I call bullshit.  So what that the dems put up 41 separate resolutions...Bush has been able to do pretty much whatever he wanted.  It's not like he's had any real opposition to his war (except in the polls of course...but your steely-eyed president doesn't believe in polls...he's gonna stick by someone else's guns, by cracky!)

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"[Me} and your like-minded cohorts have bitched incessantly since before the first soldier set foot on Iraqi soil."

Yes, yes we have. Because we were right. We said up front the there was no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, and as it turns out he didn't. We said that there was no reliable evidence that Saddam had WMDs, and as it turns out he didn't. Bush's crew all said it would be a quick victory and we all said that's what they said about Vietnam and about WWI. Lo and behold, we were right again.

But then, this is the standard tactic of the right: make outrageous claims about your ability, when someone disagrees, attack them, not their position. When they turn out to be right, claim that the reason you couldn't do the impossible task you said was going to be a cakewalk was that people didn't believe in you. Sure, our soldiers have the guns, the tanks, the bombers, but there's this drum circle in Eugene, Oregon, see, and they keep chanting "no war, no war" and they are SO powerful that our bullets turn into marigolds and our soldiers' body armor turns into tie-dyed hemp serapes and that's why we're losing. Winning! I meant winning! See how powerful Frog* and his friends are? They've brainwashed patriotic Americans like me who've seen how you can freely walk around Baghdad (with an escort of 100 troops, three Blackhawk helicopters, and a pair of Apache gunships) into briefly considering the concept that we're losing the war and that Iraq won't be the Maui of the Middle East by November 5, 2008. Damn, you, Frog!

So what's the trick? Close our eyes and wish with all our might? Click our heels three times and say "there's no place like Branson"? Go to an airport bathroom in Minneapolis and shout "I believe in fairies"?  

* Yes, that Frog. You can take the boy out of Eugene but you can't take Eugene out of the boy.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

Because we were right.

Only for the limited definitions you give above, and not even that without further qualification. There's no evidence that Saddam supported the 9/11 attack directly, but plenty of evidence that he had ties to al-Qaeda before the invasion (meetings and material assistance), and a plethora of evidence that al-Qaeda considered Iraq important after. Saddam didn't have WMDs, but he did have an infrastructure to gear WMD production up around/after the removal of UN sanctions, and a political plan to have sanctions removed -- a plan the same people as made up the core of anti-war activism were more than happy to support. Finally, the initial military phase was won, and decisively. The reconstruction was the problem, and that might very well have been made worse by anti-war agitation, which publicly revealed a divided US political mind to those who would take comfort from it.

In the meantime, of course, you castigated US troops for murder, even though the vast majority of civilian casualties were caused by terrorist tactics used by various insurgent groups. You repeatedly hyped the few examples where the US military broke the Geneva Conventions while ignoring the avalanche of cases where the Conventions were contravened by enemy factions. You pointed to every bit of news out of Iraq as a failure, even where solid, consistent progress was revealed (here, I'm thinking of the ground-up reconstruction of the Iraq Army). And on those occasions when the news turned against you, you shifted the goalposts until you could harp on the same line of misery and failure. (Civilian deaths are falling? Play up the dead soldiers angle! Soldier casualties decreasing? Complain that the war cost too much! Bush isn't changing tactics? He's stupid and single-minded!! Bush is changing tactics? He's ignorant and incompetent!)

Some humanitarian you are. But hey, if you want to feel good about helping enable the kinds of people who engage in the wholesale slaughter of civilians by car bomb, you're welcome to try. Just don't expect me to play along.

The reconstruction was the problem, and that might very well have been made worse by anti-war agitation,

Agitation my ass.  Vietnam was protested with agitation...this war is protested with focus groups (both sides), blogs, cold calling and the occasional march.

Besides, if we can't "agitate" against what is wrong with the government, we might as well bend over and unclench as Donald Kerr would like us to 'cuz we are then truly fucked.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

this war is protested with focus groups (both sides), blogs, cold calling and the occasional march.

You neglect to mention the unindicted co-conspirators: the news media, the entertainment industry, and academia. Protesting the war became fashionable, with the support of the most vocal aspects of US society.

if we can't "agitate" against what is wrong with the government

Most of my objection isn't to the "what," but to the "how." I'm never going to say we shouldn't deplore, e.g., the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. There's a world of difference between "this is like what Saddam did/the insurgents do; let's not become them" and "this is what monsters do; we are them." The former is a supportive, unifying message, but we rarely saw it. The latter is neither supportive nor unifying, and we were (and still are) beaten with it relentlessly.

"this is like what Saddam did/the insurgents do; let's not become them"

This is a wise thing to think before you commit an atrocity.  Our nation has already stared into that abyss.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That's unmitigated horseshit. Every point you assert is a total lie. I challenge you to provide one cite.

