I believe Buckley's comment was factually accurate and also grossly misleading. The key qualifier in his argument was "given the intelligence available to him".

George Bush is Denise Conner writ large. He had a preconceived position and then set out to cherry pick and distort facts to support this position. Book after book has been written about how Cheney's office, together with civilian leadership at the Dept of Defense, created their own adhoc intelligence operation that bypassed most if not all of the safeguards and checks at the CIA, NSA, etc. This "cooked" intelligence was used to justify Mr. Bush's splendid little war, to disasterous consequences.

Now then, on to more challenging topics!

I've read all three of the "What If?" anthologies and some of the scenarios are quite plausible. My favorite was how vastly different the world would have been had King Harald of England not sent the bulk of his army to the east to fight a non-existant Swedish army, thereby allowing William the Conqueror to seize a basically undefended Britain in 1066.

But I digress.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it becomes readily clear that the Hussein regime was failing rapidly as a result of US/UN sanctions. This is a key point that Conservatives seem unwilling or unable to admit. Saddam may have wanted to meddle in regional affairs, but lacked the capacity to do so. He was struggling to keep his own country afloat. He basically destroyed the incredible education infrastructure he'd spent two decades building up because he couldn't afford the upkeep any longer. (Few people realize that at one time Iraq had the highest literacy and education rate of any country in the Middle East).

Saddam was reduced to cutting deals with the Muslim theocrats to mollify his increasingly disgruntled people.

In the end, he had nothing but a ramshackle Army to help him retain power. I believe his days were numbered. A peaceful solution might have taken longer, but eventually he would have had to cede power. He never quite recovered from his Kuwait adventurism.

In any event, again with the benefit of hindsight, he clearly was NOT a "clear and present danger" to the United States or any other country for that matter. He had no WMDs, no capacity to wage war, and no desire to wage war.

Time and diplomacy could have rectified the situation in Iraq. A pity we chose instead to sacrifice 4000 American lives, 7.7 trillion dollars and America's reputation to forceably remove Hussein instead.

"Given the intelligence that he had available to him, it would have been irresponsible of him had he not invaded Iraq."

To think that a "responsible" nation must invade any country that is not an ally and is gaining functional WMDs leads me to believe you would support an invasion of Iran, North Korea, and a list of 3 or four other countries. I do not see that as "responsible" foreign policy. It is so clear that this admnistration was trying to build a case for invading Iraq before 9/11/01 which I believe shaped our preparedness on 9/11 and our response to it. I'm not that smart Muddle, but I, after three "visits" to the region between 96 and 99, saw nothing that compelled me to think we needed to invade Iraq. Call me crazy, but when you have UN officials on the ground in a country and your Air Force , Navy, and Marine fighter aircraft flying over it continuously and daily, that country does not pose a significant threat to you, me, or our Country. The people who have convinced you otherwise did a very slick sales job using fears (fears which lead us to torture). We now know what "car" we really bought. Very expensive financing, but a poor, poor performer.

Kevin "Hack" King

as we did in fact have the Iraqi nation "contained" and with that said, no feasable threat existed for substantial harm to the region nor to America existed by Iraq or its former leadership. Showing up the UN and making a mockery of resolution after resolution demonstrated that it was indeed a rogue nation, but the proliferation of a war should have been more carefully thought through.

The facts that we deployed and are currently waging this war with an ever growing discontent of our populace, lends me to believe that a much higher priority be given to defining what we can accept as a favorable outcome. We as Americans, especially those who have worn its uniform, do not accept losing gracefully. We can not simply withdraw and dishonor those who have paid the ultimate price, nor can we afford to loose face internationally.

Gen Petraeus has shown that his methods work militarily. Can you suggest a solution politically?

