Wordsmith: My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.

In looking back, as that is all we can do now, there were opportunities to bolster sanctions and tighten the noose on Saddam. Weighing the outcome and costs (as we see them today) was it worth it if we could have achieved our goal of containment and verifiable disarmament. We lived with Kadafi for a long time, and we lived with other despotic regimes with unfriendly intentions. There are many players in the game who dwarf Iraq’s strategic threat to our security; namely, Russia and China.

Wordsmith: Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?

That blame probably should be shared with all you mentioned as that was their responsibility to ask the questions and hold accountable those who worked for them. The buck has to stop somewhere.

wordsmith: As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort.

I agree with you. There has to be a reality between the positions of the right and left as neither side owns the truth, or at least not all of the time.

I’m also not a fan of Richard Clarke. He’s proof that nothing good happens when a leftwing idiot rises thru the ranks of the military. He was strictly a political pick because he had the correct leftist beliefs. I tend to listen to Wesley Clark who also happens to think Richard (Dick) is an incompetent partisan hack. He complained in his book that Dick Clarke never gave him ANY actionable intelligence. Not once.

The sad thing is that some of the generals responsible for the mess later tried to blame Bush and the media ate it up without question.

I was going through Richard Clarke’s book the other night, Against All Enemies, and in defending the Clinton Administration, he mentioned how sometimes senior military officials would let it spread down the ranks that politicians in the White House were to blame for unpopular decisions, rather than taking responsibility themselves.

Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.

My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.

No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us.

What I refer to is, catching Saddam off-guard by such a quick, mobile, and light footprint. Saddam didn’t think the war would start until the 4th ID was in place. Had the war been delayed further, Saddam would have had more time for booby-trapping bridges and oil fields, as he had done during the Gulf War. Iraqis had begun such rigging, but did not see them to completion, due to the untimely start of the war. I’d say that saved lives, during major combat operations.

Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?

CENTCOM planners relied on the CIA’s assessment in calculating troop levels for the invasion; they assumed that large numbers of Iraqi police would be available to maintain public order after the fall of Saddam’s regime.

The criticism that Rumsfeld is to blame for “not enough troops” is misplaced, imo. According to Feith, Rumsfeld would have given Franks the troop level he wanted, if he had asked. He didn’t ask. Generals who have criticized the troop level didn’t fail to convince Rumsfeld; they failed to convince General Franks.

No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid.

If it’s criticism based not on political partisanship, but upon legitimate criticism that certain conditions that took place could have been averted by foresight planning. As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort. I’m not saying you’re doing it, but there are critics who have engaged in this.

What is invincible to most people are all the things that went right and things that were averted because of the “adequate” planning.

If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).

That’s fair. Sometimes it’s hard to separate someone like yourself from the BDSers who are more interested in laying blame, and nothing else.

Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.

Thank you. To you as well.

@MataHarley:

So sorry your eyes glazed over, Word. Then again, I have to say some of your posts have done the same to me. So no offense taken, and all accepted in your inimitable good humor.

No insult was intended. By “eyes glazed over”, I wasn’t saying what you and Blast had to talk about was not worth the read, but just that I was scrolling through, it looked like a lot to catch up on, when I was pressed for time. It just looked like a lot to go through, but it’s really not. And I always appreciate the amount of time you put into your comments, complete with relevant links.

blast: They can make mistakes and if they do, why not just admit it and move on. Maybe I am politically naive, but that is how I think.

So what does that mean in your analysis? Say… in the summer of 2006, when the Iragis finally put into place their first permanent elected government, that we just say “ooops! Sorry… we made an error. See ya!” ?????

Once we removed Saddam, we were obligated to stand by their new govt until they could stand safely and effectively on their own. Yet the Dems advocated desertion at every opportunity because it affected the US and public opinon. The Iraqis? They could give a damn for their outcome.

Their success meant vast progress on our national security. Their failure meant the converse.

So ’splain, please Mr. blast… what does that “… make mistakes.. and “…. admit it and move on… mean in this instance?

Mataharley: INRE the economics of war… using your analogy for costs, I’d have to wonder if anyone would support wars that were not active invasion of US soil.

Mataharley: I may disagree when the decision is being mulled publicly. But once committed, I drop those protests and say “go for it full bore”. I did that thru the 90s. I did that as a military wife during Vietnam.