OK, here's one, regarding a link between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda prior to the 2003 invasion. We have a known al-Qaeda terrorist (Zarqawi) traveling to Iraq for medical treatment, at a time when sanctions were causing Saddam to divert medical supplies away from doctors and hospitals for military use or covert export. And of course, Zarqawi was an instrumental part of the insurgency.

So, care to recast that "total lie" charge?

That's been proven a total lie as well. Is the US government complicit for the September 11 attacks because the attackers lived in the USA? BinLaden used a toilet in Dubai on several occasions, ATTACK!

11 of the 19 attackers were from Saudi Arabia...but who did we bomb?  Of course, it's not polite to bomb the feller we hold hands with.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That's been proven a total lie as well.

Look, pal -- you wanted a link, I gave you a link. If you think that's not good enough, provide evidence for your assertion which is at least as well-sourced as the WIkipedia link. The ball's in your court; put up or quit yer bitchin'.

The only cite Wikipedia provides is the load of horseshit Powell dumped on the security council. Powell's allegations don't stand, there's no evidence at all, only wishful thinking and conjecture such as yours.

No thinking person would give any credence to that presentation. In Powell's own words "this is bullshit.".

From your own link:

A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi.

See my reply to 1fastdog below, Shy. We can argue about evidence as much as we like, but any explaination must take into account Zarqawi's presence and status in Iraq, post-invasion. The Senate report does that. The CIA's? Not so much.

The Senate report does that. The CIA's? Not so much.

Make your mind up, do you trust the CIA or not?

if you don't want to trust US intelligence sources, that's your call.

Despite this astonishingly tenuous assertion, you ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia has proven ties to Al Quaeda. If this is the only rationale you can provide for invading Iraq, then logic dictates that Saudi Arabia should have been first on the list, even if Zaquari was Saddam's lover.

even if Zaquari was Saddam's lover.

It wouldn't have worked...not at least after Zarquari learned that Saddam was a swinger...even less so after Satan became Saddam's bitch.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The key word in your link is "alleged" - and given the infamous quote about  "intelligence and facts being fixed around the policy" from the Downing Street Memo, any reliance on US intel from that period is a dubious proposition.

But for argument's sake, let's say Zarqawi was in Iraq as you're suggesting. What does that really prove? It certainly doesn't prove that there was any cooperation between AQ and Saddam; one guy supposedly receiving medical treatment does not constitute a link between two parties, both of whom should've been suspicious of the other, seeing as how they operated from different ideologies. Saddam was a tinpot tyrant who was insanely keen on not letting any party gather power - to the point that he routinely had those close to him murdered - so I don't really see him eager to help an outside group that could directly challenge him, and being that Saddam was representative of a lot of things that AQ despises, I don't see them as being likely to strike up an alliance with someone for whom Islam was nary more than an afterthought.
As for you original assertion:

but plenty of evidence that he had ties to al-Qaeda before the invasion (meetings and material assistance), and a plethora of evidence that al-Qaeda considered Iraq important after

al-Qaeda may've thought Iraq to be important, but that's irrelevant to the question of ties between the two. More importantly, there's no fruit to the first part of your claim. If there's "plenty of evidence" where in the hell are they keeping it? The fact is, there's no evidence; only allegations and wild-ass speculation from the same people who were so eager to fix the facts around the intelligence in the first place.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

But for argument's sake, let's say Zarqawi was in Iraq as you're suggesting. What does that really prove?

It proves that there were sufficient connections between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda prior to the Iraq War to A) expedite the transfer of an internationally-known terrorist into a country with an extremely active (dare I say "Stalinist"?) intelligence service, and B) provide said terrorist with medical attention reserved for the military or otherwise well-connected. Taking into account the amount of trouble Zarqawi started post-invasion with the support of the Ba'athist Sunnis, the "well-connected" impression seems to have been borne out. And that gets us back to my initial assertion of Saddam providing al-Qaeda with meetings and material support pre-invasion. So.

given the infamous quote about  "intelligence and facts being fixed around the policy" from the Downing Street Memo, any reliance on US intel from that period is a dubious proposition.

Look, if you don't want to trust US intelligence sources, that's your call. But if not, you need to provide some rationale for what we know of Zarqawi's success within the insurgency post-invasion which also takes into account the insular nature of tribal Iraqi society made more so by being forcibly ejected from power. Whatever its suspected flaws, the Senate Report version does that.

the surge and attendant 'awakening' among the Iraqi populace has decimated the hard core committed insurgents.

I hope you're right, WK.  I think it would be really cool if the Iraqi people collectively said, "fuck you" to the the insurgents, thus causing decimation.  What I fear is the insurgents just melted back across the border into Iran and Syria...or just melted back into the populations (now, where have I heard that before?)  I hope these rat bastards are gone for good...but I'm not holding my breath.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Given the debate in the U.S. at the moment about whether to continue military involvement in Iraq, I suppose it's understandable that the debate is mostly trying to spin recent events in Iraq as supporting exclusively one side of the this argument, but I think both sides are missing a lot of what is going on in Iraq by trying to frame events in this light.

