Winning In Iraq

Continued good news out of Iraq. What's a liberal to do? Boo-freaking-hoo, that's what. Bob, Chris? Feel free to weigh in for the whatever percentage of losers you represent, now. Powerline has more, including graphs.

About 75% of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now secure, a dramatic increase from 8% a year ago when President Bush ordered more troops to the capital, U.S. military figures show.

If the blight on our democracy that is progressivism had prevailed, once again, America would have lost. But then, that's precisely what Progressives want.

Comments

[chris]

I am not the only one that is impressed. So is Wall St. They have concluded that the Decider can rescue the economy and that all of that money 'spent' on Iraq was well worth it. I am now off to turn on Fox so that I can learn of more 'good news'.

[JustOneMan]

Only 75%...gee how come its not 125%....

Lefty Louie

[Yoda]

"It is still not too late to throw away this victory" -- Harry Reid

"Defeat is still within our grasp" -- Nancy Pelosi

[IslamoLlama]

"If the blight on our democracy that is progressivism had prevailed, once again, America would have lost. But then, that's precisely what Progressives want."

Yeah! Now we can finally find those WMDs! Oh, wait, we're not talking about those anymore. How about the 2 million refugees? Syrian collaborators and Iranian sympathizers then? Ok. Maybe we can get that de-Bathification law passed. No - not the one they're trying to pass, the one that the Sunnis are violently opposed to - but a good one. Or maybe the oil bill? No, nothing?

Well, at least giving guns to former insurgents has quelled the violence in the immediate short run. Why, casaulties are down to 2005 levels! That's no worse than two years after we invaded! If you can't call "Not as bad as the worst violence seen in Bagdad since Hussien first came to power" progress, I don't know what your benchmark of progress is.

Bonus points if you don't mind spending $10 billion a month for the John McCain estimate of 100 years.

Horray for Victory!

... ... ... ... ... why isn't the rest of America cheering?

[Worst President Ever]

When this all started, success was destroying all the WMDs, streeets filled with cheering Iraqis, Iraqi oil revenues paying for the war, oil at $20 a barrel, Democracy in Iraq. a new Middle East, etc.

Now success is getting violence back to 2005 levels.

Talk about lowering the bar.

Thomas Ricks says:

I think Iraqis recognize that large parts of Baghdad are more peaceful than they were, but violence is basically back to 2005 levels. And that was no picnic, 2005. It’s just 2006 was pure hell.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Why is it that libs don't want Iraq to be a democracy? Do they hate George Bush so much that they'd rather see more Iraqis die and the country stay in turmoil than to have a peaceful democracy?

[Worst President Ever]

BS. Iraqis have to want their country to be a democracy, and they're not doing anything to get there.

[susieq2cute]

Yes, they are, dimwit WPE! More Iraqis are stepping up to the plate. They're turning in Al Qaeda right and left. Get you head out of your backside and read what's happening. You're just a loser lib. You wanted us to lose in the first place. It must be galling to realize that is not happening.

[Terry Gain]

That's telling him susieq2cute. WorstCommenterEver is too stupid to get it-more Iraqis soldiers are now being killed fighting al Qaeda than American soldiers. These people don't read. They just spout uninformed Democrat talking points. And they can't read a graph.

[Worst President Ever]

The dimwits were the people that believe in WMDS, connection to 9/11, the Al Qaeda was in Iraq, we'd be greeted as heroes, oil would pay for the war, and Mission Accomplished. Remember that one?

Everyone who believed that stuff, raise your hand, please.

Building democracy in a country that wouldn't exist except for the Brits is a bit more complicated than reading a graph. But hey, it's only costing us a couple $$trillion.

And I thought it was conservatives who were against nation-building.

[ET]

Ah. The moment we have all been waiting for. chrisboobs, islamania, worstposterever...One year ago you assured us that the SURGE would fail! Now that you have been proven dead wrong, you revert to the non-sequitors - WMD's! refugees! oil!

Here is a simple statement of fact - you said we should not increase troop presence in Iraq because it would likely INCREASE the level of violence and expand the 'civil war'. You were wrong. Period. The fact that you won't admit it make you a useless hack, unworthy of attention. Crawl back under your rock(s).

If we had followed the advice of the collective boobs and their fearful leaders, the middle east would be ablaze today. Thanks God for the steadfast leadership of George W. Bush.

