In the end, I am sure history will prove Bush's strategy to be the correct one.

Remember though, Matt, where the Left is concerned, history is a two-edged sword. When it doesn't turn out the way they want, they just re-write it. Look at all the revisionist history of the Clinton era.

I do think you're right, though. Those of us who know the truth are going to have it validated at some point, and what liberal historians write about it is not going to change that. And if Bush's goals for a democratic Middle East are eventually realized, that's going to be pretty hard to spin in a negative way.

And if Bush's goals for a democratic Middle East are eventually realized, that's going to be pretty hard to spin in a negative way.

Posted by: Retired Spook at August 29, 2006 10:42 AM

How exactly is this going to happen? Will the countries of the Middle East willingly fall into the democratic family of their own accord, or is this something the U.S. will have to do with numerous 'shock & awe' missions?

Frankly, I'm a little scared that there seems to be so much faith in Bush's strategy among some at this point.

We're taking a Western model and trying to make Iraq fit it... and we're not leaving until they do!

I mean, it doesn't seem to be working. Without the US in their to prop up the government, it wouldn't be standing.

The problem the way I see it is that Bush and his supporters are so tied to this "spreading democracy throughout the middle east" line -- because it's the only way the Iraq invasion will be validated -- that it's the only outcome they will accept. Iraq is far, far way from a stand-alone democracy. And it's nothing inherent about Iraqis that they can't or don't want a democracy, it's just that forcing "freedom" on people is a contradictary concept, and we're seeing how that plays out right now.

We're pretty much in an impossible situation. Stuck between forcing a country into our style of government or leaving it to bloody and violent transformation into something we have no control over.

I continue to be amazed at the lack of patience in matters of such a magnitude. It takes a long time to undue years of uncivility. I recall something Tom Brokaw said right after 9/11. He said that for America to succeed in the war on terror it had to have 3 powers. 1) Fire Power, 2) Will Power and 3) Staying Power. He couldn't have been more right and every day we see more attempts to chip away at 2 and 3.

Tom,

The only thing wrong with your views of Iraq is that they are in absolute contradiction with what is going on there...it really amazes me that you can be that willfully mis-informed about Iraq.

I'm sure you are amazed, Mark.

BTW, ready to admit you were wrong on WMDs being the main reason for the invasion yet?

"It takes a long time to undue years of uncivility."

Is this like when you break up with your girlfriend? It takes twice the amount of time you were dating to get over her?

So, by that equation, we'll only have to be there 4,000 years.

The problem in Iraq is that Bush's premise was wrong from the start. We're f*cked now because of it. Why should we listen to him or those who have backed this war to begin with when they've been so consistantly wrong?

Basically all you guys have to say now is trust us, it will work out in the end. Well, you know, there is no reason to trust you.

Sooner the neo-cons are out of the white house, the sooner we can get a real, pragmatic approach this this cluster-f*ck.

It is unfortunate you see things that way Tom, but of course you are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how in such a foul manner you present it. Ultimately, whether you trust this administration's decisions or not, truth will win out.

I find it quite funny though that the left is all of a sudden the torchbearer of trust.

Incidentally, it didn't take me that long to get over my ex-girlfriend. As for the 4,000 years, I doubt it and if it did take that long, then I guess the decision to do it was right as there would have been plenty of administrations between now and then that stayed the course. Why? Because they knew the truth and didn't waver like your foul mouthed name calling crowd would have it.

maybe if we look at FACTS Tom has some points. We will be greeted as liborators and pelted with roses. We only need 120,000 troops and fire the general who says we need more... it will only cost 80 billion.....Mission accomplished.... etc....etc.... etc..

Ever a strong Republician as Shay of Connecticut is now calling for a withdrawal plan.....

Trust in "stay the course" is losing ground daily and by Nov is that is all the CONs have to offer they will lose not only the House but the Senate also

I wish we could argue FACTS but each time we do, you get cornered, have nothing to substantiate your ridiculous claims, and the discussion turns into a character assination. But hey, don't take my word for it, just look at history and how you guys deal with adversity.

If the so-called CONS win the House and Senate in November, I predict an unprecedented frenzy of voter fraud allegations. That is the way you guys cope with losing because your ideas are on the wrong side of history and when chased to their logical end, are a disaster.

I wish we could argue FACTS but each time we do, you get cornered, have nothing to substantiate your ridiculous claims, and the discussion turns into a character assination. But hey, don't take my word for it, just look at history and how you guys deal with adversity.

