Occupying a country and installing a puppet government hardly constitutes "liberating" it. Did you notice how quickly the Green Zone denizens changed Prime Ministers to please the administration? A truly sovereign nation would never have bowed to that kind of hooligan pressure.

The "myth" of Iraq is that there was ever a (legal) reason for invading it. Another myth is that we are "making progress" by throwing more of our troops and treasure into the meat grinder.

Hopefully, we will someday know the truth about what this administration did to get us to the place we are now. The day of accountability is coming and I doubt it will be pretty.

Mark,

Perhaps it might be helpful to the "people of faith" whom you're apparently trying to reach is you added a bit of reality (in addition to a pinch of intellectual honesty) to your post. You might remind them that so far Bush's excursion into Iraq has cost the average American family over $20000...than's right, EACH American family. And while you're at it you might mention the 2455 Americans killed there, and the 10000+ maimed. If your "people of faith" care about such things, you might mention that there have been over 30000 Iraqi civilians killed in Operation Bush. Oh yeah, and don't forget that things are far less stable there than when we started, and we can't even dream of stability until many more lives are lost and billions spent.

Don't forget Breck Girl's (John Edwards) claim that Hussein was an IMMINENT THREAT back in 2003.

It's quite funny how these people on the left made these claims about Iraq for years and years and suddenly "Bush Lied". What a monumental back tracking these people have done. It's amazing.

Of course they have no problem saying "lied" and forget that the Clinton appointed CIA Director George Tenet said "Slam Dunk WMD were there". Oh those pesky facts.

If you can't listen to your CIA director when he says SLAM DUNK, who the hell are you supposed to listen to on the intelligence side.

"A puppet government".

Yeah...a puppet government that millions of people risked their lives for to vote on. A puppet government...do you guys really believe your own dribble?

Notice the word "estimate" in there.

Truth is, we and the world thought Huessein probably did have this stuff, but it turns out they and we were wrong. Difference is, most of the world did not think there was enough evidence, enough proof to invade. We did. We were wrong.

The misleading part of the equation happened in the US effort to get public and UN support for the war.

Things like Rumsfeld saying we "know" where the WMD stockpiles are. Things like the UN presentation by Powell that falsely claimed a lot of things.

But in a broader sense, the cherry-picking of intelligence also misled our populace into war. Intel from a high-ranking Iraqi official that painted a very accurrate picture of what turned out to be Iraq's WMD and nuclear capability was ignored. "Curveball" -- who turned out to be a highly discredited source -- was given tons of credibility because he was saying what the administration wanted to hear.

Mark, this post is an example of what you do all the time. You make claims based on very macro statements or ideas that don't hold up when you dig deeper and look at the details.

You say the NIE is proof that we were misled into war. But you look at specific actions and claims by this administration, and it's clear that simply isn't the case.

Warriornation

The democrats, like the rest of the nation, believed what their President told them. It was a mistake, but don't forget, the country had a major blow with the 9-11 attacks. The fear that was created by those acts was undeniable and Bush used that fear to further his own goals.

Brewer and Shipley points out that the Administration “cherry-picked” information from the NIA, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, British intelligence, the UN, Iraqis, French Intelligence, but didn’t listen to the cowardly Mr. Shipley; he knew better! .

This is an example of what liberals do all the time; without any conviction they pretend that they were on the right side of the argument all along. Take no action and you can never be wrong, of course you leave it to someone else to fight for your rights and freedoms, but without convictions, that’s the easy part.

Mark

Without lies and deception the left wouldn't have much to say

WARRIORNATION -

Don't forget that, back in early 2001, Colin Powell said that Sadaam Hussein was not a threat, had no nuclear program, and was successfully contained. To quote you, "What a monumental back tracking these people have done. It's amazing."

P.S. to the "trolls" here, a word of advice: "You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep."

Mark - get your lefty rhetoric straight: Bush IS the dunce but it is CHENEY who is the the evil imperialist genius. And of course, Karl Rove is the ARCHITECT.

And Bush had nothing to do with PNAC. That movement took over the administration from the inside via Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. PNAC sought not to take oil, but rather to bring peace to the middle east by ham-fistedly forcing western democracy and capitalism down their throats through overthrow and military action- without any regard to their history, belief or culture. Once the dust (and thrown flowers) settled, and we all had a Starbucks and a Big Mac together, THEN corporations could have easier access to their oil- at least until we used it all up with our over bloated SUVs.

Bush was put up as the front man merely because he already had a name brand and was electable. He's no evil genius.

I totally agree with extramedium.

Rathaven,

I was for invading afghanastan. You can't say I'm not in favor of military action when it's called for.

I didn't think it was called for with Iraq. I didn't think, even if Saddam had some WMDs, that in March 2003 an invasion was warranted.

There simply wasn't enough proof of a real threat from Iraq. I supported giving inspectors more time to see what really was going on in there. If we "knew" where the WMDs were, surely they could find them eventually.

We were assured that once we invaded they would be found. That the inspectors would not be able to find them... etc...

Well, they were wrong, and yes, I guess I was right.