LIBERALS SUCK

[southdakotaboy]

OK WPE even if we were to concede to all the points that you raised about going into Iraq ,not that I am but for the sake of argument, the question then becomes why now that we are already there does the left wing in the country want to lose? Why, when we are in charge of Iraq doesn't the left want to turn what was once a dictatorship into a shining example of a free, secular, democratic Arab state? Why don't they want to show how much better they are at building things? Why don't they want to show how much of a better job they can do. At this point the Dems are still stuck with being weak on national defense they could simply back our troops and reap the rewards, but instead they seem almost pathologically bent on losing to the terrorists and replaying the image of the last chopper out.
I'm sure all I will get is the same old rants but maybe someone will suprise me.

[capitalist infidel]

is anyone else as disgusted by "worst president ever's" vile racism? to libs those brown people are too stupid to govern themselves.

[Yoda]

"violence is basically back to 2005 levels"

Which is to say, less than the rate that Saddam was filling mass graves...

[Worst President Ever]

First, we didn't go to Iraq to build a democracy. We went because the Bush Administration claimed Saddam had WMDs that he wanted to unleash on the US. Bush claimed the right to pre-emptive war because he claimed Iraq was a threat to us, it wasn't pre-emptive war to build a democracy.

It ain't the damn lefties that want out, it's the American Public. Apparently they've lost faith after 5 years of war and unending promises of Victory Real Soon Now.

No, I never said anything about troop levels. It was Shineski that said we needed 300,000 troops to control the country. It was Rumsfeld and Bush that said he was wrong.

We did what we set out to do: Saddam's gone, there's no WMDs. Now it's just mission creep. And there's never going to be anybody to sign a peace treaty with.

We also can't afford it. It's sucking the army dry and busting the budget.

Again, I though conservatives were against nation-building.

[Worst President Ever]

Racist? Hardly.

The Iraqis want a democracy? Fine, but after five years, we've done enough. If they want it, they can do fight for it themselves. Our founding fathers certainly faced tougher odss.

The Iraqis don't need ant more of my tax dollars to pay for it.

[BobInStamford]

Iraq will never attack us again. God's stuttering servant has made sure of that.

Amen, patriots!

[marc]

wpe - "First, we didn't go to Iraq to build a democracy. We went because the Bush Administration claimed Saddam had WMDs that he wanted to unleash on the US. Bush claimed the right to pre-emptive war because he claimed Iraq was a threat to us, it wasn't pre-emptive war to build a democracy."

I was content to sit back and enjoy rereading every lefty-loon spew the normal tripe, but REALLY wpe, get a new script writer.

Even the DKos Kiddies, the Media Splatters nutjobs and MorOn.org fanatics have conceded Bush AND Congress approved the war on a double digit list of valid reasons contained in the authorization Shllary first approved of then didn't. Only one of which was WMDs, and surprise... surprise another one was the establishment of democracy in Iraq.

I'd tell you to go look it up, however someone that shows so little imagination and next to no intellectual honesty would never do so.

Asshat.

P.S. care to ask all the American citizens that visited Israel during Saddam's reign of terror, that included 25 then 35 thousand dollar payments to suicide bombers families they were never threatened to be blown to smithereens at a moments notice.

Nitwit.

[capitalist infidel]

marc, WPE is a disgusting and vile bigot!

[Worst President Ever]

Hey marc: Nitwit, so erudite of you. Your understanding of recent history seems a bit lacking though. My guess is you were glued to Fox News. To help you understand what happened, here's some reading for you, all straight from your Beloved Leader - George W. Bush. here's your test: Match what President Bush said with what we found in Iraq, then score him for accuracy.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

...

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

...

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

[marc]

WPE- "Match what President Bush said with what we found in Iraq, then score him for accuracy."

Did your head spin from shuttling those goalposts so far down the road?

I had no dispute with the lack of WMD's in Iraq. Although you should know I DO BELIEVE at some point they will be found at some level in Syria.

No nitwit, you very plainly stated the war was never based on turning Iraq into a democracy. For that reason, among many others I feel confident in thinking, you are a disingenuous, idiotic hack who wouldn't recognize the truth if faced with it and if you did would deny it 'til your pathetic little brain whithered and died. (assuming that hasn't happened).

Now dickweed this is the reality you will NEVER comprehend:

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq of October 2002 was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by Bush.