Well, I guess it isn't that late. Your comments are all true to the mark; top to bottom. Thank God we aren't willing losers. The problem I have with the Iraq debate is we talk of Iraq as being "ours." Our loss. Our victory. No, I don't have a single political solution for Iraqis in Iraq. For Americans, it is time to frame this discussion correctly. Iraqi sovereignty is to be sustained by Iraqis. Political solutions are to be brokered and maintained by sunnis and shiite Iraqis. This is not our fight to win or lose, and it is arrogance, I believe, to try and take ownership of a sovereign nation's affairs. I can't save a friend's marriage. I can't win another man's boxing match. We can't fight a political fight that is not ours. Once we realize that Iraqi sovereignty is up to Iraqis, redeploying home and into Afghanistan will be much easier, because we still need to find the all but forgotten Osama bin Laden

Good night

Kevin "Hack" King

Somehow, other than our names we have found commonality. Strange as it may be the two of us who generally take opposite stances, can realize the goal to which we wish to see, is the same.

It's always the "how" that that fills these pages. Good luck and perhaps one day we may be able to compare notes between a Warthog and a "little bird".

and no crescendo. No bullets fired in anger in 30+ combat sorties. I can make the most out of some peace time and quasi-combat time experiences, though! I've got three months off and an open lunch schedule. Let me know when you want to meet. I'm much nicer than my tv character makes me appear.

Kevin "Hack" King

No big announcements and media stories about troop withdrawals, timelines, mission goals, etc. An orderly withdrawal out of Iraq over time with the emphasis on now rather than later seems to be the most feasible way for the US to extract itself from a country that is going to sink or swim due to what it does, not what the US wants it to or suggests. The "mission"-however foggy it was beyond regime-change-has been accomplished now that the level of civil unrest and chaos has declined enough for the Iraq people to have a chance to build something new. US can stay around, pouring money and soldiers into Iraq, to root out some more extremists and beat-down terrorist wanna-be's, but the point of diminishing returns has been reached. The amount of resources that need to be used outweigh the benefits gained by doing so.

You can't do the above when the discussion politically is all about Dems vs. Repubs and grandstanding. That's a sure way to stay in Iraq forever at a reduced level that is ineffective and a quagmire.

As far as Osama and Afghanistan, let's get(git?) real. We kill Osama today and a lot of people are immediately going to start yelling "he's just one person.....he wasn't in control of anything any more.....it's his ideas, not he himself that is the problem....this solves nothing....plenty that have taken his place.....waaah!" Same thing that happened when Saddam was fished out of his rat-hole.

I'd like to see Osama get his final judgment as bad as anyone else, but I don't think in the grand scheme of extremist Muslims that it changes much. I might have to agree with the cynics and whiny doomsdayers on that one. The terrorism of today has been nurtured and grown largely in Saudi Arabian culture and schools for decades and funded completely by the USA's unquenchable thirst for oil and a place to stick a military operation that also protects the Kingdom of Saud that hates our guts. Symbolically, Osama's demise means something. Realistically and in the big picture, not so much.

DON'T TASE ME, BRO!!!

It’s kind of like the "painting one’s self in a corner" analogy. You know this has been brewing for a very long while. Past administrations failed to take this problem head-on.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

You absolutely, positively have to consume more news to fuel your arguments and shape your responses. Do you not remember ANY references the president made to energy supplies when discussing this war? Do you not remember Alan Greenspan's (liberal???) direct comments to the very soul of this subject? Here, I'll go get them for you (time 9:51pm) There. I'm back (9:52pm) from the Free Market News:

" AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil. In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies. However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. Sunday Times (Britain)"

Why do you call people you VOTE for "liberals" when their policies don't pan out?

Kevin "Hack" King

"Your hatred for the current administration knows no bounds."

Hatred? No. Disgust? Yes.

"Fact – reliable Iraqi officials have come forward to reveal that many WMDs were sent by air to Syria before the war started – and due to MSM liberal bias, this fact has been under-reported. Even John Stewart had an Iraqi general officer on his show that wrote a book detailing the WMD evacuation operation - mostly ignored by the liberal media. Further, some WMDs have been found in Iraq. Again, reports have been ignored by the MSM which amounts to a BIGGER LIE, a lie of omission."

FACT? No. Reliable? Not so sure.

Gosh... "Even John Stewart" interviewed Georges Sada, who was promoting his book, "Saddam's Secrets" at the time - so, this makes his claim true I suppose… because a comedian invited him on his show… uh, okay.