Right, Ship-for-brains,
You just want to be on the side that's winning!
Oh, you were promised we'd find WMD? Well, that explains it, wern't you promised we'd catch ObL in Afghanistan? Shouldn't you be Monday-morning quarterbacking that decision as well? Naturally not, liberals can be on all sides at once, you have no convictions.
Kerry promised you a democratic win in 2004, He Lied! What should we do with him?

Deleted - long diatribe from another blog; Just link to the blog entry, if you please, but don't waste our bandwidth with other bloggers stuff...

Canadian Unobserver

Hmmm....so please explain to me why most of these claims by these Democrats were made while Bush was Governor of Texas. Thanks.

Oh, and shouldn't the President also believe what his CIA Director is telling him? What the British Intelligence is telling him? What the Israeli intelligence is telling him? Etc, etc, etc, etc,?

Or where they all lying to Bush before he lied to the American people?

LOL It's all so confusing.

So I'm still waiting for the LIES the Bush administration gave...the ones that apparently everyone else in the world PRIOR to Bush even being elected also stated time and again.

Of course then our lefty friends say "yeah, but they didn't act on that intelligence".

That's exactly right....that's also why so many times this country is F'd up because you lefty clowns DIDN'T make a tough decision and act on the intelligence. If you did, Bin Laden wouldn't be alive when Clinton passed on him three times.

Now we have a President that doesn't leave things to chance like predecessors did. That's the difference.

hmmmm, Mark's post starts with: "...even the most propagandised Russian under Stalin didn't swallow the amount of nonsense that American leftists eagerly consume."

And then goes on to state: "There is, in the liberation of Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism, no deception - not even the mild shading of the truth by the Administration."

Yes, Mark, someone has indeed blindly swallowed an awful lot of propaganda...

Warriornation

Since Clinton passed on Bin Laden three times, when can we expect Bush to keep his promise of
bringing him in "dead or alive"? A lot of water has passed under the bridge since he uttered those words. What's taking so long?

"What's taking so long?" by Canadian Observer

Bin Laden is a very powerful individual who has networks of people and nations to assist him. Such an individual will not be easy to catch especially when he knows you and a number of your allies are looking for him. I have taken care not to be overly critical of the previous administration. At the time, their actions seemed appropiate. The bottom line is both the Bush and Clinton administrations have made mistakes. Hopefully we learn from them!! The way you asked the question implies that capturing this man is somehow easy. it is not.

Btw, I am no fan of the Bush administration.

I see CO is bashing the American military. Why don't you ask them why they haven't found bin Laden yet?

Way to bash the American Military...then again coming from a Canadian is that an oxymoron?

Clinton had him in his sights and chose NOT TO ACT. Bush has never had Bin Laden in his sights yet he has still pounded the piss out of Bora Bora, etc, etc when we think we've had him. It sure hasn't been for a lack of trying.

Perhaps if Clinton and the left didn't totally neuter our intelligence services for years much of this stuff wouldn't have happened.

"Oh, you were promised we'd find WMD? Well, that explains it, wern't you promised we'd catch ObL in Afghanistan? Shouldn't you be Monday-morning quarterbacking that decision as well"

I'm not MMQing Iraq. I was against the invasion precisely because I did think that Saddam posed enough of a threat to warrant it. The fact that no WMDs were found and his chemical, biological and nuclear programs were is nowhere near what we were sold by the administration. I didn't really buy what they were selling before the war, and I think I've been vindicated in that.

Phil,

Who wants stability? Things were stable under Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao...and, of course, your hero Saddam...free men and women don't want stability.

I also didn't buy that we'd be greeted as liberators, that the war would pay for itself and that we'd be out of there in less than a year.

Tom,

But, we were greeted as liberators...and no one ever said the war would pay for itself, nor did anyone ever say we'd be out in a year...

Aarontime,

It is you, who believe there were lies, who are lost in a fantasy world...for some inexplicable reason, hating Bush has become so important to you that you'll foolishly swallow whatever anti-Bush elixir knaves choose to vend...

Clintune had the best chance at getting Bin Laden, actually he had 3 really good chances.

The liberal rats will just invent more myths. A myth is a fact in their eyes. Just like an allegation is a charge of guilt.

I will also bash Hastert and the under Chinos, stating that the FBI raiding a congressperson violates the constitution. What horse manure. Sorry, I vented, but since when is a congress person above the law. (I know John Kerry thinks he's above the law, but now cinos and Republicrats?)

I am, like everyone else, subject to pre-conceived notions and biases, even if i am totally unaware of them. But at the same time I try very hard to be a member of the fact-based community, rather than the merely ideologically-based community -- I will drink no one's kool-aid. So at the very minimum I like to think that while my point of view may start from a certain premise, I hope that I am able to work from there to another point of view as long as it is merited on the basis of new evidence and new insights. But I have to say that this WSJ article by Peter Wehner didn't add much by way of that. So I wonder... why bother posting this thing? In fact, to me, some of the arguments are so transparent that I almost wonder whether Mark is some kind of leftie plant.

Yeah, that's it! Lol!