Read this section and cry like the whimpering little twerp you are:

QUOTE

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime AND PROMOTE THE EMERGENCE OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT TO REPLACE THAT REGIME."

UNQUOTE

And just to rub salt into your sorry ass, Public Law 105-338 was what your most likely hero Slick Willie Clinton signed into law.

P.S. asswipe, what about those thousands of U.S. citizens visiting Israel Saddam directly threatened by providing cash to the jihadist-cut-throats in Palestine?

Ain't got much of relevance to say about that either do ya? Now carry your sorry despicable ass back to more friendly confines like DKos of MorOn.org.

[Worst President Ever]

You're a real class act Marc: Nitwit, twerp, Dickweed, dimwit, asswipe. All the words in the English language and the best you can do is a bunch of 3rd grade insults.

No, the humanitarian argument was never the basis for war, It was Iraq's got WMDs and is going to supply terrorist with them. You need to reread Bush's speeches and Colin Powell's UN presentation. They were all 99% WMDs and fear, and 1% Democracy to Iraq.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, marc, that may shut up this individual, but I doubt it. BDS seems to an incurable disease. Worst BDS Case Ever, this is just a small sample:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

Find many more here: http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Read them, study them. let them seep into your fevered brain. Then try to help heal yourself of this chronic and acute BDS by keeping your lying mouth shut.

Boob/Mr christamfordmum, you too could benefit from this advice. But you never have before, have you? 2+2=5. Keep saying it over and over. That is the way to convince your fellow man.

[Fred Beloit]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Is this man a liar too?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg

[Fred Beloit]

More here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/05/25/who_thought_iraq_had_wmd_most_everybody

[marc]

WPE - "You're a real class act Marc:" Why thank you, glad you noticed! However, how is that different then you as seen in ? ("The dimwits were the people that believe in WMDS)

WPE - "No, the humanitarian argument was never the basis for war,"

Just as I figured, your response to facing a reality of staring your lunacy in the face results in a cranium spinning faster than a Tasmanian Devil.

WPE - "They were all 99% WMDs and fear, and 1% Democracy to Iraq."

Sorry guy, whether the emphasis was 99% WMD's or something else fails to change the fact you were not only wrong, but pathetically wrong and a master at revisionist history.

But... but... but, you claimed it never occurred. Now you claim it was "1% Democracy to Iraq."

Excuse me while I put on a display of being a "class act," you "sir" are a duplicitous lunatic who takes great pride in using your sphincter muscle as a necklace. In addition to being a USDA Prime Choice A-Hole.

[Worst President Ever]

That's better Marc - your almost up to Junior High Level.

Here's Bush's last major address before the war - the speech where he gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of Dodge. Seach for democracy, you'll get 0 hits. But lotsof stuff about WMDs, terrorists, 9/11. Gee, it it was the reason we went to war, I wonder why he neglected to mention it? Care to comment on that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Ah, cherry-picked quotes without finishing what the person said. Most of those quotes are addressed here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Bottom Line: Tt's Bush's War. He's the one that pushed the issue and ignored any intelligence that told him Saddam wasn't a threat, that he didn't need 300,000 troops, etc. His administration then turned the invasion into a parade of incompetent actions with the end result that five years later we're still there.

Don't blame me, most of the Republicans can't bring themselves to utter his name in public. Reagan, yes - Bush, no. Even Karl Rove didn't mention him in his speech last week. Gee, I wonder why that is?

[Fred Beloit]

Worst, you willful, and deceitful boy, what did you imagine would happen, what did anyone with half a brain imagine, that the U.S. military would do after defeating Iraq? Run to the airport and debark for Kansas? Of course their had to be an occupation after the war. If the U.S. would have installed a dictator, you would have screamed your head off that we should have been installing a democracy.

Now I know you are not a nitwit, jerk, moron, or numb skull. No. What you are is a lousy, stinking liar and propagandist.

[marc]

WPE - "That's better Marc - your almost up to Junior High Level."

Which places me about 10 grades above you.

[marc]

Oh and while I'm here...

Bottom Line: It was Clinton's War. He's the one that pushed the issue, along with Albright, and ignored any intelligence that told him Kosovo didn't contain 10's of thousands of people in mass graves (i.e. He lied), that it had ZERO strategic or tactical value to the U.S. And his intel service was too hot either after they directed him to target the Chinese embassy instead of the legal and valid target. Can you Spell WAR CRIME?