That's really an intriguing story Georges Sada has included in his 2006 book, regarding the supposed transportation of WMD's on a couple of planes bound for Syria. So… did they find those planes or the WMD's??? No, they never did, to my knowledge. If you know more, than please share your info with us. Don't you think Bush, and/or the C.I.A./D.O.D./Military would have followed up on Sada's claim and uncovered this conspiracy by now, to help bolster the decision to invade Iraq? Or is he waiting until the last minute (November election) to show the world this evidence:

"The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."

So… Mr. Sada got this info second hand and was NOT an actual witness to any of this… And if found to be true, which sounds farfetched, this is the reason we went to war. For a few "yellow barrels."

This story came out in 2006. So… do you have an update on this for us, trax??

And for the al Qaeda link you profess in your post. Well, it would be helpful to SEE THIS REPORT that Bush is sweeping under the Oval Office rug!

Bush is almost out of office, thank god, however, he continues to operate in secrecy. This report should be released in a way that is easily accessed by the public and the media. Why does this administration continue to operate in the shadows?

Again, it's not hatred. It's total disgust.

This is all they have, Main. They have to defend the Iraq war, no matter how far fetched their reasons be, because Iraq is THE LEGACY of this President. Period.

Here is what I won't rest without a viable answer to:

If the surge is working/has worked/was successful, when can we expect combat troops to begin coming home? Do none of you war in Iraq supporters ever ask why there is such an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in this war from the highest levels of military brass?

Kevin "Hack" King

Do none of you war in Iraq supporters ever ask why there is such an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in this war from the highest levels of military brass?

Hasn't that been the case in every war we've ever been in? Heck, I'm dissatified and often times discouraged in our efforts to fight the Islamo Facists. I'm not sure any of us are blind to the fact that they are going to hate us try to destroy us irregardless of whether we smoke the peace pipe with them or we bomb them to smitherines. (spelling )

Here's my thing. If we would retreat from those areas with the full intentions of securing our borders and diligently hunting down terrorist in our country, then I vote aye for getting out of there. But along with that, if we desire to maintain the remaing few freedoms we enjoy, we must drill our coastlines and other ANWR type reserves and become somewhat of a nationalistic and isolationist nation. I'll play. However, pulling out and not dealing with securing our borders and pursuing terrorists will only embolden our enemies.

Then all we'll have to worry about is Iran, Pakistan and the other nut case countries desire to lob nukes at us. Sheesh... we lose which ever way we go.

________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

How do we pay the Iraq note if we stay until Sunnis and Shiites decide to unite?

Kevin "Hack" King

Cutting spending is the only option that makes any sense. Going further into debt...NOT AN ANSWER. Elimination of these tax cuts.....NOT AN ANSWER EITHER.

Politicians will always take the path of expediency and that's why tax cuts are popular with them as long as spending INCREASES, which leads to deficits. Deficits are something for "someone else" to deal with later...the current elected pol isn't all that affected in the short-term. "Yes my fair people, I am for reducing your taxes so you keep more of your money and at the same time all the other stuff you want is not affected." That's your modern-day Republican right there.

You pay the bill the same way you should be doing whether the USA was in Iraq or not: gut spending. I mean, really gut federal spending. Start with the elimination of the Dept of Education. Dramatically reduce overseas entitlements that are lame bribes for countries to say something nice about the US once every blue moon while they go about doing whatever they feel like regardless of our money. Reduce-not freeze- non-entitlement domestic spending. End all subsidies and guarantees to favored cash cows like agriculture. Begin the major task of restructuring entitlement programs that are bottomless pits of money and grow like kudzu. End the Social Security ponzi scam that is structured in a manner that is completely illegal and is considered to be fraud when done by anyone else but the federal government.

The pols should be doing all of this whether the military is occupying another country or not, it just becomes more critical now when money is being sucked into Iraq in bundles.

I don't believe in the Dems' ideas of a wartime fiscal policy(raise taxes)that is different than non-wartimes unless it's of the magnitude of a world war. Iraq isn't.

Hack,

Why should we continue to fund the war on poverty. It can never be won! There will always be poor among us.

How are we going to pay for that. I know, we'll pay for it when B-HO* taxes our income at the 52% level, like he is proposing.