Before going on I think I should elucidate my biases right from the start (such as I am aware of them). I think the most relevant of them are these: I thought something conclusive had to be done about Saddam. I felt he was a bloodthirsty thug who would do everything in his power to stay in power. He was a long-term, destabilizing force, not only in Iraq, but the entire region. Thus, he could not be allowed to stay in power. So with that in mind, I offer my points of contention to the Wehner article...

Point 1: Possession of chemical and biological weapons alone does not in itself constitute a rationale for war. At the very least, though, it constitutes an issue of serious concern. And that concern is what the Dems quoted were speaking to.

Point 2: While a case could be made that Saddam intended to seek nuclear weapons sometime in the future, there was no indication that Saddam was anywhere close to possessing them. As the NIE estimate quoted in the article says, "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The operative phrase there is "if left unchecked". "Unchecked" does not necessarily mean "uninvaded".

Point 3: The evidence for a connection between Saddam and any international terrorist organization, be it al-Qaeda or any affiliates, was very tenuous at best, even before the war. This is one area I personally believe deception may have taken place. But I could be wrong. Which brings us to...

Point 4: If the righties really want to shut the Dems up about pre-war intel, they should get vocal about making the Phase II report happen. If there's nothing to hide, no problem -- right? The fact is, though, much of the primary evidence suggesting a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and/or an ally was handled by the Dept. of Defense's Office of Special Projects. And if you've been paying attention you would know that they are the very same ones primarily responsible for stonewalling the Phase II report. Sen. Roberts could issue subpoenas for the desired information, but he hasn't done so. Also by the way, the OSP is what Sen. Levin meant when he asked Gen Hayden whether he agreed with how "Feith's office" handled intelligence. Hayden's answer was, basically... "No". You really have to see a clip of the way Hayden handled that question -- his body language, and the way he turned course in the middle of his answer, spoke volumes to me. I don't know if anyone else agrees with me, but when I saw that my personal reaction was... "oh dear Lord." But I could be wrong. In fact, I would like more than anything to be shown that I am wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think I am -- not to any appreciable degree.

Point 5: There is a difference between a "threat" and an "immediate threat". Many lefties seem to think that because no WMD were found, Saddam posed no threat. IMHO, that view cannot be justified even now. And to assume that anyone thought that in the time leading up to the invasion does indeed require a good deal of revisionist thinking. On the other hand, many righties seem to think that because Saddam was a threat he was also an immediate one. And that also wasn't justified. We had Saddam in a box at the start of 2003. If he tried ANYTHING the whole world would have been on him like stink on shit (pardon my French). As we know now, we even tried to provoke him repeatedly with intrusive bombing raids. But he didn't bite. He knew the score. We had time to wait -- wait until he either knuckled under or the rest of the world got fed up with him. As you recall, both of those possibilities were at least reasonable back in early 2003. I thought at the time that we should have waited. Now I'm convinced of it. That was our first serious mistake.

Point 6: Pelosi was wrong: Bush did mention that spreading democracy in the Middle East would be a good thing prior to the invasion. But he did not tout it as the primary rationale. Only later did he declare that that was what it was really all about. I believe I first heard Bush say that none of the rationales mattered in an interview in Dec 2003, as I recall. The interviewer (it was a woman, but I don't remember her name) asked him about the WMD argument, and the link to al Qaeda argument, and he said they didn't matter. She was taken aback and so was I. So I'm pretty sure that was the first time that argument was placed front and center and to the exclusion of everything else, rather than the ancillary role it occupied previously.

But let's assume it always was front and center and it just got glossed over for some reason... if it was always front and center, then what has happened in Iraq since that time is even more difficult to forgive. To tell you the truth, I am inclined to believe that there is considerable merit to the democracy argument. But in order for it to work the situation on the ground had to be secured rapidly to allow it to foster. If Plan A didn't work, then Plans B, C, and D should have been in place to account for the exigencies of reality. Instead, what we have is a situation where nearly everyone in the entire region doubts our motivations. Three years hence we are still in a situation where we have employ search and destroy tactics in many places instead of invade and occupy tactics. We still have to resort to a divide and conquer strategy rather than a truly advisory role. Since the Samarrah bombings things have taken a truly ugly turn. I hope and pray that it is a temporary set back. But boy, if it isn't, it may have been our last, best chance.

Ricorun

We all have biases. I have them myself. They can affect our judgement. The office of Special Plans did not come into existence until sometime around September 2002. The Clinton administration spoke of links to Al Qaeda as far back as 1998. Senator Clinton also spoke of them and she went on to say that the intellegence the Bush Administration supplied them with was materially simillar to what they had when they were in the White House. The intellegence that the Clintons had came before the OSP. It seems to me some in the media are overplaying the role of the OSP. You suggest that we had Saddam in a box. It seems the Iraq Survey Group did not agree with this. Their conclusions were that by 2000-2001 Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and to undermine their international support and he was in striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions. I don't think the bombing runs were done as an attempt to provoke Saddam. It seems to me they were done in a desparate attempt to contain Saddam and if the ISG is to be believed we were not being successful at containing him. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a strategically sound decison may not be known for some time. Leaders should be judged by what they accomplish and not what they intended to accomplish.

