Thank you backup. I appreciate that.

It is insane that we accept this argument just because we didn’t find WMD. That just gives the crazed neocons reason to fight another day – Iran, Syria, whatever pathetic little state their fevered imaginations settle on that day.

Bottom line: Iraq was no conceivable threat to us regardless of whether or not it had WMD, had never threatened to attack us, had no means to do so, and would have been squashed like a bug if it had so much as lobbed a mortar across it’s border, which is all it could have done.

How was it again that the surge was a hugh mistake?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because it WAS a failure. There were WHAT 18 objectives? How many have been reached again? Thats right well less than half. So because we managed to pay off enough Iraqis to stop shooting each other which we cant do forever you just want to get away with saying since ONE aspect of the 18 was accomplished then it was a resounding success? The Iraqis still dont have political stability and they never will as long as we occupy them. You really have no idea what is going on do you?

The chief of Iraqi intelligence story is very interesting. If it’s credible it should give the Democratically controlled Congress all the ammunition it needs to start impeachment proceedings immediately.

That is, if it’s credible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh its VERY credible. Hussien Kamel was Saddams son in law. He PROVED he was very credible in his debriefing. We already have PLENTY of credible ammunition to impeach Bush we could send him to either prison or the Hague without breaking a sweat. The reason we dont has a whole lot more to do with Democratic SPINELESSNESS than Bush not being a lying, cretinous scofflaw.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support “regime change.” The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

\Which means virtually NOTHING. We would LIKE to see a regime change in China, Venezuala, Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan… and on and on doesnt mean we are going to invade and we would be lawless warmongers if we did invade all those countries. Try to think for yourself instead of repeating all this garbage the rightwing screechmonkeys instruct you to repeat. Being assimilated into the hivemind is no way to live a decent life.

I won’t press whether Bush should have known or not. I don’t see what you see, and with the evidence I’ve seen here, I don’t think I ever will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It is hard to tell what Bush knows or doesnt he is obviously dumb as a post. What is NOT in dispute. What there is NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST is that he told demonstrable lies to both the American people and Congress about Iraq and their WMDS. That is an indisputable FACT.

We can agree to disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You can agree to disagree that water is wet if you want to it wont change the nature of water.

But, who wants to stand up here and talk me through why it would have been so much more prudent for us to just begin withdrawing a couple of years ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because everything that could be accomplished militarily was already accomplished and all the remaining problems were political as occupiers we couldnt help with them. The reason we DID stay was the reason we invaded in the first place to get those oil contracts for American oil corporations that had been shut out of Iraq. The fact we started PAYING OFF the disparate groups to stop killing each other and that the ethnic cleansing of the neighborhoods hadnt been finished yet as later changes this in no way. All the Iraqi problems there are left are Iraqs to solve and we cant help them with them. Nor will any government be seen as legitimate as long as we stay. ESPECIALLY when we ignore their soveriegnity like when the Iraqi president called for Blackwater to leave after their totally irresponsible attrocity in Baghdad last Dec and Bush telling them to take a hike showing who the REAL boss in Iraq was. The bottom line here is you know the talking points but have no real idea what you are talking about.

Now that we are talking about misjudgements, we ought to get the whole surge thing out of the way:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/ news/ 2008/ sep/ 02/ us-forces-hand-over-anbar-security/

It would have been a disaster to abandon Iraq to civil war and genocide by foregoing the surge. We are now accomplishing a peaceful handover to a stable democracy. I’m glad we supported the additional troops and change of strategy that made it possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First of all the Moonie Times isnt a credible source for what day it is. The Rev Sun Yung Moon ADMITTED he uses it to push his ideology. Second that rationale is COMPLETELY logic free. Are you REALLY making the argument that though you guys were WRONG ABOUT EVERY CLAIM YOU EVER MADE ABOUT IRAQ that you were RIGHT to stay in Iraq based on ANOTHER prediction that you were making about what MIGHT happen if we didnt????? That is laughable. I could have used a magic 8 ball to make predictions about Iraq and had a better track record.