Your experiences are different from mine, and I think you know (or I hope you do) that whither or not we agree or disagree that I value that perspective. When I respond to something is because I have an opinion or are interested in discussing a point. No doubt that ends at the waters edge and am American first and foremost. I do however feel that if a policy needs to be changed, or some value is being misused I will say so. It is not a matter of who is president, Bush, Clinton or Obama, as to supporting or opposing some policy they embark on. I did not disagree with the Iraq invasion at the time and trusted the people above my pay grade to make the right decisions. No doubt they had many right calls and some that were bad too. The price of admission to being President is having people agree and disagree with nearly everything you do. President Bush is not an evil person in my opinion. Do I think we needed to go into Iraq (now with hindsight) at the time we chose, no I don’t. I expect our leaders to make better decisions than I can, given the resources and smart people (all above my pay grade, lol) they have at their disposal. They can make mistakes and if they do, why not just admit it and move on. Maybe I am politically naive, but that is how I think.

And BTW, thank you not only for your service, but for not labeling our CIC a “liar” at any time… even tho you disagree. You’re a liberal I could break bread with any day, and not walk away with steam pouring from my ears. LOL

Well, with Martha Stewert’s cookies of mass destruction on my mind and breaking bread… I am hungry. I probably come across liberal in this forum, and maybe I am. I don’t consider myself liberal, I see myself more as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican with some Libertarian leanings. Maybe the cookies had something smokeable in them… Oh, and thank you too.

The Administration deserves credit for its secret negotiations with Libya, prior and after the Iraq invasion. And it’s because of Libya’s direct involvement with terrorism, that negotiations had not been all smooth. As sanctions were being lifted, it still remained on Washington’s list of state-sponsors of terror and full diplomatic relations were not restored until December of 2003 when

Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.

The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and a sprint to Baghdad was brilliant, don’t you think? It probably saved lives during major combat operations. Also, since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Franks adapted, fooling Saddam as to the actual start date of the invasion.

No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us. That sewed the seeds that allowed things to devolve to near chaos. Our warriors deserve all the credit for pulling the place together and the lessons learned on the battalion level that turned the tide. No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid. If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).

I’d accuse both of you of comment-proliferation. My eyes glazed over after skimming through the first few paragraphs.

This is all I have time for as I’m bogged down with Christmas activities on two fronts.

Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.

blast: I would have to say Airplanes would fit that bill then. What do you think the number should be?

Here is a place we can agree on a concept of WMD. To me, it has no number, but is a weapon of any sort used to maximize death count… whether it succeeds or not.

So yes, I consider biological attacks, such as the very minimally successful (in the cost of lives) a WMD. This is why I do not hold with the rallying cry of “no WMD”. I know very well that Saddam’s chemical labs could churn out bio/chem stashes like Martha Stewart can churn out cookies. When you compound that with proscribed missiles that he acquired after 1998, Saddam possessed WMDs that he could put together for his own use, for for sale on the black market. So I think it’s just a matter of what one considers a WMD… or, in more popular phrase’ology… “what the meaning of ‘is’… is”.

INRE the economics of war… using your analogy for costs, I’d have to wonder if anyone would support wars that were not active invasion of US soil. That’s only happened a few times…. American Revolution, Pearl Harbor and 911 being the most well known. The first two were easier to discern the enemy as they were nation/states. The last? It’s like being attacked by the Bloods ‘n’ Crips, fer heavens sake. It’s a war foreign to our modern comprehension (not that the ideological war hasn’t been fought before in history).

I have a very American attitude towards wars… and that includes Clinton’s wars that I did not support. I may disagree when the decision is being mulled publicly. But once committed, I drop those protests and say “go for it full bore”. I did that thru the 90s. I did that as a military wife during Vietnam. And I’d do it under a President Obama as well. I wish it were an attitude more widespread. After we are committed, the time to whine is over.

And BTW, thank you not only for your service, but for not labeling our CIC a “liar” at any time… even tho you disagree. You’re a liberal I could break bread with any day, and not walk away with steam pouring from my ears. LOL

So sorry your eyes glazed over, Word. Then again, I have to say some of your posts have done the same to me. So no offense taken, and all accepted in your inimitable good humor.

Wordsmith, “not normative” is not an accurate description when preemption is actually the written policy, i.e. Bush Doctrine.