Nameless

Early in 2001 was before 911. I'm not suggesting that Saddam was involved with 911 but the event did change how the American Government, at least some members of it that is, evaluate and act on threats. In otherwords, there was a lower threshold at which a threat to America's security would be tolerated plus the USA had about 17 UN anctions behind them and a coalition of about 20 some odd countries to assist us. If Colin Powell thought Saddam was contained, it seems the Iraq Survey Group did not support this conclusion. I think I do recall the statement from Mr. Powell. As we gain new information, we should adjust tactics. This seems to be a problem with the Bush Administration. They seem to have trouble adjusting their tactics.

Tom,
Are you stupid or you just don't care about truth? "I'm not MMQing Iraq." I said Afghanistan moron! ObL was in Afghanistan.
So freakin smart you know more than the combined intelligence agencies of the free world, but you don't know Iraq from Afghanistan! Yeah, why didn't Bush listen to you? You're a geopolitical wonder-boy!
Here's another clue for you, Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11! I know, you were promised that Iraq bombed the towers, we'd get all the free oil we wanted, Iraqis would throw themselves in front of the tanks, birds would place laurels on the soldiers heads, and cats would marry dogs. I heard Bush say all of that too!

Canadian Observer

"The Democrats like the rest of the nation believed what their president told them." The Democrats were saying virtually the same things Bush was saying before he became president.

"It was a mistake." The intellegence was incorrect. The WMD are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be. Maybe tbey were moved or perhaps they did not exist. Convoys of somehting were transferred into Syria prior to the war. The investigation into what was transferred was unable to be completed. Perhpas the conventional wisdom is correct and the wMD did not exist. We shoud find out what went wrong with the intellegence. I would suggest increasing our human intellegence capability and relying less on electronic surveillance.

"but don't forget the country had a major blow with the 911 attacks. The fear created by those attacks was undeniable." One result of the attacks was this changed how certain American leaders view and respond to threats to national security. This doe not mean that invading Iraq was a strategically wise decision. Time will tell if it was the correct decision.

"and Bush used that fear to further his own goals." Bush's goals are to defend the country and the American people from attack. How he has performed in this duty and how he has performed as president is questionable. Personally I give him low marks. I think we can do much better. Such personal attacks are unhelpful and they encourage people to get defensive and stick to certain policies longer than perhaps they should. Constructive criticism will be much more helpful.

From the Left, for the Left-

"Bush-hatred a threat to national security" Roll Call [Washington, DC], by Morton Kondracke

"ENOUGH already! It's harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now it's threatening our national survival.

I do not exaggerate. Bush-hatred has reached such intensity that CIA officers and other bureaucrats are leaking major secrets about anti-terrorism policy and communications intelligence that undermine our ability to fight Islamic extremism."

Link

Mark -

Failing to fawn for the Dear Leader, and failing to gulliably assume that He has never ever told even the slightest half-truth, does not equate to hating Bush. Facing the simple fact that this administration did a really dumb thing in invading Iraq does not equate to hating Bush. Understanding that world in general, and the mid east in particular, is far more complicated than a simpleton's struggle between "Good vs Evil", does not equate to hating Bush.

I do not hate Bush. I am merely a realist who sees the damage he has done to our great country. As any patriot, I am concerned.

You, on the other hand, are a cult follower who seems incapable of critically appraising Bush. What you need is some deprogramming. Luckily, my friend, there is still time for you to see the light!

Aaron

Why was it dumb to invade Iraq? Can you see into the future? Do you know what the Middle East will look like in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? Perhaps it will come to be the smartest and greatest thing ever done by a President.

I don't know that to be the case, I'm just saying that since I can't see in the future and neither can you, saying it's a dumb thing without knowing how it ends it more than a bit....dumb.

warrior nation, here's why Bush hasn't found Bin Laden yet... He isn't looking.

He gave up looking after only 6 months after 9/11.

Now terrorist around the world know that they can attack the US and then just hide in a cave for 6 months and you will give up looking for them.

Good thing bush is TOUGH ON TERROR, LOL

-------------------------

“So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him” … “And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”

— George W.Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why the President rarely spoke or mentioned Osama Bin Laden, in a press conference March 13, 2002, only 6 months after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

---------------------------

"Because he's hiding."

— George W. Bush, responding to a reporter who asked why Osama bin Laden had not been caught, aboard Air Force One, Jan. 14, 2005

----------------------------

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden"

— General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 6 April 2002.

Oh man, black is white, up is down. America hater Aarontime claims to be "patriotic." Damn, when did the definition of patriotic become "when one hates his country to an extent he will do anything to see it's destruction?"

[b]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people [House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03][/b]

[b]State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities.[Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03
[/b]

[b]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost." 1/19/03[/b]

[b]
Feb. 7, 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
[/b]

[b]
March 16,2003 Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."[/b]

But, we were greeted as liberators...and no one ever said the war would pay for itself, nor did anyone ever say we'd be out in a year...
Posted by: Mark Noonan

Axis,

As I said, we were greeted as liberators...additionally, your Rumsfeld quote has to do with the initial invasion period (once again, selective, out-of-context quotes from a lefty...what a surprise), while the a great deal of the cost of Iraqi reconstruction has come out of Iraqi oil revenues...and, as I said, no one ever said we'd be out in a year, or that it would pay for itself...even your quotes don't say that...

