Captain's Quarters -

Every war in the history of humanity has been brought about by someone holding the idea that they can succeed by force of arms. Iran is convinced that its enemies in the West are too corrupted and weakened by their own material wealth and hedonistic self absorption, to defend themselves. They are convinced beyond argument or doubt, that the West is utterly gutless, in the same way that Germany and Japan were in 1940.

Iran is only unique in that it chooses to use terrorist groups as its weapon of choice in its pursuit of conquest, instead of conventional military forces.

Joe Lieberman gets it; we are in a war, and we are showing our enemy that his estimate of us is right on the money. Does ANYONE believe this will lead to peace and prosperity for us?

A further problem Lew is that Iranian leaders have made it clear that they really don't care whether their nation survives, as long as they further the march of Islam by destroying Israel and at least heavily damaging the United States.

The Iranians will be in effect, a nation of suicide bombers once they obtain nuclear weapons. Their lunatic leaders have made this fact abundantly clear.

They really don't care whether we can obliterate their nation. They hope for more, but they've made it clear that they will commit national suicide as long as they can take a few million of us with them.

Iran simply cannot be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. It's astonishing that anyone thinks otherwise.

Great point NoDonkey, Iran's policy aims aren't the normal one's we've faced in the past. They don't hold their primary allegiance to a nation-state like we do in the West, so they aren't trying to achieve IRANIAN world dominance. They're trying to achieve ISLAMIC world dominance, and that makes them far more dangerous.

That's something worth sacrificing a whole country, or perhaps an entire world, to achieve!

A correction:

The Iranians are rational actors. They are merely advancing with a bayonet against what they perceive to be weak opposition. What they do not understand is the massive military preparations being made against them by the U.S. and Israel.

The problem, of course, is political. The Iranians understand the political weakness of the two governments opposed to them, the U.S. and Israel. Rice has bought some time with her diplomacy and has apparently encouraged Russian second thoughts about the Persian atomic bomb program. The weak link right now is the Olmert Government in Israel. Nobody has any confidence in that regime and nobody knows how his government will react when the missile campaign starts up again at the end of the summer.

The IDF has made tremendous strides since the end of the Hezboallah war, as have we in Iraq under David Petraeus, but all depends now on the Iranians doing something stupid and overt, thus provoking an attack against them.

No one doubts that Ahmadhi-Nejad is a Persian imperialist. The question is whether or not he is stupid.

Hindsight is 20/20 ladies.

The latest republican (and joe lieberman's) omission is to ignore the fact that supporting the Bush administration's attack on Iraq under patently false pretense had the effect of destabilizing the entire ME, which actually made Iran's rapid rise in political influence over the region all the easier for them attain.

Cleaning up after the war mongers who were severely lacking in foresight of any shape or form, will take many, many years. Yes, this is true. And to top it off? The liberals were right about how this would turn out all along.

The situation is beyond pathetic. Thanks ladies.

Iran is not going to try any major overt acts in the short term, not while the American Congress (not just Democrats, but increasing numbers of Republicans) is determined to retreat from Iraq before the '08 elections.

This will leave Iraq free for Al Qaeda and Iran to divide up, and Iran in control of Iraq's oil. It is hard for me to imagine any rational American president allowing this to happen, but the Congress can cut off funds at any time, and the Democrat presidential candidates are irrational on the subject.

We are in much graver danger than we realize. Senator Leiberman can help by joining the Republican caucus and working to defeat the Defeatocrats.

/Mr Lynn

"The latest republican (and joe lieberman's) omission is to ignore the fact that supporting the Bush administration's attack on Iraq under patently false pretense had the effect of destabilizing the entire ME"

Yeah, there area was perfectly stable until we came in.

What kind of kool-aid have you been drinking?

Let's talk again after Iran starts waving around a nuke. But then, I suppose that will be Bush's fault as well.

GarandFan wrote (July 6, 2007 10:57 AM):

Let's talk again after Iran starts waving around a nuke. But then, I suppose that will be Bush's fault as well.

BINGO! Witness the left's reaction to Kim Jong-Poofy hair and his Bomb program. Never mind that the crazy rittle son of a bitch was working on a Bomb all through the '90s (and probably earlier). Never mind that he reneged on the deal the Jimmuh brokered between him and Slick Willie.

Kim claims to have a Bomb, and It's All Bush's Fault (TM).

As for the nihilistic rhetoric coming from Tehran, I think that it is exactly that: rhetoric. The Red Chinese did the same thing during the Cold War, and it worked. By loudly and repeatedly claiming that they weren't afraid of Uncle Sam, that they WANTED a nuclear war, they buffaloed a generation of American leaders.

I'm not saying that there aren't some real "true believers" among the mad mullahs, but I believe that their talk about the 13th spook or whatever coming up from the water hole is just so much hot air. If they REALLY wanted a war with the Great Satan, they could have it at any time, and they don't need nukes first. They're desperate to get a nuke, however, because they fear that somebody in Washington will eventually have the stones to put their rhetoric to the test. If that happens, they know they'll get clobbered. They saw what we did to the Taliban and Saddam and don't want to be next on the list. They also see how we treat Pakistan: because Islamabad has the Bomb, we give them a lot more respect and deference than we probably would otherwise.

The mullahs are crazy like a fox.

"Yeah, there area was perfectly stable until we came in.
What kind of kool-aid have you been drinking?"
Posted by: GarandFan

I never said the area was "perfectly stable." I said it is much less so at this point, something even you can't deny. Sorry bucko, you're the kool-aide swill-er here. Furthermore, you weren't able to refute the fact that it was you, the foolishly misguided Bush butt kissers of the world, that helped get us to where we are today.

The libs were right on the money all along with regard to this catastrophe. And that, it seems, is just too much for your lopsided brain to process. You own this disaster. I hope you've volunteered your service to help fix it.

Dhim08_DOA,

" Inever said the area was "perfectly stable." I said it is much less so at this point"

Much less so than what?

When I was there in '90-'91 and the Iraqi Army had Kuwait (until we booted them out), and would have had the Saudi oil fields?

Dem clowns then told us when we got home that we lost "because Saddam is still in power".

Then the same Dem clowns celebrated when the first Bush Presidency ended and Saddam was still in power.

Then Clintoon took office. The worthless chair warmer did nothing after the terrorists bombed the WTC in '93, when they bombed our embassies in Africa, when they bombed Khobar Towers and when they almost sank a Navy ship.

Now the Dem clowns have aided and abetted our enemies overseas, all for pure partisan gain.

"The libs were right on the money all along with regard to this catastrophe."

If there is one thing libs know, it's catastrophe, you're right. No-load, know-nothing, non-productive, worthless wastes of skin is a perfect description of the Democrat Congress.

Furthermore, you weren't able to refute the fact that it was you, the foolishly misguided Bush butt kissers of the world, that helped get us to where we are today.

Fact because you say it is, eh? How can anyone refute logic like that! Brava!