If the so-called CONS win the House and Senate in November, I predict an unprecedented frenzy of voter fraud allegations. That is the way you guys cope with losing because your ideas are on the wrong side of history and when chased to their logical end, are a disaster.

Tom,

Why would I admit that? I've got the Congressional resolution for liberating Iraq which says that WMD's were not the main reason for liberating Iraq.

Oh, I know - off the cuff at a presser the President put together those words, but he and I and even you know that it wasn't actually the case...he was making a point, and you're trying to make it in to some sort of confession.

So you and Bush are inagreement that WMDs were not the main reason for the war... despite the fact that Bush said they were.

Geez, and you accuse me of not being able to admit when I'm wrong.

Bush came out and said WMDs were the main reason for the invasion. But according to you, he didn't really mean that? Is that what you're saying? Or is it the context that betray his words, they were spoken at a -- GASP -- press conference after all. We all know that anything said at one of those shouldn't be taken seriously. Their only purpose is to convey information, after all.

Give me a break.

By the way, Mark, the congressional resolution was passed to give the president the authority to invade if he deemed it necessary. And he did -- because of WMDs.

Which by the way, were found.
(see http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)

But since they knew that the short sighted and myopic media AND those that will never understand the bigger picture would call for immediate withdrawl while raising their own "Mission Accomplished" banner, they opted to continue rooting out the bad guys and using each success not as a victory cry (even though we at home yearned to hear all about them) but instead, intelligence to find the next group of bad guys, their plans and their weapons.

Keep up the WMD argument though, it reminds us all that your arguments are based on a big bag of nothing and hatred.

Heh...

Those were old, pre-war WMDs that were degraded and NOT the WMDs cited by Bush and company in the drive for war:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Even Bush admitted this last week...

"The main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't."

Try again...

"He didn't have them." OK, I will trust you on that quote, but if that is the exact quote, then I am fine with that. "We didn't find them or He didn't have them" does NOT mean they weren't there.

What then do you do with ALL of the testimonies that state the WMD's were moved to Syria? I was going to post them for you, but you can google WMD and Syria just as easy as the rest of us. Of course you will find a few articles in that search that say they can't find evidence that they were moved to Syria (the first out of the gate is from CNN - any surprise?).

It is actually this simple. If your intelligence tells you that something is there, and you are on this side of 9/11 and understand the unbelievable hatred they have for us and what they would love to do to us, you develop a conviction to eliminate that ability. The days of playing patty cake with the enemy ended on 9/11.

NONE of us on this blog have access to the intelligence that this administration does so the fact that there are significantly more news articles stating SOMETHING was there as opposed to the contrary has to make even the most myopic want to get to the truth.

You guys are allowing your hatred to eliminate your ability to rationally look at this issue and error on the side of our safety. The President knew that there was a chance that regardless of the enormity of intelligence [that said there was something there] that the weapons would either be moved or destroyed, fair enough. But better to act than just hope.

Voice,

Our own government investigated the lack of WMDs in Iraq and concluded that both Iraq's WMD program and nuclear program WERE NOT ACTIVE following the 1992 invasion.

The US knew that at least 90-95% of the Iraq's WMDs were destroyed after the Gulf war. Some obviously remained, but were so degraded that they weren't able to perform as they were made to.

They found those so-called mobile chemical labs and found they had nothing to do with the manufacturering of chemical weapons. The tubes they say were bought for nuclear purposes were in fact not.

Rumsfeld said he knew where stockpiles of WMDs were. Well, if he did

A) Why didn't we find them after the invasion.

B) Why didn't we moniter them to make sure they weren't moved.

Bush said: HE DID NOT HAVE THEM.

In light of all the facts, you guys still claim he had them... clinging to this Syria theory. Hell, maybe he did, but considering we concluded his WMD and nuke programs were not active, that we said we KNEW where they were but did not monitor them or find them, and found out that what we claimed were WMD labs were not and, again, Bush said it turns out he did not have (WMDs), I'd say -- based on facts -- he didn't have them.

You can hold on to your Syria theory, but there really has not been very solid on that.

All signs point to no WMDs.

And for sure WMDs were the main reason for the invasion.

Voice,

Our own government investigated the lack of WMDs in Iraq and concluded that both Iraq's WMD program and nuclear program WERE NOT ACTIVE following the 1992 invasion.

The US knew that at least 90-95% of the Iraq's WMDs were destroyed after the Gulf war. Some obviously remained, but were so degraded that they weren't able to perform as they were made to.