Aaron,

The only dumb thing we could possibly have done post-9/11 is NOT liberate Iraq...can you even read a map?

Geesh...its like trying to describe a sunset to a man who's never been able to see...

"The only dumb thing we could possibly have done post-9/11 is NOT liberate Iraq...can you even read a map?"

This is the real reason we invaded Iraq, one that got very little mention before the invasion.

It's this feeling that certain members of our country have that we can overthrow a middle eastern government, establish a democracy and watch it spread through the middle east.

WMDs was the given reason, but I suspect that this master plan of transforming the middle east is the reason we were planning to invade Iraq since 9/11.

We'll see what happens. I have very high doubts that once the US military leaves, the Iraqi government will remain stable.

By the way, here's what being greeted at liberators looks like:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=liberation%20of%20paris&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wi

Oh wait, I forgot, there was that massive crowd that cheered US soldiers toppling the Saddam statue:

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/nyc/saddam3.jpg

Mark, another quote by Rumsfeld. Remember, this is before the war when the public was trying to gauge what we were getting into.

“The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”

Remember ealier in the year when you touted the biggest US assault since the invasion? That's three years. Much longer than 5 months. Notice how he says we will be greeted as liberators to counter Russerts claim that this could turn into a long, costly and bloody battle that lasts years.

Here's Dick Cheney:

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

"MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability. (Shipley note: This is a very accurate assesment of what we needed).

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement."

You look at all these quotes and you get a picture: the war would be short, clean and not costly to US tax payers.

Now, you say "it was." Well, when asked about troops having to stay there years to "maintain stability" that idea was shot down as well. We were sold a quick and cheap war, even when others were warning of eventual reality of what was going to happen.

These guys were selling snake oil.

BP said: "The office of Special Plans did not come into existence until sometime around September 2002."

You are technically correct in the sense that that is when the group was given an official name. Before that it just looked like a duck and quacked like a duck.

Either way, if they have nothing to hide, no problem -- right? Let's have the Phase II report -- with them included.

Regarding what you said about the ISG concluding that "by 2000-2001 Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and to undermine their international support and he was in striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions" I don't argue that. But 2001 was not 2003. By early 2003 things had changed dramatically, and Iraq was being watched like a hawk, from the inside. The UN had no plans to back down, and in fact had plans to make the inspections much more invasive. Furthermore, no one but Bush wanted to pull the plug at the time he did -- not even Blair. Heaven knows what would have happened if we had waited. But it seemed to me at the time, and still does, that there was a lot more upside to waiting than downside.

But we invaded. Okay, fine. But if you do it, you'd better do it right. And that's a second, completely independent issue. I do believe that a stable, democratic Iraq could be a tremendous force in the region. On the other hand, an unstable Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. Three years hence my perception is that Iraq is still more the latter than the former. And the longer it takes for the former to emerge, if in fact it does, the more complicated the whole situation in the region -- indeed, the entire world -- becomes. And whatever else could be said, it's hard not to be disappointed and disillusioned by what has transpired so far.

And BP, I agree completely with your last line: "Leaders should be judged by what they accomplish and not what they intended to accomplish." You can't just try to do the right thing, you have to to the right thing right.

cj proves once again to be a stuttering right-wing windbag spewing forth the conventional defense:

Oh man, black is white, up is down. America hater Aarontime claims to be "patriotic." Damn, when did the definition of patriotic become "when one hates his country to an extent he will do anything to see it's destruction?"

in other words, if you don't kiss his king's feet, you are unpatriotic. you are an america hater. PLEASE! a whole majority of america thinks chimpy boy has gone out and done a real number on this country. americans don't like him, americans don't like his job performance, and they don't like the way he's handling the situation in iraq. they also, by a clear majority, think he's dishonest and misleading and believe going into iraq was the asinine idea that it always has been.

of course, by cj's twisted and tortured logic, you've got one clear majority of the nation that both 'hate america' and are 'unpatriotic'....

i understand its difficult to be stuck in defense mode 24/7, but at least be original. going around peeing your pants everytime we have a faux orange alert and chanting 9/11, 9/11 is not going to wake anyone up to the idea that invading countries at whim and further destabilizing the mideast region will somehow PROTECT americans. how sick and twisted you lot are... painted into a corner like rabid animals, all you have left is to lash out and call the other side names.

Ricorun

I'm not sure the hold up in releasing the phase II report. I would like to see it too. The problem may be that it contains top secret information. Perhaps it may reveal sources and mthods to our intellegence that would endanger American national security. How much openess and how much secrecy a democracy should have is a difficult balance. I don't have all the answers there. I think part of the media's problem with the OSP is it is believed to be heavily influenced by Jews and Neo-conservaties. The thing the media hates most right now is Israel and anyone who would be seen closely allied with them. That's why they hate so called Neo-Conservatives so much. If we substitute "Neo-conservative" for "Jew" in Nazi propaganda, I think it would very simillar to today's msm propaganda against this group. Not exactly the same but simillar.