NoDonkey notes: "Then Clintoon took office. The worthless chair warmer did nothing after the terrorists bombed the WTC in '93, when they bombed our embassies in Africa, when they bombed Khobar Towers and when they almost sank a Navy ship".

One of my favorite quotes is 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own private store of facts.'

Please check the newspapers. The 1993 WTC bombers were caught and tried. Other domestic terror attacks successfully prosecuted in the 1990s include Oklahoma City and Atlanta Olympics and abortion clinic bombings. I see in my news that many involved in the African Embassy bombings are now in jail, and I see indictments and arrests in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombings. Again, please check the newspapers before using the phrase "did nothing".

Your opinion may be that Clinton's only strength was warming a seat. But setting aside our opinions, saying he 'did nothing' against the record of arrests and indictments is factually incorrect.

And compare this with the record of the 2000's. We lose more soldiers in a week of patrols in Iraq than we lost in the Cole bombing. The Anthrax Terrorist is not in jail or dead. Bin Laden is not in jail or dead. Plane bomber Luis Posada is in US custody but not being tried for terrorism or muder.

Thompson/Lieberman '08! I linked.

I notice this post has lots of warnings but not much in terms of recommendations. A problem, of course, is that we cannot invade Iran. Iraq has drained the military and damaged our ability to gather a coalition of the willing (willing to be paid to fight that is). So all we can do is bomb. So we bomb what we believe are their nuclear facilities, then what? Militarily they really won't be weaker, they will probably get more Arab/Muslim support, and the country of Iran will unite. Probably the religious conservatives and President Ahmadinejad stay in power twice as long, and the west-friendly democracy movements are discredited and crushed. While Iraq has handcuffed us militarily and diplomatically, there really aren't great options with Iran, and an attack there would strengthen our enemies there in the long run, which is why I suspect Bush has been doing what he has been doing.

GOP08-DOA, John Jay,
I guess the event of Democrats voting for the war in 2001 didn't really happen? (Ach yes, first they vote for it, but then they voted against, or was it the other way round?)
Also, if we didn't respond to Pearl Harbour, the War with Japan also wouldn't have happen?

"The 1993 WTC bombers were caught and tried."

Well, not all of them. Abdul Rahman Yasin, was captured by the FBI, released and never found.

Mohammed Jamal Khalifa was released to Jordan, where he stood trial and was acquitted.

But the most important fact is, that because the terrorists were tried in an open court, they were able to pass intelligence and messages to their terrorists buddies which allowed them to alter their means of communication (they nixed their satellite phones, which the CIA was monitoring).

Clinton did nothing during the '90s except catch a few small fry, men who find prison luxurious compared to the caves they were in. The trials and the discovery phase the defendents were allowed, harmed our intelligence gathering immeasurably.

Because the Bush Administration attempted to do the heavy lifting, the Democrats saw fit to sabatoge the efforts for pure partisan gain. No amount of lies or spinning from the left will obscure that fact.

GOP08_DOA wrote (July 6, 2007 12:07 PM):

The libs were right on the money all along with regard to this catastrophe.

Um, would that include the 81 democrat Congressmen and 29 democrat Senators who voted "yes" to the AUMF? Does it also include Slick Willie, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998? How about those lib senators who signed a letter urging Slick Willie to get Saddam back in '98? Two of the dems' prospective candidates, the Hilldabeast and Silky Pony, both voted FOR the AUMF. Were they right on the money all along, too?

Just asking.

Oh, and Okonkolo, if some of us had our way, we wouldn't have to worry about Ahmadinejacket and his fellow mullahs staying in power, because they'd either be dead or cowering in a bunker somewhere, praying to Allah that the sound they're hearing ISN'T a cruise missile with their names on it.

Again I repeat my point - the opinion may be that Clinton's response was inadequate. However, 'do nothing' is factually incorrect and many of those involved in NoDonkey's complaint list were found and convicted, with damage to their organizations.

GP08-DOA, you're commenting on something I didn't say. Not sure I see your point here. I was talking about the outcome of terror attacks in the 1990s versus outcome of terror attacks in the 2000s.

One thing I like about sitting around the Caaptain's Table is a pretty good focus on facts & figures compared to most blogs. Let's not criticize a poster for saying something we thought he'd said but didn't.

Oops, sorry GOP08! You and I were lumped together in a reply. You were not mixing my email comparing 1990s with 2000s with the topic of 2001 resolutions. Apologies.

"GOP08-DOA, John Jay,
I guess the event of Democrats voting for the war in 2001 didn't really happen? (Ach yes, first they vote for it, but then they voted against, or was it the other way round?)
Also, if we didn't respond to Pearl Harbour, the War with Japan also wouldn't have happen?
Posted by: TomB at July 6, 2007 1:45 PM"

To all commenters who complain about Clinton's lack of response to the USS Cole bombing: My calendar shows that Bush came into office 3 months after the attack. Please explain the steps he took to respond before September 11.

Oh, and by the way -- it really makes no sense to say that Iran has been at war with us since 1979, apparently without us being aware of it. Undoubtedly our interests and theirs have clashed during that time, and there have been violent actions taken at times by Iran against US interests. But isn't that how the world works? The fact that we're not particularly friendly with Iran (whatever the reasons) doesn't mean that we're already at war.

The slogan about us already being at war with Iran is nothing more than an attempt to make it more likely that a war will, in fact, begin shortly.

As for the nihilistic rhetoric coming from Tehran, I think that it is exactly that: rhetoric.
-------------------------
I can imagine about 60-70 years ago they said the same thing about Adolph Hitler. Apparently, not everyone learns from history. Appeasers are a constant.

Besides Red China does not as a habit fund, house and equip suicide bombers/terrorists. Unlike fundamentalist/extremist Islam, they are interested in expansion for the sake of expanding their authority or power base. Fundamentalist Islam, which is the seat of power for Iran, wishes to expand not only for authority or power, but also impose their theoritic religion on everyone. Their are many who are committed in a suicidal way to that goal (based on promises of future gain).

Senator Joseph Lieberman’s voting record on military issues can be found at: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53278&type=category&category=47&go.x=6&go.y=8

Senator Joseph Lieberman’s history of speeches on the Iraq War can be found at: http://www.votesmart.org/speech.php?keyword=Iraq+War&daterange=&begin=&end=&phrase=&contain=&without=&type=search&can_id=53278&go2.x=5&go2.y=7#Results

Senator Joseph Lieberman’s ratings from special interest groups on military issues can be found at: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53278

For more information on Senator Joseph Lieberman’s position on military issues please visit http://www.vote-smart.org or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

No biggie, John Jay. Mistakes happen. I see you're man enough to admit yours.

See here girls, the democrats who screwed up, have for the most part, admitted to the disastrous mistake of voting for this sham of a war. They were flat out wrong too, no doubt about that.