Many, many mistakes were made in Iraq. Much repair work of strained relations remains throughout the world. But, Saddam is no longer in power. He no longer poses a threat to the rest of the world. And the formally repressed people of Iraq participate in democracy and offer an alternative to Islamic fundamentalist theology to the rest of the middle east.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This claim is blatantly stupid. Saddam ALREADY posed no threat to the rest of the world. Both Iran and Kuwait the two last countries he invaded opposed our invasion. He hadnt so much as SNEEZED in anyones direction in the previous decade. IF the whole crux of the problem is fundamentalist Islamic theology then invading the MOST SECULAR ISLAMIC COUNTRY IN THE REGION WAS INSANITY. You have your talking points memorized the logic however is non-existant

Have you LOST YOUR MIND?????

“He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program,” says Piro.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am sure he WANTED to turn sand into gold too but Iraq was ALREADY WMD free so NO, to anyone SANE Bush deserves NO credit for that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2008/ 01/ 24/ 60minutes/ main3749494_page6.shtml

If Saddam was still in power, the world would still not know whether he had WMD. And if you believe his intentions, he would be reconstituting his WMD programs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And WHY wouldnt the world know? THE INSPECTORS WERE THERE going wherever they wanted they said they needed only a few more months to do their job and they could have TOLD the world what we now know, NO WMDs. THAT is why BUsh kicked them out and invaded he was about to lose his BS reason for invading.

He was/and would have continued to be a threat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A threat to WHOM? General Zinni when TESTIFYING TO THE SENATE said he wasnt a threat not to us not to his neighbors not a gathering threat not even close. Just because a wingnut SAYS It doesnt make it true.

There were many problems with the war in Iraq, but on this, I think you have to give the devil his due.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Then you have indeed lost your mind. Bush deserves NO credit for lying to the American people and congress to invade Iraq under false pretenses while the inspectors were there and doing everything we needed done to resolve that situation. I am afraid you have been guzzling too much kool-aid and it has reached toxic levels in your brain.

R E M E M B E R:
Michael O’Hanlon collects a paycheck to be the propagandist.

For Michael O’Hanlon to even remotely appear to be credible on the subject of Iraq’s WMD’s, he should first prove that there were WMD’s in Iraq on Bush’s watch which makes Bush’s illegal invasion and continued occupation justifiable by his standards.

Michael O’Hanlon = LIAR
Michael O’Hanlon = PROPAGANDIST
Michael O’Hanlon = SOULLESS

.

Corporate News needs to stop telling Americans that Iraq was a mistake – it was not a mistake it was a pre-meditated crime. Any news source that tells you otherwise is full of shit.(CBS)

As for Bush being credited for a quasi-functioning democracy???? (see attached)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/96630/half_of_baghdad_lacks_drinking_water_/

These guys deserve to do the clean up at Gitmo for the next 100 years bare handed just for yuks… Food/water ? HHAA!! Not until you find WMD in the sands of Gitmo beach….Oh that’s cruel?? TFB…

Smear machine has now turned into the re-write history machine again….

I’ve got to split (wife doesn’t see the value of blogging), but I haven’t seen you around for awhile and I hope you have been doing well.

I’ve also got to go, because I’m interested to see if Palin can read a tele prompter.

Good nite.

Oh wait — did that come before or after the Surge™?

Oh, hell, let’s avoid that chicken-or-the-egg debate. I’ll just come out and say it:

“The situation in Iraq is getting better since all of the neighborhoods in Baghdad have been successfully ethnically cleansed”.

Feel better?

“The situation in Iraq is getting better since the surge”.

backup Says:

I also concede that it was probably less troop strength and more of an enlightened approach to the Iraqis that made the most difference.

“more of an enlightened approach to the Iraqis”?

I guess that’s one way to describe generous cash payments to warlords so that they wouldn’t kill each other, as long as the payments kept coming.

you got me. I meant huge. I just crossed over to Mac and can’t figure out the spell check.

I concede that the situation in Iraq is manipulated for politics, but the trend seems better regardless of how it’s being pulled politically.

I think it would have been a mistake to leave a couple of years ago.

There were huge mistakes in the war. Deciding to stay committed in ‘07 and ‘08 with more troops, I believe was a good call.

I also concede that it was probably less troop strength and more of an enlightened approach to the Iraqis that made the most difference.