While it is true that Iraq was being watched from the inside in early 2003, it was done by the UN and Saddam had already corrupted the UN with the oil for food program and he was not cooperating with inspections. Bottom line: I don't trust the UN. I think they can be counted on to work against America and the free world at every opportunity. This seems to be their history. I think certain leaders sensed that Saddam was going to get off the hook again. I agree with them, at the earliest opportunity the UN would have sought to declare Iraq clean, so they could get on with making money from Iraq's oil and America's security was unimportant to them. With that said, perhaps it would have been better to wait or perhaps things would have only gotten worse. Hind sight can be 20/20. In any event, this has proven far more difficult than some people thought. I could have told them it would be!! I cringed at some of the things they said, in the run up to the war.

I agree with you that Iraq as a democracy could be good for us and the region but it has to be done right. Right now Iraq seems to me to be a stalemate. It will require a decisve act by one side or the other to break the stalemate. I hope and pray we have the moral courage to see this through. If we don't, this would be huge victory for the terrorists. I think we do need to take a second look at some of our strategies.

Ricorun

To sum up my previous post, I think the decision to remove Saddam was the correct one and we were correct to do it when we did. If anything I think we should have done it sooner than we did. However, it seems to me a number of mistakes have been made in the execution of the policy and certain decision makers have been slow to adjust to the situation. I think a fresh look at some of strategies is in order and as I wrote previously a leader should be judged by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish.

Mark, those things were said. Read the quotes from Cheney and the ones from Tom.

Face it, this administration was incredibly niave and short-sighted, mostly due to the fact that they ignored advice from military strategists and 4 and 5 star generals in favor of winging it and following the direction of Rumsfeld, a military-wannbe that could not strategize himself out of a wet paper bag.

Bush said in '99 that an Iraq invasion would lead to NO american casualities. This claim came right out of Cheney.

"Could not strategize himself out of a wet paper bag." I would agree that Rumsfeld's performance has been suspect. Some have called for him to be relieved of his duties. I think we need a change at that position. We will have to try something different to break the stalemate, however, to imply that he is unable to strategize himself out of a paper bag is unfair. The United States is engaged with an enemy who poses a direct survival threat to the country. This enemy has strong relations with Russia, China, an a number of key countries in the world. This enemy is capable of defeating the US and imposing its view of Islam on it. So far America has fought this enemy to a stand still. I consider that pretty amazing. It is especially amazing considering the fact that America has a "5th column" within the country that is dedicated to its defeat. Rumsfeld probably should be replaced. We will need to do something to break the stalemate. Whatever we do it needs to be right thing. Simply doing something is not enough. Leaders should be judged by what they actually accomplished and not by what they set out to accomplish.

I think more troops in the beginning probably would have made a huge difference, however, we can't be certain. More troops equals more targets for Islamic Extremists terrorists and could mean more coalition deaths. I do think a fresh look at our strategies is in order. Constructive criticism will be helpful.

Warmongernation,
"A puppet government is a government that, though notionally of the same culture as the governed people, owes its existence (or other major debt) to being installed, supported or controlled by a more powerful entity, typically a foreign power. Such a government is also known as a puppet régime" From Wikipedia

Yeah, that's what I mean.

How could Bush have misled us if nobody can come up with the actual lie? The lie meme is so pathetic. The evidence is clear Saddam was harboring terrorists and training camps. He paid suicide bombers families $25,000 each. There is evidence that some of the weapons were moved to Syria. By going though the UN to impose sanctions allowed Saddam to move WMD around and destroy evidence.
Clearly, Saddam was the WMD and he's been bagged. Thank God our Troops went in and killed his trecherous Son's. The world is better off.

Salvelinus, cut warrior some slack, this administration has never used that term before, warrior only knows and does what his masters know and do

Salvelinus, bloviator, Shipley -

great posts.

Having a dialogue with members of the Bushian cult can certainly try one's patience. This is because their political ideology - if you can call it that - amounts to little more than worship of the Dear Leader. Kim Jong-Il himself would be jealous of such blind loyalty, driven by fear and fierce emotions that shun all countervailing reality.

The true Bushians have invested far too much of their fragile egos into faith-based Bush-love to ever admit his colossal mediocrity, studied ignorance of a complex world, and well-honed incompetence. To face up to the damage to our nation wrought by Bush's numerous misteps, misdeeds, misleadings, miscalculations, and misunderstandings, would be to shatter the Bushians entire emotional make-up. Taking childish pride in Bush and the ability of America to militarily obliterate third world countries is practically the only thing these toads have ever been able to be proud of.

You might be interested in this very insightful posting by Glenn Greenwald entitled Do Bush Followers Have a Political Ideology?"

Excerpts:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

We see the same thing happening to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich became a "liberal" the minute he refused to support John Bolton’s nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far -- they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law -- I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah, I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.

We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists. The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.