But I can't even begin to explain how outright idiotic and unforgivable it is to mention Pearl Harbour and the Iraq war in the same breath. But apparently when faced with the indefensible, there's always some tired discredited right wing BS to spew or the but, but, but Clinton defense.

It is no damn wonder the GOP is so weak and pathetic right now. Carry on girls.

Oh, and by the way -- it really makes no sense to say that Iran has been at war with us since 1979, apparently without us being aware of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A few points:

1) Just because one side doesn't choose to publicly acknowledge the facts doesn't make them so. Iran has been contributing to, training, and equipping our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seized our embassy in 1979 (an act of war) and held the staff hostage for 444 days (another act of war). They have, through their proxies, have kidnapped and killed our citizens. They continue to strike at us, mostly indirectly.

2) Just because they are not fielding a traditional army against us doesn't mean that they are not at war with us. See, the Cold War, Al-Queda and like groups for alternative examples. Just because we did not vigorously go against Al-Queda before 2001 and their strikes against us and our interests were not seen by most people as 'war', doesn't mean they were not at war with us. They explicitly declared it in the 90s. We chose not to take their warnings seriously. Many people saw them as a bunch of faraway crackpots. Only by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 did a majority of the public recognize the situation for what it was-a war against fundamentalist/extremist Islam (al-Queda, like-minded groups and their supporters/sponsors). Unfortunately, many people have decided that they don't like what they see. So, they are trying to 'opt out'.

3) Japan, even before our WWII buildup, was the lesser power. Still, they chose to engage us. Don't think that just because we can cream them, that they will not continue to engage us and/or engage us more directly. We assume that our enemies act based on our logic.

Dear Mr. Kos and Soros

Other than your talking points (i.e. Bush bashing) what suggestions do you have for us? Who are you proposing to lead us to the promised land (Clinton2, Obama, Edwards, Barbra Streisand)? Has the geographic importance of Iraq and Afghanistan as cushions against jihadism completely missed you? I don't care how we got there, but at least one more genocidal dictator is dead and a lot of islamofascists are getting their just due. Maybe we should leave national security up to the results of polls and make it a popularity contest----never mind the fact that most Americans can't identify the capital of Texas or locate Kansas on a map (hat tip to Bernie Goldberg). Hopefully someday soon we can sit down together and sing Kumbaya, but until then please STFU and get out of the way.

my advice continues to be cruise missile the heads of iran, syria, sudan, hamas, hezzbullah and al sadr to name the primaries. all on the same night without warning. supposedly we are in a war on terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

save the UN/geneva bs about killing state leaders. we tried, too many times to mention, to kill saddam and reagan put one down kaddafi's chimney killing his wife and child.

these folks are the world's terror leaders. they need to be personally held responsible for their crimes against humanity without a trial. we are at war.

the fact that hamas got elected to a "government" position changes nothing. that would be like saying that bin laden, after rising from the dead, would be off limits to our killing him because he was democratically elected the president of pakistan. while everyone is always calling for shock and awe i'm into the targeted killing of the current leadership and all that follow if they don't change their tunes.

start at the top and work down.......sooner or later we will be killing these folks. the sooner the better!

My sentiments exactly Mr. Neid.

The fish stinks from the head.

that would not only be a war crime, but also a tragic mistake because it would rightly galvanize hatred for the u.s. if you want to really provoke a war, then go ahead and start eliminating heads of state. that's a great solution yeah right.

we are not at war, dipshit.

GOP08-DOA,
Sorry, but I can't abide your snark. Other than snark what do you actually offer that's serious?

But lets go back to the 90's shall we when Osama declared war against us and started planning the attack on the WTC. Why was he so riled up? Because we were containing Iraq and becuase we had to send in troops to Saudi Arabia to maintain the containment process.

Now,you say we mucked everything up by going to war, yet clearly us maintaining the peace and not going to war led to us being attacked on 9/11. Did containment work or didn't it work, snarky boy?
I didn't, nor did the media, check any leaked NEA reports to see if terrorism increased while containment was in effect, yet I bet it did.

Wasn't that primarily done under 8 years of Clinton?

Osama was also pissed off because we sanctioned the hell out of Iraq. Now, with that in mind, was Clinton wagging the dog when he decided to sanction Iraq? Because a whole lot of Iraq kids died (as per the caterwauling left at the time)and if there were no WMD's you have to wonder if maybe Clinton and Gore commited genocide.

So here's the deal. Going to war may solve the Sadaam problem but it will also cause its own problem. Not going to war, maybe have maintained the peace, but it also led to the rise of Al Qaeda, who used the grievance of containment to strike a blow against us.
Not having contained Iraq would have let the worlds oil reserves fall into the hands of an obvious dictator, and how would that have effected the region?

Also, with all your snarkiness you now councel pulling out precipitoiusly. Yet with all your snark, you offer no suggestion of what will happen were we to pull out and follow your council. SInce you blame bush for the rise of IRan, if we pulled out with our tail between our legs woudl that cause Iran to suddenly shrink in influence, would Al Qaeda, using the propaganda of defeating the paper tiger, increase or decrease its membership? Because nearly ever expert suggests that the "civil war" would be infitely worse were we to pull out, and that it would in turn completely destablize the region.
Would those trying to reform Iran (or the other dictatorships in the region)from within be heartened or disheartened that the US withdrew when faced with pressure by the extremists chopping off heads.

and further snarky boy, when the left says containment works, they have to own up to the costs of containment. As already stated, it means we would have to sanction Iraq. It would mean we'd have to continue oil for food. Ah, but as Duelfler stated cointainment was falling apart, and as we all know Oil for Food was the biggest scandal in UN history. Obviously, considering how corrupt that was we'dhave to do away with Oil for Food, yet still maintain sanctions. Sanctions would have to be made tougher to punish the regime for cointinuing to not abide by the UN's mandates and because the mechanism whereby we were supposedly assisting the IRaqis while keeping Sadaam in check proved to be a fraud that was only enriching the regime and various security council members pockets.

We'd have to still have troops in the region to maintain the peace. Since that is one the primary grievances it would not diminish terrorism but increase it. Becaause Osama just as he had before would continue to use our presence in the area as a rallying cry to incence his followers because of our presence. Attacks would increase until we got out of the area. And if we got out of the area, it would mean that containment had ended, and Iraq could rearm itself without any impediment.

No option is great, but the snark that you present that if we had not invaded and we could maintain the status quo and not go to war, is just farcical beyond belief.

all those who still believe the administration claim that saddam had a fleet of drone aircraft capable of attacking u.s. cities with chemical weapons please raise your hands. you have to be really slow to believe anything the bush administration claims with regards to other countries having weapons that can "hurt us" possibly some where down the line in five to ten years, especially when those countries have lots and lots of oil. yes... very slow, indeed.

english teacher; from the day Clinton/Gore took office till the day they left office they and the UN worked under the assumption that Iraq had wmd's was hiding them, nwas trying to reconstitute programs that had been destroyed, worked with terrorists etc etc etc etc. Otherwise containment makes no sense whatsoever.