First of all, the big picture is that the Iraqi government is increasingly seen as the Shia Iraqi government, and the determination of the Sunnis to have nothing to do with it at whatever cost necessary has only deepened in the past year.  This is confirmed by the total lack of ongoing negotiations between the Sunnis and Shia about the future if Iraq.  This means that our idea of Iraq as a unified democratic state is effectively dead.

The security situation in Iraq has unquestionably been getting better.  Most of this has nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. policies.  The three principal reasons for this are the growing consolidation of power by militias, to the point that they are able to act as de facto police forces, attacks by Sunni tribal militias on foreign Jihadist forces in Iraq, and the depletion of vulnerable targets as ethnic cleansing advances to the point that in the most violent neighborhoods, there are few people left living outside enclaves composed of their own ethnic group.

All three of these were well underway before Petraeus took over, but at least the first two have been helped along by his leadership, which as has been about as successful as was possible under the circumstances.  The biggest change under Petraeus has not been the increase in number of troops itself, or the "Surge" itself, but the change in force deployment to place U.S. forces in smaller groups deeper in Iraq, where they are more vulnerable but more effective.  If we only wanted our troops to be safe, we could have kept them all hidden away in large encampments, the way most of them were before Petraeus took over.  A spike in U.S. casualties followed by a sharp decline was in fact what Petraeus was hoping for from the start.

With regard to foreign fighters, now that they are no longer welcome in Iraq, they have been going instead to Pakistan, where efforts against them have largely stopped with the ongoing political crisis, as well as to Afghanistan, where the security station is again deteriorating.

Most news reports which do report on the issue have noted that Al Qaeda in Iraq are being massacred.  Major papers are notably silent which says something as well.

The people we've killed are certainly not coming back -- the question is whether the local culture can be changed sufficiently so that the insurgency doesn't become 'endemic' to the local population. Once the majority of Iraqis take a dim attitude to Saudi's coming into their town/village/city to wage Jihad, a cultural tipping point will have been achieved.

My personal perspective is that we've won the asymmetric struggle for military control of Iraq. The current open question is whether political control can fall in line.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

So...you're cool with an unjustified war as long as it can be done on the cheap?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

So...you're cool with an unjustified war as long as it can be done on the cheap?

Oh please...you can't seriously be comparing the two.  Now, if you had said the same thing about the war in Afghanistan...you know, that place that really did house the folks that attacked us, I might agree with you.  But comparing these two very different wars (different goals, different players, different death toll, different results) is just foolish.

And before you get off on a "Liberals are weenies and hate war" tirade, let me remind you that while we should work hard to avoid war, some conflicts are justified.  Serbia?  Hmmmm, let's see...massive ethnic cleansing, massive refugees, and oh yah...The same start point as a World War.  Yep...looks pretty justified to me.

Iraq?  Not so much.

(oh, and thank you for playing the Clinton card...again)

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Serbia?  Hmmmm, let's see...massive ethnic cleansing, massive refugees, and oh yah...The same start point as a World War.  Yep...looks pretty justified to me

Is 700,000 (est) enough for you?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

700,000 what? Refugees or ethnically cleansed?

You don't think that being forced in refugee status is ethnic cleansing enough?  Or does rape and murder have to be involved?

Anyway, we're far off topic.  Maybe this deserves its own sub.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You don't think that being forced in refugee status is ethnic cleansing enough?

In any case, stopping ethnic cleansing was not the justification used for the war at the time - it only came afterwards. (Sort of like how the goal in Iraq morphed from WMD to spreading democracy.) The reason given at the time was to stop the Serbian army's offensive against a terrorist organization and to "prevent a wider war." Given that fact, and given the fact that the Serbian government had agreed, in principle, to give in to one of Clinton's chief demands (increased autonomy for Kosovo), and given that the Serbs had indicated they were still willing to negotiate if the US would soften its position on a NATO occupation, do you still maintain that the war was justified?

make a Kosovo sub and we'll discuss it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

somebody should recruit Niall over from plastic to do one. I bet he could write it in his sleep. what's his sig--where in the world is Radovan Karadzic.

Here's a related one--is the US even trying to capture Bin Laden any longer? If not, why not?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

make a Kosovo sub and we'll discuss it

Wasn't there a really cool movie about someone shot down behind enemy lines in a Kosvarian landscape? Hey wait...it was called Behind Enemy Lines.  It's a toss up whether I'll get it...it does have Gene Hackman in it...but it has Owen Wilson too...plus, Rotten Tomatoes said it sucked.  Guess I'll take a pass.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...it was called Behind Enemy Lines.  It's a toss up whether I'll get it...it does have Gene Hackman in it...but it has Owen Wilson too...