And the core emotions driving the Bush extremists are not hard to see. It is a driving rage and hatred – for liberals, for Muslims, for anyone who opposes George Bush. The rage and desire to destroy is palpable...

The rhetoric of Bush followers is routinely comprised of these sorts of sentiments dressed up in political language – accusations that domestic political opponents are subversives and traitors, that they ought to be imprisoned and hung, that we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations. These are not political sentiments, and they’re certainly not conservatives sentiments, but instead, are psychological desires finding a venting ground in a political movement.

It’s not an accident that Ann Coulter and her ongoing calls for violence against "liberals" (meaning anyone not in line behind George Bush) are so wildly popular among conservatives. It’s not some weird coincidence that the 5,000 people in attendance at the CPAC this last week erupted in "boisterous ovation" when she urged violence against "ragheads,’ nor is it an accident that her hateful, violence-inciting screeds -- accusing "liberals" of being not wrong, but "treasonous" -- become best-sellers. Ann Coulter has been advocating violence against liberals and other domestic political opponents for years, and she is a featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative events. Why would that be? It's because she is tapping into the primal, rather deranged rage which lies in the heart of many Bush followers. If that weren't driving the movement, she wouldn’t provoke the reactions and support that she does.

The combination here of rage and fear is potent and toxic. One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere -- with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought -- is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.

And what I hear, first and foremost, from these Bush following corners is this, in quite a shrieking tone: "Oh, my God - there are all of these evil people trying to kill us, George Bush is doing what he can to save us, and these liberals don’t even care!!! They’re on their side and they deserve the same fate!!!" It doesn’t even sound like political argument; it sounds like a form of highly emotional mass theater masquerading as political debate. It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.

Salvelinus, bloviator, Shipley -

great posts.

Having a dialogue with members of the Bushian cult can certainly try one's patience. This is because their political ideology - if you can call it that - amounts to little more than worship of the Dear Leader. Kim Jong-Il himself would be jealous of such blind loyalty, driven by fear and fierce emotions that shun all countervailing reality.

The true Bushians have invested far too much of their fragile egos into faith-based Bush-love to ever admit his colossal mediocrity, studied ignorance of a complex world, and well-honed incompetence. To face up to the damage to our nation wrought by Bush's numerous misteps, misdeeds, misleadings, miscalculations, and misunderstandings, would be to shatter the Bushians entire emotional make-up. Taking childish pride in Bush and the ability of America to militarily obliterate third world countries is practically the only thing these toads have ever been able to be proud of.

You might be interested in this very insightful posting by Glenn Greenwald entitled Do Bush Followers Have a Political Ideology?"

Excerpts:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

We see the same thing happening to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative." George Voinovich became a "liberal" the minute he refused to support John Bolton’s nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House.

People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far -- they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law -- I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah, I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.

We have heard for a long time that anger and other psychological and emotional factors drive the extreme elements on the Left, but that is (at least) equally true for the Bush extremists. The only difference happens to be that the Bush extremists control every major governmental institution in the country and the extremists on the Left control nothing other than the crusted agenda for the latest International A.N.S.W.E.R. meeting.

And the core emotions driving the Bush extremists are not hard to see. It is a driving rage and hatred – for liberals, for Muslims, for anyone who opposes George Bush. The rage and desire to destroy is palpable...

The rhetoric of Bush followers is routinely comprised of these sorts of sentiments dressed up in political language – accusations that domestic political opponents are subversives and traitors, that they ought to be imprisoned and hung, that we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations. These are not political sentiments, and they’re certainly not conservatives sentiments, but instead, are psychological desires finding a venting ground in a political movement.

It’s not an accident that Ann Coulter and her ongoing calls for violence against "liberals" (meaning anyone not in line behind George Bush) are so wildly popular among conservatives. It’s not some weird coincidence that the 5,000 people in attendance at the CPAC this last week erupted in "boisterous ovation" when she urged violence against "ragheads,’ nor is it an accident that her hateful, violence-inciting screeds -- accusing "liberals" of being not wrong, but "treasonous" -- become best-sellers. Ann Coulter has been advocating violence against liberals and other domestic political opponents for years, and she is a featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative events. Why would that be? It's because she is tapping into the primal, rather deranged rage which lies in the heart of many Bush followers. If that weren't driving the movement, she wouldn’t provoke the reactions and support that she does.

The combination here of rage and fear is potent and toxic. One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere -- with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought -- is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.

And what I hear, first and foremost, from these Bush following corners is this, in quite a shrieking tone: "Oh, my God - there are all of these evil people trying to kill us, George Bush is doing what he can to save us, and these liberals don’t even care!!! They’re on their side and they deserve the same fate!!!" It doesn’t even sound like political argument; it sounds like a form of highly emotional mass theater masquerading as political debate. It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.

axis,
thanks for looking up all the quotes. saved me the time.

mark,
you can parse it all you want. They said it, we remember it, and that is primarily why America has turned away from your party. keep parsing, and lets see just how low those numbers can go.

in response to the "myths", read this post:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/peddling-false-claims/

highlights:

FACT CHECK: Rove Deputy Peddling False Claims About Pre-War Iraq Intelligence

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Peter Wehner, Karl Rove’s deputy and the director of the White House’s Office of Strategic Initiatives, writes an op-ed attempting to debunk “antiwar myths.” The White House has been emailing the article to reporters this morning. Employing the same tactic that led the nation into war, the White House continues to use the media to peddle false claims in the hopes they will be accepted.

