisms of Bush & Bremer, like almost no local elections, no budgets for local Iraqis, are much stronger. But have to concede that Bush did a great thing in booting Saddam.
I just heard someone else made your argument (is it a new line of attack by pro-war folks?), but I don't see how it washes. Why would there be a connection -- moral or otherwise -- between the grounds for a war and the fate of a deposed dictator? One could make the argument that returning Hussein to power is certainly an option, but it would probably be contrary to our obligations (as an occupying force) to provide public order and safety. And morally, it's hard to argue that it's good to return even a technically illegally deposed dictator to power, when a more consensual, democratic, and hence morally preferable political process of some sorts is already in process in the occupied country.
Kevin:
The racist left doesn't love Saddam because he was a good guy, but rather because he was evil. He reinforces their stereotypes that only educated whites should be allowed to enjoy democracy and freedom.
Dude, what are you smoking? The Right is far more guilty of such logic than the left. After all, it wasn't the Democrats who cried "wag the dog" when Clinton tried to do something about violence in Somalia (where virtually everyone happens to have dark skin). It was the Republicans.
but can't get off the couch when genocidal maniacs are yellow or Arab or black. Pol Pot? Mao? Saddam? Castro? Amin? Aidid? No problemo. What would a dirty Arab or Cambodian or African do with his vote anyway?
As you on the right love to point out, the Vietnam war was started by a Democrat. Bay of Pigs (that Castro guy)? Democrat. These failures may factor in to why Democrats are not as hawkish as Republicans, but it's difficult to argue with a straight face that the race of the oppressed people in question is a significant factor for Democrats (while simultaneously arguing that it's not a factor for the GOP).
Tom Grey:
If it was wrong to boot Saddam, it must be right to put him back.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention. That, or you simply cannot comprehend what a "false dilemma" is.
The US/ war caused deaths don't affect the rightness/ wrongness of booting Saddam.
What's funny is that this actually contradicts Joe's point. If the US war is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Saddam should be removed, then it does not follow that people who opposed going to war necessarily also opposed removing Saddam. As I said above, the ends don't always justify the means.
"Contrast this to the Muslim community where there is almost no condemnation (usually qualified if any) of terrorist attacks on Israel, or the US for that matter."
Are you claiming that Muslim leaders around the globe did not condemn the 9/11 attacks? And what did certain high-profile Christians have to say about those attacks? Have you forgotten all this? Or do you need to be reminded? Let me know. When I have the time, I will do the necessary Google searches for you since you don't seem to know how to read or can't remember what you've read from one year to the next.
In any event, if you go back to my original post, I was not "equating" the danger posed by Al Qaeda with fundamentalist Christian terrorists. I meant only that those two groups were (and are) of more concern to me than a weak dictator of an Arab country under constant surveillance by international forces.
"This is why even liberals (except for the one posted above, who posits that the Third Reich could have been beaten through nonviolent means) can muster up the moral resolve to dispose of an Adolf Hitler, but can't get off the couch when genocidal maniacs are yellow or Arab or black."
It appears that in Kevin's fantasy world, the "liberals" opposed any means, under any circumstances, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And the same must have held as well for the Taliban. Can you point us, Kevin, to some support for your statement that a significant fraction of "liberal" politicians opposed our invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?
"[Saddam] reinforces [liberal's] stereotypes that only educated whites should be allowed to enjoy democracy and freedom."
How does liberal support for the Civil Rights Act feed into your remarkable theory, Kevin?
"Are Iraqis "free" now? Honestly, I don't really give a crap."
And thus is exposed the self-centeredness of the American Left. Who cares about others, as long as I got mine?
Larry--In my post I never said that Muslim leaders did not condemn 9/11, many did, but in many cases it was qualified condemnation (you know, wouldn't have happened if we didn't support those filthy Jews, etc.). Also, I never hear any Muslim (even from such supposedly moderate groups like CAIR) condemnation when some Palestinian blows up a Israeli pizza parlor, or daycare center. Nice try though. BTW, I do love how you lump in Christian fundies with Islamic ones. I can't recall any Christian groups that behave like Hamas or Al Queda, or any Christian groups that have planned, sponsored, or carried out any terrorist attacks like 9/11 (don't even try to mention McVeigh and the Morrow Building, number one McVeigh couldn't even join the Montana militia, he was such a whack job, and number two, I don't know of any Christian group that would lay claim to him, unlike Hamas or Al Queda).
Yes, I keep forgetting all those fabulous Southern Democrats who lobbied for the Civil Rights Act. Was Maddox a Republican?
Show me where the American Liberals stood proudly to defeat totalitarianism. Was it liberals who derided the Soviet Communists as an "evil empire"? Was it liberals who put nuclear weapons in Europe to balance the Soviet threats there? Was it liberals who stood athwart history, in the light of Soviet advances into Angola, Uganda, Cuba, Grenada, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Central America, and tried to do all they could to bring free governments back?
Their silence is deafening on the most significant developments of modern history. In twenty years, not less, we will know whether our Middle East policies will have worked. Were it up to you, the whole of the region would be left in the hands of kleptomanic regimes, exporting terror everywhere. This absurd, short-sighted, and profoundly stupid strategy has failed for the last 500 years, but, hey, until you have a better idea, kindly shut the hell up. Don't tell us what we shouldn't have done. Be creative for a change, and tell us how the genius American Left would bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East, when the entire recent history of the American Left shows that you don't really give a damn.
This whole post is based on the false premise that removing Saddam because he was bad for Iraqis was the reason for going to war on Iraq. It never was; the reasons given to justify the invasion were the threats of WMD's and alleged terrorist links. Neither of those threats, as the left correctly argued, were true.