And yet when else has this “bush doctrine” of pre-emption been applied elsewhere? Iraq was a special case, where diplomacy was absolutely irredeemable in relation to Saddam. The previous 10 years of experience in dealing with us and the UN sent a message to him that we had a lot of bark but no teeth. He did not think that this President would resume the first Gulf War and enforce the provisions of the Cease-Fire Agreement. At most, he thought he’d weather what he went through during the Clinton years:

“As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn’t he stop it then? And say, ‘Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.’ I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?” Pelley asks.

“He didn’t. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially,” Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. “He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage,” he says.

“Saddam didn’t believe that the United States would invade,” Pelley remarks.

“Not initially, no,” Piro says.

Saddam was Saddam, with no indication that he would ever change.

Did you think Kadafi would change? In his case there was direct evidence of REAL cases his government was directly connected to terrorism and attacks on American civilians as well as military.

I think it’s debatable whether or not the quick downfall of Saddam’s regime had any influence on Libya coming clean. I think America on a war-footing had some influence (both Afghanistan, followed up by Iraq); the rest being diplomacy and some intelligence coup regarding Libya’s pursuit of wmd capabilities. It was a combination of “steel and a willingness to deal”.

I’ve read that Kadafi called Mubarak during the run-up to the war in Afghanistan fearing that Libya would be America’s next target after the Taliban; and that he called Berlusconi and expressed the same fear and anxiety when the U.S. was gathering forces to invade Iraq.

The Administration deserves credit for its secret negotiations with Libya, prior and after the Iraq invasion. And it’s because of Libya’s direct involvement with terrorism, that negotiations had not been all smooth. As sanctions were being lifted, it still remained on Washington’s list of state-sponsors of terror and full diplomatic relations were not restored until December of 2003 when

We have a right to self defense, no doubt about it. We don’t need to wait for a smoking gun “in the form of a mushroom cloud” either, but when you pull the trigger you better: a) have your facts straight, b) have a good plan, c) have competent people formulating policies. In the case for Iraq, we failed on a, b and c.

a) The whole nature of intelligence-gathering is guess work. Historically, how accurate has intelligence ever been? And has it typically underestimated or overestimated the threat level?

b)Was the Normandy Invasion “good planning”? No plan survives after first contact, and all you have left is “coulda, shoulda, woulda”. As Mata points out, what is remarkable is that we haven’t lost more than what we’ve lost. Every death is to be mourned; but if all you do is pay attention to body counts, then the war will always be viewed as “not worth the price”. The anti-war crowd and the media have highlighted and underscored every body count milestone (remember when they were wailing about the death toll reaching 500, 10 months after the invasion?)

The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and a sprint to Baghdad was brilliant, don’t you think? It probably saved lives during major combat operations. Also, since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Franks adapted, fooling Saddam as to the actual start date of the invasion.

Post-war operations? There were a lot of planning that went into this. The criticism of “things going wrong” can be leveled at any Administration at any time in any previous war. “Stuff happens”, as Rumsfeld put it with blunt eloquence. What war is ever fought with perfect execution with the original battle plans remaining inflexibly intact?

The original plan was the Afghanistan model of handing the reigns over to an interim government with an Iraqi face; “liberation not occupation”. Somehow, State Dept. and Paul Bremer changed that original intent.

@blast:

MataHarley, you believe in comments of mass destruction…

I’d accuse both of you of comment-proliferation. My eyes glazed over after skimming through the first few paragraphs.

This is all I have time for as I’m bogged down with Christmas activities on two fronts.

On the economics of the war. There is no question in the end this war will have a landed cost above a trillion dollars. Just the cost of borrowing the money we use today for the war will be a huge burden of billions of dollars. We know our heros will have medical expenses that must be one of the highest priorities and will cost billions over their lifetimes. The stimulating effects or income raising effects of the war, well, that is not the type of stimulus we need. Althought it adds to the gross revenues of the government, the bottom line is still the money spent, unless you think the government should be in the business of providing business to stimulate economic conditions. Since you lack a Nobel Prize in Economics, I would be more likely to believe the Columbia professor’s analysis, even if I discounted it substantially it still would be more than what you state and what Bush & Company stated at the outset of the war.

CBO’s monthly cost of conducting the war is $6 to $9 bil. You’re trying to include deployment costs, occupation costs, and returning costs.

yes, I am including all costs… that is what I meant when I said the cost of blood and treasure… that means all the costs of being there.

I think when we come to your list 1,5 – we will just have to disagree. I am not going to get into a comparison between our founding revolution and the fledgling democracy we have created in the Arab world. Comparing the two is ludicrous in my opinion.