1) To rebut the “myth” that “The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war,” Wehner claims, “Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.”

FACT: Administration Created Stovepipes To Feed Politicized Intelligence. (see article for links to sources)

FACT: Administration Had Its Sights Set on War Regardless of Intelligence. (see article for links to sources)

2) To rebut the “myth” that “The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments,” Wehner claims, “This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.”

FACT: Roberts Blocking Phase II.

FACT: CIA Review Panel Found Analysts Were Subjected To Pressure.(see article for links to sources)

3) To rebut the “myth” that “Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren’t found, Saddam posed no threat,” Wehner states, “[W]hile we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.”

FACT: Charles Duelfer, the Administration’s Own Iraq Investigator, Found No Evidence That Saddam Posed an Immediate Threat.

4) To rebut the “myth” that “Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization,” Wehner states, “President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began,” citing an example from February 2003.

FACT: Major Iraq Speeches Failed To Mention Democracy.(namely the 2003 State of the Union, and the 2002 speech about Iraq given in Cincinatti.)

FACT: Bush Said Disarmament Was Mission In Iraq.
Bush, 3/6/03: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I’m confident we’ll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there’s risks in any military operation; I know that. But it’s very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won’t change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.”

Another post where we get to see the extent that the left has acquired BDS.

The original post was to comment on how the myths propogated by the left and echoed by the MSM have been proven to be wrong.

The left constantly claims that the only reason given for invading Iraq was the WMD. In fact, the Congressional Authorization for the use of Military Force against Iraq listed a miriad of reasons, including: Direct and flagrant violation of the 1991 cease-fire; Being in Material Breach of the 17 UN Resolutions; The discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; That in 1998, Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security; firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; attempting, in 1993, to assassinate former President Bush; Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; and to prevent additional acts of terrorism against the US and our interests.

Iraq did possess WMD. They had previously used WMD. The UN Weapons Inspectors discovered numerous instances of undeclared WMD. After the liberation of Iraq, Coalition forces have found quantities of WMD. WMD have been used against Coalition forces (Sarin).

As far as us conservatives blindly following President Bush, you cannot be farther from the truth. While we support his leadership in the Global War on Terrror, may wished he had acted earlier in causing regime change in Iraq. We do not agree with him not vetoing spending bills. We did not agree with one of his Supreme Court appointments. We believe that we need an even stronger stance against the invasion of illegal aliens.

Here's the bottom line: George Bush is our President. He will continue to be our President for 2 1/2 more years. He is leading us in the fight against Radical Islamist Terrorism. If not for his aggressive fight against terrorism, we would have probably been attacked again.

He has not illegally authorized "domestic spying". He has authorized the intercept of terrorist communications. He is not listening in on average American's conversations.

I would only hope that if there was a Democrat in the White House, that President would be doing the same things to help protect us from further attack.

The only thing the liberals are doing is encouraging the terrorists, because they perceive discord in America. If you liberals were truely patriotic, you would be supportive of the war on terror, regardless of who the President is. If you do not see the danger that Radical Islamist Terrorism presents, you need to visit Ground Zero and read the names of the 3,000 innocent Americans who died on September 11th, 2001. You can then thank the efforts of President Bush that there have been no additional 9/11's.

STRAW MAN ALERT! STRAW MAN ALERT!

"The left constantly claims that the only reason given for invading Iraq was the WMD."

No, the left claims that WMDs were the main reason for the war. That, without the threat of WMDs, the invasion would not have occurred.

I can't find one person who has claimed that WMDs was the ONLY reason given.

"The only thing the liberals are doing is encouraging the terrorists, because they perceive discord in America."

Ah, yes. Don't voice your dissent or unhappiness about the war because it will aid and comfort our enemies. I forgot, liberals=traitors.

(Rest of post deleted due to obscenity - come on, Tom, you're better than that)

I would like to see phase II of the report. It needs to be correct and not rushed to meet a political agenda. We do need to find out what happened. I'm highly skeptical we will find anything new. In any event, we will have to account for why government officials were saying much the same things prior to the Bush Administration taking office. Perhaps they all lied.

"Bush extremists control virtually every major governmental institution in the country." I don't think that is correct. The Seante can filibuster any thing they don't like among other things.

I don't think its fair to link Michelle Malkin with the Bush cultists. She has disagreed with the administration on a number of issues. Hugh Hewitt, you probably could label him in this catergory. The trick the Bush administration uses is to label those opposed to them as "unpatriotic, "anti-american", or something to this effect. Those opposed to the president label anyone who says anything in his defense as a "Bush cultist" or something to this effect. I do wish both sides would start working together to find real solutions instead of coming up with cathcy slogans to insult one another with.

Dav,

Uh, when you cherry pi