Show me the point in the historical record when Clinton lefft office and Bush took office where the consensus suddenly became Iraq posed no threat, never posed a threat and was cooperating. From 1998 on there weren't inspectors in Iraq at all, and prior to that Clinton had bombed Iraq for working with Al Qaeda and WMD's (or was he wagging the dog?)

Second, you surely must realize that containment was in fact not working. Duelfler said so. Sanctions were in free fall. Oil for food was the biggest scandal in UN history. And even getting Iraq to allow inspectors in yet again under Bush's watch required us to situate thousands of troops on the border, which obviously cannot be extended for very long periods of time without starting a war, or pissing off the Osama's of the world.

So again, tell us when it was conventional wisdom that Sadaam posed no threat, and explain then Clintons actions, the congresses action in passing the Iraqi Liberation act, and the Un's action in passing 16 resolutions against Iraq. Why did clinton say, after we had invaded that he was sure Iraq had WMD's (and was Blair also Clintons poodle since he was consistent on Iraq while Clinton was in office too)?

And did containment work or not. Was it necessary to still continue containment if you believe that Sadaam had no WMD's? Are you conviced that were there no containment at all that Sadaam would or would not start up his programs again, even if you believe he dind't have any WMD's at all? ANd how would you propose, if you think containment should continue, continuing containment without oil for food, sanctions or tthousands roops in the region, forced to stay on the border, lest IRaq fall back to what it always did, namely not cooperate.

Please enlighten us.

jr566, if I've got snark at least it is short and accurate. Your blusterous BS is not worth delving into because I don't waste much time on your type, the Bush butt kisser, make up scenarios to fit my ideology type. Yes, that was snark.

So, bluster boy, another little trip down memory lane, if I recall the title of that PDB was "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." It didn't say Saddam, Sir Blustery. Further, it was delivered to Mr. Bush, not Mr. Clinton.

Your piss poor excuses for this ineffective (isn't there more terrorism now?), mismanaged (aren't there more of Al Qaeda in Iraq now than before?) war are just recycled right wing hogwash. At what point do you start thinking for yourself? Answer me this Mr. Bluster: have we caught Bin Laden? Here I'll answer for you, because I don't need a damn lecture from a bluster boy: no.

Seems to me your entire post is based on conjecture, bluster, and finishes with tried and true winger fear mongering. And as usual, way short on actual facts. /snark.

GOP08_DOA
You keep calling people girls, then boys, then girls again. Just from pure curiosity, do you have any kind of sex related sickness, or simply your vocabulary is jerky?

Snark boy snarked:
So, bluster boy, another little trip down memory lane, if I recall the
title of that PDB was "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." It didn't say
Saddam, Sir Blustery. Further, it was delivered to Mr. Bush, not Mr.
Clinton.
Ah yes, Bush and co. knew because they saw a memo that said that Al Qaeda was determined to strike the US. Wow, who would have thunk it? A group that declares war on the US and its interests would be determined to strike the US. I think after striking the US Cole, embassies in africa etc that it would be a a given
that OSaam was determined to attack the US. In every
Al Qeada tape nowadays they warn of even greater attacks against the US.
That doesn't really say much though that's operational, does it? Thats like getting an APB that gangters are determined to commit crimes. Whoo boy, what intelligence that is. I can see why the CIA is getting the big bucks. Of course, the left consistently pooh poohs every threat tahts come down the pike since then as yet more of Bush's scare mongering, or suggest that the threat was not a threat at all because we were able to counter it, or we're only hyping the threat because of the election (remember when you guys were saying we had already caught OBL but were holding him till the election). Point being, considering how non seriously your side has taken every threat, Im sure a threat that had literally zero actual details as to when it would occur would have caused the left to shut down all the airports and start arresting terrorists. Yes that was sarcasm.

The fact of the matter is that Al Qaeda did not attack
the WTC because Bush took office and Bush was a republican, like Michael Moore suggested with his "Why did you attack us in NY, we didn't' vote for Bush" snark. . It takes yearso plan a 911 and it was in the planning stages while Clinton was in office
because of containment of Iraq (and any other number of grievances that are in the mind of the jihadist). When you and your side snark on and on about how bad Bush screwed everying up, you stil have to recognize that if its not war, we would have to still contain Iraq. And therefore OSama would still use it to galvanize his followers to attack us. If we stopped
containing Iraq it would mean that Sadaam who would still be in power would
use his new found wealth from oil for food dollars to rearm himself. ANd in
both cases terrorism would increase.

our piss poor excuses for this ineffective (isn't there more terrorism
now?), mismanaged (aren't there more of Al Qaeda in Iraq now than before?)
war are just recycled right wing hogwash. At what point do you start
thinking for yourself? Answer me this Mr. Bluster: have we caught Bin
Laden? Here I'll answer for you, because I don't need a damn lecture from a
bluster boy: no.
What does that even mean? I love how the lefties bring that up as if they would actually go after Osama Bin Laden with any seriousness. What if OBL is in Pakistan? are you going to send in troops and risk war with Pakistan? But they didn't attack us!!! Think of the quagmire! All that is is a snark attack, which is a cheap shot that sounds snarky but which has zero crediblity as to actually being policy. Dems say that we've diverted our attention from the real war on terror and we have to have a time table and strategically redeploy troops, yet not one has sugggested we strategically redeploy our troops to say Afghanistan. Because there's a war going on there too, and that would open them up to the whole quagmire thing, and the dead boys, and the whole warmonger charger which they've tarred and feathered the neocons with. Say snark boy, are all those people who called neocons chicken hawks for not going to war also chicken hawks for not going to war in Afghanistan?

As for finding OBL, where is he? Is he even alive at this point? Haven't seen him on any videotapes lately. But as much as I'd like to have him captured, does it really matter now? He's hiding in a cave, he's not actively calling the shots at this point. But yeah, lets stop what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq and start searching in all the caves and mountains in Afghanistan on the off chance that he might be there as if it were a treasure hunt. because looking for a needle in a haystack is a great use of all of our troops, especially while Al Qaeda in Iraq for example is attempting to setup shop there.
My ass your side would look for OBL or continue fighting in Afghanistan. Because as soon as we started fighting, other people would come into the area to fight us, just as they came into Iraq to fight us. And then we'd be increasing terrorism. And some of our troops would die. And then we'd have to strategically redeploy to okinawa. ANd the war has already taken longer than Vietnam and logner than Iraq even, and its a QUAGMIRE!!!!