“Come on, this is like beating a dead horse. Even the President says there were no WMD’s and the intel was wrong.”

So evidently you want to *believe* Bush when it suits your opinion, and discard him as a liar when it doesn’t? Shameless you are here, blast. I ’spect better of you.

Well, first you have never seen me call the president a liar, I never would say that. Second, I take as much information in as I can, and then weigh it. No doubt I believed the initial statements about WMD and when none were found I reevaluated that position and now we have even Pres Bush stating the obvious.

I want to know ift *you* consider a vial of chem/bio weapons on an illegal missile a WMD? That does stand for “weapon of mass destruction”, ya know. Unfortunately, it’s possible this may become important for future debates, as the intel seems to point to chem/bio assaults on US soil. So are we differentiating, and that’s not a WMD? Or does it have a minimal number of people that are killed to meet the WMD test? If so, what’s that number? Enquiring minds want to know.

*you* lol. I have read about the possible future issues of WMD’s being used against us here. I think WMD is too broad a characterization for such a complex topic, but since it is the shorthand being used fine. I do think there is a difference between a biological attack, chemical attack, nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb. Each one has distinct footprints and countermeasures. The potential for a cataclysmic detonation of a nuclear device is small due to the nature of what it takes to produce it, but the end result of such an attack would be for sure a WMD. Would some stolen xray materials and some TNT be a WMD? No, but it would be an effective terror device. We already have had an attack from a biological source, did I think that attack was a WMD, no. But it again had a profound terrorist effect. I can’t say I know the number of casualties to declare something a WMD, I would have to say Airplanes would fit that bill then. What do you think the number should be?

Additional source that support for jihad has gone way down due to “self inflicted” actions:

The Simon Fraser study notes that the decline in terrorism appears to be caused by many factors, among them successful counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries and infighting among terror groups. But the most significant, in the study’s view, is the “extraordinary drop in support for Islamist terror organizations in the Muslim world over the past five years.” These are largely self-inflicted wounds. The more people are exposed to the jihadists’ tactics and world view, the less they support them.

An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent. In Pakistan’s North-West Frontier province, where Al Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent in August 2007 to 4 percent in January 2008. That dramatic drop was probably a reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but it points to a general trend in Pakistan over the past five years.

With every new terrorist attack, public support for jihad falls. “This pattern is repeated in country after country in the Muslim world,” writes Mack. “Its strategic implications are critically important because historical evidence suggests that terrorist campaigns that lose public support will sooner or later be abandoned or defeated.”

… the more peole are exposed to the jihadists’ tactics and world view, the less they support them.

And where, primarily, have the jihadists been able to show their tactics the most? Iraq. Also Pakistan. Support for jihad among British Muslims plummeted after the London bombings of July 2005.

INRE deployment costs: have you weighed that against the additional manufacturing and tax revenue to the US govt for companies supplying services? Nope… just the outlay, not defrayed by the income. That’s like talking gross instead of net.

Second… occupation costs. Have you weighed the costs of paying and supplying troops whether they are here, or over there? oops…

Returning costs… does that include abandoning the equipment, as Obama would have to do to meet his deadline. Or bringing the equipment back?

All in all, the CBO says to prosecute both wars is estimated between $6-$9 bil. So your claims are still mired in tons ‘o’ BS.

Your counter responses to the accomplishments in the ME are pathetic, and underinformed, blast. Shame on you. Let’s see if we can help out.

1) you are kidding right? Like we can claim that these two governments are stable and will last, no. I agree that it would be nice, but “progressing towards” is not very descriptive.

I’m sorry, but how “stable” was the US in it’s early years? Do you think governments transform overnight? In fact, how “stable” do you think the US is even now? Life and population ever morph. We might find ourselves the new Venezuela or Cuba. Russia and China may find themselves the new capitalist giant.

However a fledgling Arab democracy is an improvement over a despotic regime any day. And if “stable” is your criteria, you’d better move to Utopia… where ever that is. Chicago perhaps?

2) Pakistan… wow. Chaos on earth, possibly behind terror attack in India

See above in part. Now add that there isn’t an Arab nation on earth that doesn’t have jihad firmly entrenched within their masses. Muslim nations (not necessary just Arab) have to find that balance in their population between western culture and capitalism, and the fundamental Muslims who also reside in their midst. There are some who seek jihad thru legislative means. Others seek it thru violent overthrow. It is the latter we are concerned with.