They found those so-called mobile chemical labs and found they had nothing to do with the manufacturering of chemical weapons. The tubes they say were bought for nuclear purposes were in fact not.

Rumsfeld said he knew where stockpiles of WMDs were. Well, if he did

A) Why didn't we find them after the invasion.

B) Why didn't we moniter them to make sure they weren't moved.

Bush said: HE DID NOT HAVE THEM.

In light of all the facts, you guys still claim he had them... clinging to this Syria theory. Hell, maybe he did, but considering we concluded his WMD and nuke programs were not active, that we said we KNEW where they were but did not monitor them or find them, and found out that what we claimed were WMD labs were not and, again, Bush said it turns out he did not have (WMDs), I'd say -- based on facts -- he didn't have them.

You can hold on to your Syria theory, but there really has not been very solid on that.

All signs point to no WMDs.

And for sure WMDs were the main reason for the invasion.

maybe if we look at FACTS Tom has some points. We will be greeted as liborators and pelted with roses.

We actually were you head in the sand ignoramous!!!Were you there? Were you? I didn't think so!!! Oh yah, you forgot the kisses from the masses(men & women & children), you dispute this??? On what evidence or experience?

We only need 120,000 troops and fire the general who says we need more...

There has yet to be a civil war bro, the trouble makers are "terrorist", of whom manage to stir " a little" sectarian violence between the people!!!You don't get it do you, If they(the Iraqi's) wanted civil war or war on Americans it would literally litter your precious headlines with blood & violence!!! As it is, what you see daily is a pimple on Iraqs arse! They & WE will succeed, you wait and see, you defeatists!

it will only cost 80 billion.....

You & I and anyone else could never know the cost, in lives, in friends & allies, In civilian casualties, and the least of any, in money! If that is so Gosh darn important to you, then take the money and run, we don't need your stinking money!!! Loser!

Mission accomplished....

That specific mission was accomplished you wretched civilian no-military knowledge freak show lib. We ran through that country like it was jello! No one put up a fight(what a concept, I thought they didn't like us Americans). And when we reached Baghdad, they(Iraqis) helped us topple Saddaam statues, and helped us spray paint his palaces, and etc. etc. etc. Get the point? Did you miss all this in the news? You must have been golfing that day! Cool, I'm O.K. with that, but let the "MEN" do all the dirty work will ya!!!

etc....etc.... etc..

Ever a strong Republician as Shay of Connecticut is now calling for a withdrawal plan.....

Trust in "stay the course" is losing ground daily and by Nov is that is all the CONs have to offer they will lose not only the House but the Senate also

Keep golfing & dreaming Ohio, It will ease your pain come November! LOL!

Posted by: OhioGolfer at August 29, 2006 01:26 PM

From A california golfer to an ohio golfer, talk to some friggin soldiers that have spent ten+ minutes in Iraq and you will have a much better idea of facts & truth! As it is I hate to say it, but you really don't know sh.. about the truth & facts on the ground in Iraq!

Tom, hate to see you all worked up like this man! It' just not like you! That's my job!LOL! (Sarcasm off). Get a clue Ship, WMD's were your tell all justfication! For those of us who weren't living in our own little world and dealing with Sodamn Insane for the last twelve years, that was just the tip of our iceberg pal! You know, the stories about starving children and people in paper shredders & women in rape rooms on top of the fact that he had already used WMD on REAL people, invaded two other countries, wanted to anihilate Israel, was paying the families of suicide bombers, Tried to assasinate our president(you don't think only Georgy takes that seriously do ya), etc. etc. etc. as the golfer said! Sorry my man, WMD's just pushed us over the edge!

Hey Ohio, hope I didn't offend you! I get worked up on the Iraq issue! Course you would too if your family was directly in dangers way, so you wouldn't have to be!

Bush's "Strategic Vision" In The Middle East "Is The Best One" For America

Agreed wholeheartedly! Freedom and democracy are the long-term solutions to Islamic terrorism.

BTW, Iraqi Kurds have been practicing democracy for a decade, now. It can be done! It is being done.
:)

BearmanUSMC

No you did not upset me exeept in one way. Please note I was a USAF Weapons Officer leaving service after 5 years as Captain and served in SEA 11/67-11/68 So your "you wretched civilian no-military knowledge freak show lib" comment did offend and upset me. We can have diffentent views and opinions and political outlooks but there is no need for personal attacks.. I have always tried to advoid such and hope you would too

Hit them down the center and long...