You also ask, isn't there more terrorism
now? Well when we had peace and were containing Iraq wasn''t there more terorrism prior to us not containing Iraq? 9/11 happened before we went into Iraq dipshit. I don't remember anyone leaking the NIE saying that our containment of Iraq had led to more terrorism, though clearly all through the 90's we were attacked again and again and again. And why are we pinning all the increase in terrorism simply on Iraq? Aren't we in Afghanistan too? Isn't that a muslim country? Wasn't Al Qaeda there too? How do we know that a percentage increase in terrorism isn't linked to our invasion there (and remember, the Taliban didnt' attack us!!!!) Or how about Israel and the Palestinians. What percentage of terrorism is caused by that. Or how about the Muslims incensed because of the danish cartoons. Maybe some bombs went off because they didn't like how they are being depicted. Maybe Salman Rushdie being knighted will similarly increase terrorism. Of course, I'm willing to bet that when OBL and co blew up the US Cole that also increased terrorism, and when they blew up the US Embassies in Africa that also increased terrorism. ANd certainly when Al Qaeda blew up the WTC and Pentagon that increased terrorism too. Or is your argument that the more successful Al Qaeda becomes the less people want to join them? Proving that the Great Satan is in fact a paper tiger I'm sure will turn off most fundamentalists. What was I thinking? You're arguing about Iraq as if fundamentalists are good little leftists with the same animus towards bush that you lefties have. They may have an animus towards Bush, but its not because he "stole the election" or isn't doing more for global warming. They hate Bush because he's not making it easy for them to show that the US is a paper tiger. They don't hate us because the war is being fought badly and cost more than Vietnam, or that we still haven't found OBL. They hate us becuase we are preventing them from achieving their caliphate so long as we fight them. We're acting as the counterpoint to them in region and destroying their influence. Just as they wear us down, we wear them down.

You similarly ask, aren't there more of Al Qaeda in Iraq now than before? I thought there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before? So if there are zero Al Qaeda in Iraq and then one goes to Iraq, tdoesn't that mean that the Al Qaeda presence in iraq increased by 100%? What percentage of Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan? Is it the same percentage as was in Afghanistan prior to us invading Ithere? Or did some move. Does a decrease in one area and an increase in the other mean that the numbers have gone up or simply that they've moved around? More importanlty, and follow the logic here because I know it can get tricky, if there are more Al Qaeda in Iraq now, and if our goal is to fight Al Qaeda, wouldn't it make sense to fight Al Qaeda where they are most concentrated? Novel concept I know. Maybe the number of jihadis increasing in Iraq is because they recognize that that's where the fight will ultimately be won or lost and so are going there to fight. of course, that's also where they're being killed in larger and larger numbers, and are losing more and more of their upper echelon. Notice how many number 2's in command they keep hiring. Because as soon as one gets set up he's captured or killed. The supply of well qualified jihadis who can coordinate massive terrorist attacks is limited, just as there is only a small pool of say 5 star generals at any one time. If all the Armies top generals were somehow wiped out, I'm sure it would cause some confusion and demoralization in the ranks. Yes people would be promoted, but do they have the same experience and battle intelligence? Probably not. But the point is, you're still arguing as if the decision to go into Iraq was still being debated. Meanwhile by your own account, we are fighting more Al Qaeda in Iraq. Therefore, isn't it kind of silly to argue that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq five years ago? That's about as relevant as arguing the pros and cons of betamax vs. VHS in this day and age as if its still relevant.
The canard is that we've taken our eye off the real battle against Al Qaeda, yet at the same time there are more Al Qaeda in Iraq than before and we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq far more than we are fighting Al Qaeda in Afghansitan. Cognitive dissonance anyone? IF your argument is that we should be fighting Al Qaeda THEN you fight them where the action is. And that's Iraq. You don't withdraw from the field where your'e fighting them now to try to find them where you were fighitng them a few years ago. Or alternatively, just give up on your snarky canards and be truthful. You wont fight AL Qaeda in IRaq OR Afghanistan or anywhere, because that would open your side up to the quagmire charge, the warmonger charge, the hyping terrorism charge, the chicken hawk charge, the fighting the war ineffectiely charge, the increasing terrorism charge etc etc. When of course the snark is so much easier.

Iraq has drained the military and damaged our ability to gather a coalition of the willing (willing to be paid to fight that is).

From what I've seen, nothing has incapacitated America like the DIMS.

Nothing worse than having a strong political voice from a tiny minority keep on undermining its own homeland.

I can just see these Liberals, when the things they deliberately bring on America while in abject denial of their own conduct, just watch them then running to the likes of Algore and Pretty Pony Breck Boy for protection from having the terrorists chop their heads off.

Do they really think that any Conservatives will send their family members to the Liberal neighborhoods to protect THEM?

We'll be watching the carnage from a safe distance, while we use the time to secure our own families' safety.

Let the Dims get their pity from the Muslim Terrorists. They prolly all got the CAIR phone numbers in their wallets, in case of emergencies, anyway.

"Plane bomber Luis Posada is in US custody but not being tried for terrorism or muder."

First I heard Luis Posada was in the USA and Bush wasn't trying to find him.
Then I heard he was in the USA and Bush knew where but wouldn't send him to Cuba for trial.
Now you say he's in US custody?
Next I'll hear he's the Republican nominee for a state legislature seat...

"Iraq has drained the military and damaged our ability to gather a coalition of the willing (willing to be paid to fight that is). "

The only PROPER measure of American military might is as a function of our population and gross domestic product.
Anything less is a copout, and we seem determined to cop-out. There's even serious consideration of creating a state militia force that won't serve overseas.

jr565, i think you need to answer your own question. throughout your lengthy comment, you kept referring to saddam as a continuing threat throughout the nineties, but he was never a threat to the US. he was a threat to his neighbors. can you split the difference and see that clinton tried to work with the u.n. (scoff if you like but the u.n. is the legal institution that we have to go through since we signed the treaty) to enforce the cease fire agreement. the difference between clinton and bush would then be that clinton acted to prevent saddam from threatening his neighbors without trying to convince the american public that he was capable of attacking the u.s. mainland with horrible weapons. bush refused to cooperate with the u.n. and tried to scare the shit out of everybody with fake tales about saddam's ability to git us.

sanctions may not have been working, but NEITHER IS THIS.

and finally, would you care to respond to my query above, namely do you still believe that bush simply made a mistake when his top aide powell told the american people and the world that saddam had a fleet of drone aircraft that could attack the u.s. with chemical weapons. see, i believe that was a flagrant lie, not an example of poor bushie being misled by the intelligence. what do you think?

please raise your hand if you believe bush was the unfortunate victim of "faulty intelligence" when he sent powell to the u.n. to tell the world that saddam had a fleet of drone aircraft capable of attacking the east coast of the u.s. with chemical weapons. i say, they were lying. any one want to disagree?

Wow, junior. Your ability to produce verbal throw up on demand is quite simply amazing. Must have stuck a nerve.

I looked for your apologist diarrhea on the Thompson post, couldn't find it. Not a Thompson fan?

Here's another essay question for you junior: Was the anti-war left, right or wrong about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction?