His administration then turned the invasion into a parade of incompetent actions by turning the place over to the U.N. who still haven't had the competence to hold a national election of consequence and has not formed a functioning government. AND we're still there.

Can you spell QUAGMIRE?

[Worst President Ever]

Touche Marc, I'm SOOO wounded. But I didn't get your thoughts on why President Bush didn't mention democracy in his last speech before the war started. He certainly seeemed pre-occupied with WMDs. Perhaps that's why.

Marc considers Kosovo a quagmire and Iraq a booming success. Talk about heads spinning.

Deceit would be twisting someone's position by posting partial quotes that say pretty much the opposite of what the person really meant. Bring anyone to mind, Fred?

I guess you missed it when we were told the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, oil would pay for the war, and the price of oil would drop to $20 a barrel. Of course, that was as on target as the whole "Saddam's got WMDs" thin. I missed the part telling us about a five year occupation with no peace in sight and $2 trillion of taxpayers money spent.

One more time - I thought it was conservatives that were against nation building.

[Fred Beloit]

"Bring anyone to mind, Fred?"

Other than you? No, no I can't.

[Worst President Ever]

Here's a little clarification on one of deceitful use of Hllary's quote. First, what you conveniently cherry-picked:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

********************
Here's what she goes on to say - it's pretty obvious why you left the rest out.

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

[Fred Beloit]

You are the one with a highly selective memory. You are a quote snipper. Have at thee varlet.

4/21/04

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

[Fred Beloit]

Hillary would, like you, have been unhappy no matter what happened in the aftermath.

[Fred Beloit]

Here is an interesting video of Hillary and the pinkos. She listens politely to their rant, at about 6:30 mins in she defends her views on the Iraq situation (wishes there was another way besides going it alone militarily but doesn't see one). Around 11:30 in when the pinkos get tough Hillery gets going, going to war with the anti-war ladies before hastily beating a retreat over the congressional horizon. You can't watch this, worst, and tell me she opposed the war at this point. Get real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

[rwilymz]

"Iraqis have to want their country to be a democracy, and they're not doing anything to get there."

Unfortunately, the dingleberry has a valid point with this.

"Democracy" and "Arabist culture" are not terms that generally occur in the same paragraph together, let alone the same sentence, unless you innoculate them both with quotation marks. Something about matter and anti-matter not being able to exist in the same space. Their concept of "democracy" is about the same as in most parts of Africa and most parts of Asia: "Vote for me or I shoot you." In order to make that distinction more clear, there's typically only one name on the ballot.

...and no, "turning in al Qaida" or other insurgents is not the same as wanting democracy. It's only necessarily an indication that they're tired of getting shot at by ruffians.

Let's put it this way: Iraqis want democracy in about the same way any young teenager wants independence from his parents. He doesn't like being "bossed around" to clean up his room and mow the lawn, but he also doesn't want to have to work for a living in order to hire the maid and the lawn service, either.

Participating in a democracy is hard work, and it requires fairly substantial participation by its citizenry, not to mention maturity. It's even doubtful that we here are capable of sustaining democracy. For we have folks who refuse to either learn a subject in more depth than is needed in order to make this type of idiotic comment:

=================
The dimwits were the people that believe in WMDS, connection to 9/11, the Al Qaeda was in Iraq, we'd be greeted as heroes, oil would pay for the war, and Mission Accomplished.
=================

The answer ain't gonna change just because you want to crow in ignorance *one *more *time: 6,500 chemical artillery shells were found by the UN between 92 and 98, were stored in Iraqi warehouses when the UN left in late 98, and in 02 when the UN went back in, they were gone. What happened to them? Powell gave the US theory -- stated in absolute terms [we "know" rather than we "think"] -- and it is still the most plausible explanation.

The 9-11 connection was dreamed up by the anti-war faction, pretty much out of whole cloth. If you're going to call anti-war weenies 'dimwits' then at least that's accurate.

There are al Qaida-lite groups in a third of the countries in the world, and there was one in Iraq in '03.

The war was over in 7 weeks.

"First, we didn't go to Iraq to build a democracy."

We went for any number of reasons, that being just one.

Just like we went because of cease fire violations.
...and Hussein's humanitarian outrages.
...and because Iraq financed pan-islamist paramilitancy.
...and ...and ...and.