By Election Day, how many Republican candidates will have come out against the Iraq war or distanced themselves from administration policies?

this is the lead paragraph from E . J . DIONNE column is the Columbus Dispatch today... the entire column can be found at

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/30/20060830-A9-01.html

Seems like Shay (CT) was only the first of many deserting the "stay the course' Iraq plan. Will changing to the (as you neocons call it) defeatist side help the republicans win?? I hope not,, but is their change is heartfelt all the bettr if in fact they do happen to win in NOV.

Voice of Reason..

Just a question... you said.."and the discussion turns into a character assination" Please look at BearmanUSMC post of Aug 29 11:13 and tell me that your side does not engage is the same!!!!

Voice of Treason

How dare you spew your liberal pap on this honorable blog. I don't know how you sleep at night with your hatred of America.

Buy a clue, get your head out of your butt and join the world of reality. Either that, or keep your scummy postings to Kos.

BearmanUSMC

No you did not upset me exeept in one way. Please note I was a USAF Weapons Officer leaving service after 5 years as Captain and served in SEA 11/67-11/68 So your "you wretched civilian no-military knowledge freak show lib" comment did offend and upset me. We can have diffentent views and opinions and political outlooks but there is no need for personal attacks.. I have always tried to advoid such and hope you would too

Hit them down the center and long...

Posted by: OhioGolfer at August 30, 2006 08:40 AM

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

I do apologise for my generalization Ohio Golfer! I find that 99.99% of the time, those sharing your general viewpoint have zero military experience! Again, I apologise! But, take it from a man who is in close touch with many current soldiers on the ground, not to mention my younger brothers 2 tours in Iraq & 1 in Afghanistan! You and I are getting an EXTREMELY lopsided view of the war through the MSM! And even I, a strong proponent of this war am war-wearied, as is a large percentage of the population in the U.S.! Please do not be misled into thinking all these people are against this war/ or ready to cut & run. That would be foolhardy & I would bet a game of golf that come November the Democratic party will be ever so suprised!

Voice of Reason..

Just a question... you said.."and the discussion turns into a character assination" Please look at BearmanUSMC post of Aug 29 11:13 and tell me that your side does not engage is the same!!!!

Posted by: OhioGolfer at August 30, 2006 12:20 PM

But things would be so boring around here if we left it all up to you CIVIL types! Have some fun boyz, passion is not a bad things & we can't all have %100 self control like you!!!

Unfortunately I can't speak for bearmanUSMC and certainly he is having fun expressing his passion. No big deal. We can certainly get riled up when digging in and expressing our opinions, which is really probably the funniest part of it, we are all passionate about what we believe to be the truth, and probably a bit myopic all at the same time, on both sides. I just prefer civil discussion, it is my style and seems to do a better job of drawing out a dialogue that stays above board.

I certainly hope Conservative to the Core doesn't think that what I have to say is liberal pap...or maybe I didn't see the sarcasm.

I am done with this topic and will let time tell the truth about all matters cussed and discussed.

BearmanUSMC

Your on,... my index is 19.2 If Dems will I name the course,,, Rep win you name it

voiceofreason
Where do get the idea that those opposed to this war are full of hatred?

As for your Fox report, I'm sure you believe Fox is fair and balanced, of course you do, they support Bush and the Republican as much as they can. Looking at this pdf document there are a few things to point out.

1. The fax is directed to Pete Hoekstra
http://hoekstra.house.gov/Biography/
"Pete was originally sworn in to the 103rd Congress in 1993. He then served a key role in the development of the Contract with America, which was instrumental in gaining a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years."

2.The fax is from John Negroponte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte
"Despite having no prior experience in the intelligence community, President Bush named Ambassador Negroponte as the first Director of National Intelligence in 2005."

3.Negroponte starts out thanking Hoekstra for requesting the "Key Points" be declassified. The stated purpose of the report is an unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered since May 2004. The first key point covers the 500 degraded munitions recovered since 2003, this was the only key point regarding recovered munitions.

4.The final "key point" is "-It has been reported in the open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons." It's a good thing they declassified this, people need to know what the open press reports!

5.In a June 14th debate Senate Democrats said no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. On June 19th Hoekstra writes to Negroponte requesting the document be declassified. June 21st the declassified document is faxed. June 22nd Fox reports WMD found, and Democrats were wrong. Four days to get a document declassified and on the news, that's fast!

The time table involved has politics written all over it. Don't forget Bush appointed Negroponte, a fellow bones-man from Yale, who was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal with Bush Sr., as Director of Intelligence with NO prior experience.