War with Iran is not inevitable. In fact, it would be unbelievably counterproductive to American peace and security. Iran is NOT a threat to us. If we get all our troops out of the middle east and stop supporting Israel (not out of fear or weakness, but because a country based on freedom and limited government should NEVER become involved in entangling alliances with anyone), I assure you we would have no issues with Iran or anyone over there.

english teacher wrote:
jr565, i think you need to answer your own question. throughout your lengthy comment, you kept referring to saddam as a continuing threat throughout the nineties, but he was never a threat to the US. he was a threat to his neighbors. can you split the difference and see that clinton tried to work with the u.n. (scoff if you like but the u.n. is the legal institution that we have to go through since we signed the treaty) to enforce the cease fire agreement. the difference between clinton and bush would then be that clinton acted to prevent saddam from threatening his neighbors without trying to convince the american public that he was capable of attacking the u.s. mainland with horrible weapons. bush refused to cooperate with the u.n. and tried to scare the shit out of everybody with fake tales about saddam's ability to git us.
The fact of the matter is there has been a changing of the narrative from the people on the left to somehow suggest that noone thought Iraq was a threat specifically because of WMD's and ties to terrorists and because of the ruthlessness of the regime and that Bush cooked this all up out of thin cloth. Show me the point in history from when Clinton left office to when Bush took office that the narrative changed? You can't becuase it never happened. If you follow the history of Iraq it had to be contained because it continued to violate its agreements, it continued to lie to the UN and block inspections, it continued to be ruthless to its people while even under the auspices of the UN. (For example the atrocities against the Marsh arabs occured while under the UN's auspices. And the democrats including Clinton/Gore and the Brits have been acting for upwards of a decade under the exact same rationale. In fact we even had a policy of regime change as far back as 1998. Reread the Iraqi Liberation act and look at the points Clinton makes as to why Iraq will not change and how they have to work towards regime change in Iraq, AND that democracy is possible in Iraq. They even bombed Iraq because of ties to Al Qaeda as far back as 1998. So this notion that all of this was created by Bush who lied to democrats and tricked them into war is rewriting history.
Another mischaracterization is the argument that Bush somehow suggested that a threat from Iraq against the US was imminent or that Iraq would use its drone aircraft to carry out an attack on the US. The whole concept of the Bush doctrine is to deal with the threats before they became imminent, and the threat to us was because of proliferation to terrrorist groups, not a direct attack. Also the argument was that Iraq was a threat to the region as well.Everyone in the security coucil felt that Iraq was continuing with its programs, which is why 1441 was passed unanimously, and is in keeping with the UN's previous dealings with Iraq.
Now from 1998 until we sent inspectors in for the last time, there had been no inspectors in Iraq at all. Containment was falling apart. On top of that the UN security councel members were using Oil for Food to both enrich themselves and the Iraqi regime at the expense of Iraqis, so not only was it innefectual but was corrupt to boot, and was harming Iraqis.
Yes Clinton worked through the UN (as did Bush) and you say that we had to go through the UN to enforce the cease fire agreeement. But doesn't that mean that the UN has to actually enforce the agreement? The whole point is that the containment mechanism was broken before Bush even took office. There was no inspection at all, Oil for Food was in place and not enforcing the cease fire but undermining it. 1441 was the last chance for Sadaam, but if you look back to 1998 Clinton also used the language of Iraq's last chance. And the UN always gave it one more chance, and one more chance. All the while enriching its pockets, not enforcing the cease fire agreeement allowing the rogue regime to continue working on its programs continue to undermine the UN. I can see suggesting that we go through the UN route if the UN route can produce a result and actually enforce its resolutions, but when it can't and doesn't then still demanding that we go through the UN, despite knowing that the UN has setup a corrupt mechanism whereby they can corrupt the enforcement that's supposed to be in place and not in fact solve the problem, is just stupid.

To even get Iraq back to the table to allow inspectors back inrequired us to station thousands of troops on the borders and in ships around the country. You talk about how the war with Iraq was a diversion from the real war in afghanistan, yet how many resources did we have to bring to Iraq (thus diverting from the war on terror)? They couldn't stay there indefinitely, and surely you recognize that us having those troops in the region would galvanize OBL and co to step up attacks against us. ANd what did it get us. Inspections. We've already been through that before. Twice. And it was the exact same thing all over again. Iraq cooperates a bit, then denies access to scientists and stops cooperating. What do expect to achieve by inspections, considering they've already been tried multiple times and always ended the same way (There's a reason that 16 resolutions were passed against Iraq by the UN). Supposing we were to not find weapons? While we blustered and argued about going to war, Sadaam could have moved stockpiles, destroyed weapons, while maintianing programs so that it could restart again once we let up on the inspections. Do you actually think that it would solve anything.

suppose we found no weapons. Would we then end containment? There would be either two results, neither of them good. Either we'd end containment or we'd continue containment. If we ended containment it would mean that Sadaam could rearm himself without any impediment whatsoever, and certainly would, as Iran had been working on its nuclear program for the past 18 years covertly and its only recently come out. Even if Sadaam had totally changed his ways and would only build for defensive purposes (and believing that is the equivalent of believing in santa clause) or hewould have to build weapons to counter Iran.
The other option of course is that containment would have to continue. This would be after Iraq said it had no weapons and inspectors found no weapons. The left was already demanding that we lift sanctions because of all the millions of dead iraqi babies dying because the sanctions were so harsh, then it would be a case of the UN and US bullying a country and sanctioning a country that posed no threat who didn't appear to have weapons. Or containment would continue with OIl for Food continuing to udnermine the containment further adn the UN would continue to issue resolutions which Iraq then ignored.

sanctions may not have been working, but NEITHER IS THIS.
Sanctions were an absolute farce and we'd either be left with sanctions or war. no other choice. The determination to go to war though is this - everyone knows or knew at the time that the UN was not solving the problem. Everyone acknowledged that one of the the biggest threat we had was proliferation and WMD's getting into the hands of terrorists, And everyone recognizes that when it came to WMD's the biggest issue on everyones plate was Iraq. Iraq had already been contained for more than a decade because of WMD's and containment was falling apart at the seams. You have to acknowledge this. It was a stalemate that didn't resolve the issue of proliferation, that didn't close the books on Iraqs WMD"s, that forced us to invest more and more resources, and was undermining the UN to boot. The US had already passed a law that said we would do a regime change. Bush made the calculation, rightly, that while war sucks, peace wasn't producing the needed results and never would. The UN wasn't enforcing its resolutions, wasn't keeping Iraq in check and never would. Having yet another resolution and yet another inspection regime for Iraq to ignore was just going through the motions. Iraq was a long festering problem that had to be dealt with. It would be nice if the UN could have dealt with it, but just as they dropped the ball on Darfur, and Rwanda, and nearly every other international crisis they would continue to drop the ball in Iraq and if we didn't do something about it, nothing would be done. In the age of Al Qaeda targetting the pentagon as well as seeking out WMD's to do more damage to us, letting Iraq continue to fester was something that no responsible leader should do. Bush simply followed through on regime change started by Clinton, he just used a means that would produce the result and fix the problem.