*Barak Hussein Obama

Barack Hussein Obama is a human featherball -- a slick, smiling, substance-free empty suit who excites gullible dimwits by repeating the words “change,” “unity,” and “hope” over and over --

Because the difference between "total disgust" and "hatred" for you is nil. And your own words support my assertion.

Why else would be so willing to twist the facts? How is this "SECRECY"???? It is available to any reporter who wants it.
Instead of posting the study on a website, the administration chose to release it upon request. And as soon as one reporter gets their hands on it, it will be posted on a web site for all to see. So what is your real motivation here, conspiracy theorist?

Sorry, but your own words show you for what you really are. Just another hate-filled vendetta seeker willing to distort the truth in order to villify the current administration. And you also believe that bloggers here don't see right thru you? How self-deluded are you?

For everyone's sake, please, get a grip and stop playing ridiculous games with semantics.

Hatred plain and simple. Just admit it and "move on"(.org)

From the other side of the tracks

Don't put words in my mouth.

I obviously HATE this war. And I'm DISGUSTED with the Bush administration for starting this insanity.

So... I'm waiting for an update on those WMD's... I mean "yellow barrels" that were whisked away to Syria on those passenger planes.

And yes, Bush continues to conduct his business in the shadows. Otherwise, he would have released the report as initially intended.

Maybe you should be asking yourself.... what game is Bush trying to play?

You can beat ‘em over the head with this all day but it won’t do any good. The fact that Saddam had WMDs and the fact that a lot of the known WMDs disappeared is skirted in their arguments. The fact that he had every intention of producing more WMDs (Duelfer report) is ignored. The fact that he supported terrorist activities is dismissed by “there were no direct links between Saddam and Osama”. The fact that he flouted every UN resolution to rein him in is conveniently forgotten. Instead they’ll just keep linking each others blogs as “more evidence” in their massive Bush-derangement circle-jerk.

If it is FACT that Saddam had WMDs, why did our president (in your opinion) lie to us by saying he didn't actually have WMDs? Why would the administration perpetuate the lie that there were no actual WMDs? And WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Kevin "Hack" King

Saddam had WMDs. That’s a fact. He used them on people. That’s a fact. The UN destroyed large quantities before withdrawing while Saddam played hide and seek with them. That’s a fact.

When did Saddam gas his enemies? He did it in the 80s, fighting Iran, with the blessings and handshake of Donald Rumsfeld and his boss the actor. We aren't 'tupid. But when we WENT TO WAR in 2003, what FACTS can you show for the presence of WMD? Where did they go? Why did we not follow them? Why is this president keeping knowledge of the 2003 WMDs a secret?

Kevin "Hack" King

"Pentagon Report Finds No Direct Saddam-al-Qaida Connection"
-Voice of America

(Maximus, I guess the Pentagon and the Voice of America are a couple of those "whining" left-wingers you are always talking about.)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-13-voa52.cfm

Here's an excerpt:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Other reports have also reached the same conclusion, including the U.S. September 11th Commission and the Pentagon's Inspector General.

The point is important because an alleged connection between Saddam and al-Qaida was one of the Bush administration's justifications for the invasion of Iraq five years ago, and the toppling of Saddam's regime.

Foreign Policy Analyst Olga Oliker at the Rand Corporation research organization says it would not have made sense for Saddam to support groups like al-Qaida that were dedicated to overthrowing secular governments like his own. And she says many other reports, both before and after the U.S.-led invasion, have come to the conclusion that he didn't support those groups.

"I think what's news about it or what's interesting about it is that it is an additional report by a U.S. government agency that refutes an assertion that was made by people in the Bush administration," said Olga Oliker. "It would be really hard to find something that does support what members of the administration had said."

The Pentagon released the three-page executive summary of the Iraqi Perspectives Project on Thursday after reporters complained that the full report's release was being delayed. The Pentagon said the delay is a matter of logistics because the report includes several volumes of material.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bush-derangement circle-jerk". Classic. I'll have to remember that one. LOL

From the other side of the tracks

You also have to remember to read information provided by sources other than the Daily Show.

Kevin "Hack" King