Which brings up yet another fallacy typical of the anti-war dimwits: when the stated foundation for having a war was several things from the begining, and they can only hold one of them in their heads at a time, so spend their extremely limited intellectual capital accusing people of changing their reason when it's simply that anti-war weenies are small-minded drips who get confused easily.

"Now it's just mission creep. And there's never going to be anybody to sign a peace treaty with."

Mission creep: Like MADD, perhaps?
No one to treaty with: is that truly a bad thing?

"We also can't afford it. It's ...busting the budget."

Here's the thing: we can afford it better than they can.

"One more time - I thought it was conservatives that were against nation building."

Why would you think that?

"Nation-building" is a long-established policy of powerful nations, period, owing no greater or lesser affinity to one tepid political philosophy than another. Liberals love nation-building -- they did it for Kosovo and Bosnia, and want to do it in Sudan -- and conservatives also love it, as you note, in Iraq. And that's just this last generation. Crack a history book and find many more examples. American, European post-colonial-era, medieval, classical...

The major difference is that liberals of this past generation talk about nation-building in reference to nations which have little to no material benefit to US interests. What do we gain by meddling in Sudan? by picking sides between "Badguy A" and "Badguy B"? And they're both badguys. You've got a group of revolutionaries who trade in slaves and use women and children as soldiers, up against a feeble and corrupt government who hires squatters as the quasi National Guard to put down revolutions by any means necessary.

What do we get? Besides an African Vietnam? [By the way: Vietnam was a "vietnam" to us because we had no US interests at stake. We were trying to simultaneously make nice for France and patch up the FDR faux pas, and implement the Dulles brain-fart of "domino theory".]

What we get in Iraq is one fewer state-sponsor of "terrorist" groups. [Actually, we get three fewer, since Libya and Yemen dropped out almost immediately upon the invasion. Because, like it or not, using force to punctuate your rhetoric has the effect of telling potential enemies "no shit, guys, we're fucking serious about this."]

With fewer state-sponsors of "terrorism", there are just as many "terrorists" but not as many dollars to keep them armed, fed and paid.

What did the Roman Legions do in the 4th century when Rome could no longer meet payroll? They joined the opposition.

Basic macro-economics: we can afford it better than they can. Iran is now the major money behind pan-islamist paramilitarism. Follow the bouncing ball.

I can still remember, as if it were just 5 years ago, how the bulk of the anti-war weenies were whimpering and whining about how we should go after Iran, the "real enemy", and leave the feeble and self-caricatured Hussein alone. Well, now that Iraq is edging closer to entropic finality and Iran is getting nearer on the horizon, the anti-war weenies are changing their tune ... yet again. Just like they have every few months since late '02.

And now Iran is just a misunderstood "developing economy" who needs nuclear power because it has no, like, *petroleum* or anything. Just pay no attention to the fascist theocrats behind the curtain...

[Worst President Ever]

The CIA says now WMDs. Perhaps you should write them:

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

****
President Bush says we went to Iraq mainly for WMDs and we found out he didn't.

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—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..

[marc]

WPE - "President Bush says we went to Iraq mainly for WMDs and we found out he didn't."

Oh, look at that, WPE has changed his tune, when first commenting it was WMD's or bust. He/She/It gave zero credence to having any other reason for taking Saddam out.

Puzzle me this nimrod - when you go in to buy a new car what does the salesman emphasize trying to make you sign on the dotted line?

It damn sure isn't the size of the glove box, he selects the thing he surmises you might liek best whether that be a large engine or 7 speaker surround sound.

If you think it's any different when selling something, anything... to the U.S. public your disconnected from reality.

Clinton, relying on the best intel available went into Bosnia because of the "hundreds of thousand" of Bosnians in mass graves. It was crap, first because the intel sucked (OMG he LIED!) and secondly he and the rest of Washington knoew the U.S. public wouldn't buy the real reason... i.e. NATO and the EU were sitting on their hands and let the disaster go on. Sooo... with ZERO strategic interest in Bosnia for America Clinton sold it on humanitarian reasons rather than just bowing at the feet of the EU and once again pulling they do nothing feet out of the fire.

[Worst President Ever]

Still waiting for you to explain why George Bush's last speech before the war didn't mention democracy but did go on and on abut WMDs.

My tune hasn't changed at all - without the supposed existence of WMDs, there would have been no war.