Now as to whether this has worked or not of course it has. the issue with Sadaam Hussein is now resolved. The issue of WMD's is now resolved. While we'll never know the true history of what happened with the WMD's, its not even relevant anymore

Now currently we are in a completely separate phase whereby we are assisting Iraq in creating a new state in Iraq. I know its perhaps wishful thinking to expect utopia, but it certainly it miles above where it was before. Iraqis were able to fashion their own constitution, were able to elect their leaders and have free elections. the stumbling block in all of this is that there are those who don't want this to move forward. Some are former Baathists who don't want to give up power,some are Al Qaeda, and some are other factions that want their own power. But this current stage of the war is certainly part of the war on terror. Al Qaeda certainly recognizes it as such, which is why they aren't fighitng us in Afghanistan but in Iraq. Which is why its so silly of your side to still be arguing about whether it was the right idea to go into war in the first place. Even if you were right, and I don't think you were, it doesn't change the fact that as of now we are fighting THE battle against the jihadists in Iraq. I think you're deliberately ignoring the consequences of us buggging out and leaving Iraqis to be slaughtered but most credible people acknowledge that it would be infinitely worse and catastrophic. We'd go from a situation that may or may not be a mild civil war to a regional conflict that will spill over the entire middle east. It will leave a new save haven for Al Qaeda to operate from and will validate their idea of us as a paper tiger. It will further undermine our ablitity to deal with Irans nuclear program because they wil instantly recognize that we don't have the stomach, nor does the UN, to actually enforce anything, and if faced with casualties we'll go weak at the knees. Us not being at war doesn't mean peace, it means a stronger Iran a stronger al Qaeda. ANd we're then going to have to go back in and clean up the mess. Even Michael Ware (Wayah) acknowledged that as bad as it is now it would be infinitely worse if we left. And we're not losing there, its just a long hard slog taking longer than we'd want it to.

and finally, would you care to respond to my query above, namely do you still believe that bush simply made a mistake when his top aide powell told the american people and the world that saddam had a fleet of drone aircraft that could attack the u.s. with chemical weapons. see, i believe that was a flagrant lie, not an example of poor bushie being misled by the intelligence. what do you think?
sure I'll respond. Please provide a link where Powell said that he was worried about a single drone aircraft taht would attack the US. The threat again, would be letting that drone aircraft get into the hands of terrorists who could then use it as a means to stage a chemical attack, not that Iraq would attack us with it directly. But there were drone aircraft, just as there was tubing that may or may not have been used in a nuclear program. Here's the thing though. Iraq was a closed regime. Iraq was withholding information from us and denying us access to info. So the intelligence community has to make educated guess. Are the aluminum tubes going to be used for a nuclear program or are they innoncent. are they dual use? And some analysts will say yes, and some analysts will say no. And sometimes you'll get a consensus and the majority will say yes or no. And they could all be wrong or right. But until you get your hands on the actual equipment and test it out, all anyone can make are educated guessses. And that's what we were.
Joe Wilson himself said he thought if we invaded Iraq that we'd be attacked with chemicals weapons,which is one of the reasons he was against us invading. And our troops went in with the various chemical gear. And we, thankfully weren't attacked by chemical weapons.

But Joe Wilson wasn't making up some scare story(or maybe he was); based on what he knew about the regime and the capabliities he thought they had, it was completely logical to expect or assume that we might have been attacked with chemical weapons. In fact even Katrina Van Den Heufel made the same argument about being attacked by chemical weapons. in fact even the Iraqis who were waiting for us to invade expected to attack us with chemical weapons. Hell, From what I've read Sadaam sprung it on them at the last moment that they wouldn't be able to use chemical weapons against us.
But the point is, its not a lie to suggest that iraq may use chemicals or has drone planes,or that aluminum tubing is or is not used for nuclear production. Its educate guesses based on limited info. Which is the best result you'll get when dealing with an uncooperative regime like Iraq.

Darren wrote:
War with Iran is not inevitable. In fact, it would be unbelievably counterproductive to American peace and security. Iran is NOT a threat to us. If we get all our troops out of the middle east and stop supporting Israel (not out of fear or weakness, but because a country based on freedom and limited government should NEVER become involved in entangling alliances with anyone), I assure you we would have no issues with Iran or anyone over there.
And if Iran didn't have a clandestine nuclear operation for 18 years and defy the UN, didn't support Hamas and wage proxy wars against other countries, including Israel,Lebanon and Iraq among others, didn't chant death to America, didn't imagine a wordl without the US and Israel since the 70's we would have no issues with Iran either. Sadly though, that's not the case.

Why though is their grievance against us valid, and we have to completely give up support of allies, allow them to build whatever nukes they want, allow them to arm whatever terrorists they want and wage whatever proxy wars they want, and yet our grievance against them completely invalid in your eyes?

"that would not only be a war crime, but also a tragic mistake because it would rightly galvanize hatred for the u.s. if you want to really provoke a war, then go ahead and start eliminating heads of state. that's a great solution yeah right.

we are not at war, dipshit.

Posted by: english teacher at July 6, 2007 6:47 PM

you have much to learn grasshopper. take your time. while you spend your time jumping up and down in your playpen the war will continue. sooner or later what i have prescribed will be followed--even by hillary. it is the course that all wars ultimately follow. the leaders of all the terror states will be hanging from lamp posts in town squares before this thing is over.

killing heads of state who are determined to be terrorists is not a war crime--as reagan proved earlier and saddam's attempts confirmed. actually its an act of mercy in stopping them. as for hate, it's irrelevant in a time of war. winning is all that matters.

as i said you have much to learn.

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

more right wing bedwetting comedy trying to pass itself of as informed commentary. thanks for wasting thirty seconds of my life with that pile of bull, patrick. yeah, thanks a lot. "terror leaders will be swinging from lamposts before this thing is over". that made me laugh. you so tough!

iran is not waging a "proxy war" against the u.s. that is just another comical assertion of the right wing bed wetting oil grabbers that has no basis in fact.

it will be a cold day in hell before i believe another word any republican has to say about what some tin pot foreign dictator has or doesn't have.

junior i see you didn't answer the question i asked. i want you to tell me yes or no do you believe that the administration thought saddam had a fleet of drone aircraft as they claimed? the question was not what saddam may or may not have intended to do with his fictional squadron. the question was do you think they were just honestly mistaken to claim he had the drone fleet to begin with, not whether they feared he might give aircraft he didn't have to enemies who may have been his friends. simple question. like i said, i think they were lying. what do you think?

yeah, sorry it is a trick question. if you admit you think they were not deliberately lying, then you are a credulous dumb ass.