Yeah, that's what I meant.  Wow!  Gene Hackman...Oh. Owen Wilson.

Who the hell thought of casting him as a naval aviator, anyway?

Besides, I read some more reviews and it seems like the movie is filled with a lot of Rah! Rah! America rules! Jingoism.  And you know how much that can make a sensitive liberal such as myself cringe.  Maybe I'll pick up an Alan Alda movie.

I kid...Alan Alda sucks too...except for that science series he did on PBS.  That was pretty good.  No, I have a new Netflix waiting for me...Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.

It's gonna be a great weekend.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

By the way, I realize that in order to continue to claim the war against Serbia was "justified" you reject the historical facts (in this regard you're exactly the same as the neoconservatives who continue to claim the war against Iraq was justified), but I wonder what you make of the bombing of all those bridges over the Danube and the destruction of the headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia. Was the destruction of those targets necessary to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, hundreds of miles away?

Ummm, yes?  War sucks...but if I'm fighting someone and I really really need to win, I'll kick him in the balls.  Sometimes it's easier to win if you make your enemy weaker.  Unless I'm wrong, didn't we go after powerplants too?

Btw, how does it fall to me to explain war to a neocon?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Sometimes it's easier to win if you make your enemy weaker.  Unless I'm wrong, didn't we go after powerplants too?

Btw, how does it fall to me to explain war to a neocon?

Well...if the neocons have taught me nothing, they have taught me that if you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs.

But really...you seen kinda het up with this.  Make a Kosovo sub and we'll look into it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The same start point as a World War.  Yep...looks pretty justified to me

Hey, look over there! Clinton's cock!

Hey, look over there! Clinton's cock

(Why, I wonder, do you feel compelled to try to start a discussion about genitalia when the topic is war?)

Not in a nice way...but there it is.  Long hard things, both big and small, spewing out their loads, climatic explosions, and death (the undeniable result of birth).

Also, don't forget the uniforms, clear lines of authority, and aggressive interrogation techniques for those who swing that way.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Can you not see the irony of digging up past grievances as a point of hypocrisy, when your own support of Iraq is the definition of hypocrisy? If you lambast one yourself, how can you support the other?

There are many differences between the Balkans war and Iraq: The war wasn't started by the USA or the European powers. There was a real risk of war spilling out of the region. Europe learned their lesson about war and said enough. Kosovars actually needed assistance.

So for all it's relevance, you might as well have bought up Clinton's cock, which is implied by the wag-the-dog undercurrent of any discussion of the Balkans war by an american brownshirt.

Can you not see the irony of digging up past grievances as a point of hypocrisy, when your own support of Iraq is the definition of hypocrisy?

There was a real risk of war spilling out of the region

Europe learned their lesson about war and said enough

Kosovars actually needed assistance

So for all it's relevance, you might as well have bought up Clinton's cock, which is implied by the wag-the-dog undercurrent of any discussion of the Balkans war by an american brownshirt

What the hell ever gave you the idea that I support the war in Iraq?

That's horseshit if ever I've smelled it.  Are you saying that couldn't go through your comments on Plastic and never come across your support of the war? One thing that can be guaranteed is when there's a topic critizing the GOP, you're there to hijack the thread and discuss Clinton.

Weasel-words and double speak. You just lie and lie.

Are you saying that couldn't go through your comments on Plastic and never come across your support of the war?

One thing that can be guaranteed is when there's a topic critizing the GOP, you're there to hijack the thread and discuss Clinton

By the way, I'll be happy to accept your ever lengthening silence as a tacit admission that you were utterly unable to find an example of my support for the war.

I was fine with Kosovo and I'd have been fine with Iraq if it hadn't cost so much. The only problem being that the entire reason for an Iraq war was to spend gobs of money. Sort of a cart before the horse thing.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Allow me to add some context to the discsussion.

Gerrymand is referring to this Plastic QL I posted some weeks back where the chairman of the house budget committee (Spratt- D) said:

$2.4 trillion is enough to:
· Provide every college freshman in the country with a free, four year education at a private college or university
· Provide health care coverage to every American for one year
· Pay off 26% of our current national debt  

Now he MEANT to portray it as the Iraq War was expensive but unintentionally showed that 'true' universal healthcare is horrendously expensive. (The 2.4T figure was based on estimates inclusive of what we'd spend next year for the war), whereas 2.2T is a commonly bandied figure on what we spend on healthcare currently in an entire year.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

The 2.4T figure was based on estimates inclusive of what we'd spend next year for the war

Anyway, it's things like this that cause me to have no respect for the Democrats. If they want to discuss Iraq and fiscal responsibility, it's completely disingenuous to take an item of spending spread over ten years and make a comparison to what could be purchased in a single year.