I should also note that "leftists" like me were arguing for the active isolation and containment of Saddam twenty years ago, when he was commiting the worst of his crimes and people like Rumsfeld and Cheney were kissing his hand, giving him money and military aid (weapons, technology and intelligence), actively blocking attempts to sanction the Baathist regime and telling those of us who objected to shut up. If they had taken our advice then Saddam would likely never have survived the eighties, his own people would have taken him out.
So nobody here is ever going to argue that putting Saddam back would be a good thing, but I would submit that it is possible to argue that Iraq today is no better off, and may in some ways be worse off, that it was before the invasion. Seventeen car bombings in Bagdhad last week alone, terrorists who were previously unable to act in Iraq now kill hundreds, American forces have killed thousands, imprisoned and tortured thousands more, alienated allies and moderates in the region, given authoritarian regimes a justification for their own escesses in fighting the "war on terror".
In short, a policy of containment, diplomatic pressure and covert support for internal opposition groups, while not perfect, would arguably have been less destructive than naked military agression. It's not a question of being "happy" to leave a tyrant in place, but of taking a realistic, long term approach to dealing with the tyrant instead of first propping the tyrant up as a counterweight to some other tyrant, then taking a "shoot first, find answers later" approach when the tyrant we were supporting gets out of hand.
(Previous post written in great haste, apologies for mis-spellings, punctuation, grammatical errors etc. Not my best, but more than this silly-ass post deserved)
Kevin, I'm not interested in debating your warped views of world history. If "Southern Democrats" had anything to do with the argument that "Bush lied = Saddam Hussein should be reinstated," I might pause to discredit your baloney. Typically, however, you are having trouble keeping your obsessions with Communists out of the discussion. Wasn't a week of fellating Reagan's corpse enough for you?
Hermit-How can you say that Saddam had no links to terrorism and no WMD's? What about the dead Kurds and Iranians, did they gas themselves so that Saddam could be blamed? WRT to Saddam's links to terrorism, the only thing the 9/11 reports states is that he had no connection with the 9/11 attacks, not that he had no links to terrorism. The report even cites meetings between representatives from OBL and Saddam. I personally don't think the case is closed on Saddams connection to 9/11, the only thing that the evidence the report can prove is that Mohammad Atta's (9/11 ring leader) cell phone was in Florida when he was reported (by Czech intelligence) to be in Prague meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer. Since his cell phone would not have worked in Prague, it is likely that he could have left is with one of his co-conspirators. Granted, this would probably not be enough to get a conviction in a court, but I think it is enough to warrant taking out a Saddam.
If we are going to restore Saddam to power, we should not only bring back to life all the war dead on both sides, as Rob Ryan suggests, we should also torture and kill all the Iraqis that Saddam would have tortured and killed during the time he has not been in power. It would be grossly unfair to make Saddam catch up all the missed work on his own. I mean, he may enjoy it, but there is some expense involved.
I hear that Saddam liked to torture children in front of their parents, but I doubt we have the stomach to help him with that. Perhaps we can just pay him restitution for the pleasure he missed.
Rob Smith;
Tenuous allegations that wouldn't, as you say, stand up in court are most definitely not sufficient grounds for starting a war!
The whole Saddam/AlQaeda connection is a neocon fantasy.
As for the gassing of the Kurds there is a much, much closer connection between the Reagan and Bush I administrations and those atrocites than there ever was between Saddam and Osama. Yes, that was a terror campaign, and yes Saddam had and used chemical weapons, but that was in the 1980's, when he was being funded and propped up politically by conservative American administrations.
Of course, if one objected to all of this at the time one was accused of being an "anti-American leftist"...funny how times change, isn't it??
Ed Jordan says "I hear that Saddam liked to torture children in front of their parents, but I doubt we have the stomach to help him with that."
Well you needn't worry Ed, apparently we're already well on the way:
GI: Boy mistreated to get dad to talk
"the teenager was stripped naked, thrown in the back of an open truck, driven around in the cold night air, splattered with mud and then presented to his father at Abu Ghraib, the prison at the center of the scandal over abuse of Iraqi detainees. Upon seeing his frail and frightened son, the prisoner broke down and cried and told interrogators he would tell them whatever they wanted, the analyst said."
This is the Bush doctrine at work folks.
Saddam's methods of rule were horrible, but I cannot trust whomever America chooses to instate as a ruler. Unless if my parents lie to me, we put Fidel Castro in power, and now we have cut off trading with him.
Anyway, as Tom Toles points out, there are bigger problems with the idea of bringing back Saddam....
Rob Smith:
How can you say that Saddam had no links to terrorism and no WMD's?
Sounds like you need a refresher course, as well as some reading about goal post movement.
WRT to Saddam's links to terrorism, the only thing the 9/11 reports states is that he had no connection with the 9/11 attacks, not that he had no links to terrorism.
That misstates it a bit, don't you think? What the report actually states is that there's no connection to al-Qaeda the primary anti-US terror organization. Saddam's established ties to terror groups are all to anti-Israeli terror groups, and I'm not aware that was ever given as a justification for going after him.
The report even cites meetings between representatives from OBL and Saddam.
Actually, it cites meetings between repersentatives from Saddam and OBL ten years ago, and it goes out of its way to point out that nothing came of those meetings.
Ed:
I hear that Saddam liked to torture children in front of their parents, but I doubt we have the stomach to help him with that. Perhaps we can just pay him restitution for the pleasure he missed.
If you're incapable of seeing that this is a morally bankrupt non-sequitur argument, and a fallacy of distraction, then I can't help you. You obviously aren't capable of critical thinking on the subject.
"Anyway, as Tom Toles points out, there are bigger problems with the idea of bringing back Saddam...."
Heh, yeah and truth is stranger than fiction sometimes, as reported today on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226957/) (bold text below added by me)