Who's the credulous dumb ass? Your party the dems are arguing that Bush lied and tricked them into war,and that Iraq posed no threat,and all you have to do is go back one administration and you see that the same charaacters were saying the exact same thing as Bush is saying now, were pushing for regime change as far back as 1998 for the exact same reasons as Bush suggested now. The only difference is the dems only talked and Bush got the job done.
I can do a google search or check wikipedia and come up with quote after quote after quote after quote of democrats who claim they were tricked who signed off on Iraq liberation act, who suggested that Iraq had WMD's etc etc and you can't show me the point in the historical record where any of that changed. what's so dumb is that you and your ilk are arguing that Bush lied, and he's saying the exact samething that was said countless times before by Clinton/Gore and by the UN.
The UN wouldn't have passed 16 resolutions against Iraq if they didn't view Iraq as a threat that refused to honor its agreements. Clinton and his cohorts wouldn't have signed the iraqi liberation act if they didn't think that a regime change was needed. Unless Clinton and the UN are the most craven liars imaginable. Which would make it kind of tragic that democrats would get so mad that Bush beat Gore, considering if they weren't serious about the threat that Iraq faced, behaved pretty brutally towards Iraq and wagged the dog (weren't the left moaning about the millions dying from sanctions and how they were so tough). If it was all a lie, then they commited genocide for no good reason on Iraq,and contained iraq to enrich the UN I guess but all at the expense of the Iraqis. I suppose then that we can make the claim that you and your supporters of containment are peace mongers. You only want to have containment to enrich your cronies in the UN,just as us neocons only want war so that we can increase our haliburton stocks.
YOu only want contaiment because it allows your cronies to maintain oil for food and get your hands on the cheap oil.

So which is it? DId clinton/Gore and the UN wag the dog or were they sincere when they passed the Iraqi liberation act and contained Iraq in the first place. And if they were sincere, then tell me how it went from being truthful when Clinton/GOre said it but became a lie when Bush repeated it later. Was there some historical event that occured in between?
I'm just trying to get some sense as to where to look for that point in history. I'd love you to send me a link on it. Because from 1998 onward there was no inspections whatsoever. Kind of tough to say containment is working when noone is even watching what's going on,but im sure you in your infinite wisdom could pinpoint that spot for us.

As to the proxy war, we've now had multiple instances of Iranians being caught in Iraq. I would consider that a proxy war. However, they're also using Hamas in Lebanon and Israel to wage proxy wars too.and when Sadaam Hussein was in power he was perhaps the biggest payer of suicide bombers families. so he was waging proxy wars as well. You don't beleive any republicans. Fine. This is exactly why you are such a moronic buffoon. Because you are so fixated on your Bush hatred you are deliberately ignoring history and legitimate threats,in fact the threat of our time, because you have it in your head that Bush is Hitler. What a lack of historical context. As for me, Im not so close minded as to not believe a word democrtats say. I believe what Joe Lieberman says. But luckily for me I can also check Wikipedia and Google to see what the same democrats said then and now about Iraq. And I believe what they said when they were in power and trying to deal with Iraq as a threat, and not the pandering they're currently doing to the left wing fringe to try to get back in power which requires them to literally say the opposite of what they said a few years ago. Too bad you're not that discerning with your info. But whatever, Bush lied people died. Haliburton is evil! No blood for oil. Yadah yadah.
It must be convenient to be so oblivious.

Yadah yadah.
Posted by: jr565

Indeed. Again junior you demonstrate your deft ability to fill the page with paragraphs and paragraphs of rambling apologist text without actually answering the question.

It must be convenient to be in perfect lockstep with an obviously inept administration. Junior, at this point I think it's fair to say you are a dyed-in-the-wool Bush zealot who would be oblivious to this administration's monumental failures at any cost.

If Bush kicked Jesus in the teeth, you'd say Jesus needed dentures anyways and then you'd write a novella about it tailored perfectly to your whacked out view.

ok, I'll be succint. My point is that all through the 90's the Clinton administration as well as the UN were working under the assumption that Iraq had or was trying to procure WMD's was a terrorist state and thus set up a containment program and passed the Iraqi liberation act which called for regime change. And the UN passed not 1 but 16 resolutions against Iraq for violating their various agreements. There were no fly zones and sanctions etc etc
And when they passed all parties said that this was done because Iraq was a threat, had or was trying to get WMD's etc etc.
From 1998 when Clinton wagged the dog, er dropped bombs on IRaq because of so called dealings with Al Qaeda until Bush took office all inspectors were removed from Iraq and no inspections were done at all.

That was the leadup to the Bush administration. It's well documented history, of which the democrats are aware. So please show me where in that history it suddenly became common knowledge that in fact Sadaam and Iraq posed no threat, and show me the time when a democracts truth became the republican lie.

That's my question to you, no donkey. I know you'll respond with yet more "you suck because you're a republican and blind supporter of Bush" because that's what you do, but how about some consistency.

Here's a link for the Iraqi Liberation Act signed into law in 1998. Please describe back to us the goal of the Iraqi Liberation Act as well as the rationale for implementing law in the first place.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

Go ahead, use it as a reference.

This is history. I know your side is big on the slander and the demagoguery and sloganeering, but seriously I would be ashamed to be party to such an obvious attempt at rewriting history while it stares you straight in the face.

In fact no donkey let me quote from the Iraq Liberation Act just to show you what the thinking was under Clinton at the time:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
You get that no donkey, it was alraedy the policy and the intent of the US govt as far back as 1998 decided on with unanimous consent across party lines that we would seek to remoe the Sadaam Hussein regim and to replace it with a democratic govt. It was already govt policy enacted into law. Do you deny this? Did you get amnesia and gloss over all the embarrassing details while railing against evil Bush. Do you want me to go down the list of prominent democrats who not only signed off on the idea of regime change but who backed it up with quote after quote?
Now you and your friends keep calling us neocons as if it were a slur, and yet conveniently ignore the whole history of Clintons dealing with Iraq and in fact settled American policy.

The only difference between Bush and Clinton is the means to achieve the result. Clinton wanted to have us start funding opposition groups to take out Sadaam and Bush got togetehr a coalition and directly removed Sadaam One achieved the result and the other didn't.

Now, if you want to say that the direct approach was the wrong approach that's an argument to have. You can then weigh the pros and cons of regime changed through funding of opposition groups or regime changes through a coalition taking out Sadaam. But what you guys did is instead demagogue this and everyone who supported the war as if the very basis for the war was suddenly made up by conservatives.

Yet I've just showed you that the democrats,and the great Clinton and all the dems who are now saying they got tricked have already gone along with the regime dhange policy not just from now, but from 1998 too. Are the democrats that craven? Sadly yes. Are those that suggest that Bush lied that oblivious? Sadly, yes.

Further the Iraqi Liberationact Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein. And that was done.

It also has this final goal: After Sadaam is removed the US should support Iraq's transition to democracy. Again., done. And this is what you are trying to undermine.

You sneer whenever Bush brings up that we need to support democracies and in particular the one in Iraq yet this is exactly what was already agreed upon as far back as 1998 by a democratic president AND a republican and democrat congress.