No Muslim nation will completely bond with the west. Our cultures are too different. However what we can do is cooperate in intel and controlling the jihad cockroaches that affect both peaceful Muslims and the west. So what you ask of Pakistan and ilk is to be another America. Ain’t going to happen. And to request that is offensive and pushy…

3) UAE is totally reliant on the US for security so that is a no brainer.

Yet so much of the cash for 911 was funnelled thru UAE. That they now cut off the money is not an “achievement” to you? This is cherry-picking. Maybe we should go back to letting them push jihad money thru, eh?

4) Libya, well, we have covered this already… I will give credit to Pres Bush for achieving this goal, but not because of the Iraq war.

“… but not because of the Iraq war”… Really? So it’s coincidental that after the statue of Saddam was toppled, Ghadafi was on the phone saying take my WMD program please? Horse manure.

5) Jihad has fallen out of favor. I don’t think if that is true it is because of the Iraq war. You would have to explain how that happened.

Lordy, must create yet another bookmark file since this is stuff I have to keep repeating over and over… and even from my own blog pre-FA author days.

Yes… the jihad fall from favor is directly as a result of Iraq after 2006. After the US went into Afghanistan, most Muslims felt there was some degree of compassion for jihad, as was their way. That, however, was before AQ and their associated jihad movement demonstrated their bloodbath warfare on fellow Muslims in Iraq in their attempts to start a civil war and create mayhem. (ala… mid 2006, and the bombing of the mosque that started it all)

This WaPo article is the only story I can link to quickly, but it’s not the only story of how jihad is now less than respected amongst mainstream Muslims. The story of a Gitmo young jihadist released.

Hubayshi, 32, a Saudi native, was among the Arab fighters dug in with bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora during the U.S. bombardment of Afghanistan in 2001. He later spent time in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in a Saudi jail.

He was released in 2006 into a world radically altered by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Muslim fighters were no longer viewed in Arab countries as larger-than-life heroes, and clerics had stopped urging young Muslims to fulfill their religious duties by fighting on behalf of their brethren.

Hubayshi had also changed. He had grown disillusioned with bin Laden, whose initial idealism had turned into terrorism, he said, adding that his family, “not bin Laden,” had suffered when he was at Guantanamo.

Then there is the NYT’s article of Mar of this year.. speaking of how the young Muslims are turning away from the religious clerics because of the violence. Also Jihad Watch’s commentary on the same story, noting the same disillusionment with jihad.

Add to that the major battle between Zawahiri and his EIJ predecessor, Sayd Imam al-Sharif. This started back in March when Sayd Imam wrote what I called a new “kinder, gentler” rules of engage for jihad, and called out Zawahiri specifically. He and his cleric faithful haven’t turned western, but have increased their disapproval of the AQ and associates methods of waging war against fellow Muslims.

You see, it’s not just the Sunni Awakening tribal leaders that have been turning on these outlaw jihad warriors. This is, perhaps, one of the most influential changes in the war on the global Islamic jihad movement, as it affects the upcoming generations. The perpetuation of hate will die down. Yet it could not have happened had they not demonstrated their desperate warfare in Iraq.

On the whole turning Afghanistan over to NATO, humm… that was the Bush policy… do you think it had anything to do with lack of US troop availability and wanting to pressure our NATO allies to contribute to at least that front?

Really? A “Bush policy”? Who was whining that we didn’t have UN/NATO support going into Iraq? Who always says we must go to the UN for approval to take a dump??

And now, blast… it had nothing to do with lack of troops. We were already in Iraq when we turned over security for Afghanistan to NATO. Remember, that was the summer of 2006. And we have not transferred more than a unit or so (ask Wordsmith… he remembers exactly, if I recall right) from Afghanistan to Iraq. What the heck are you talking about???

It was turned over to NATO so that it would not begin to be see as a unilaterial US action for long term. It was a US coalition going it, but having NATO man the security took it to an int’l perception, and not a US occupation perception. Of course Obama didn’t see this and started whining to increase the US footprint in early 2007. McCain said no… needed to get the NATO allies to do their part so it maintained the int’l flavor.

Obama, today, still remains clueless. It’s not good for Iraq to be “unilateral US”, but it’s evidently okay for Afghanistan to be “unilateral US”.

I asked you if a vial of chem or bio – loaded onto a missiles – was a WMD in your opinion. And you come back with this???

Come on, this is like beating a dead horse. Even the President says there were no WMD’s and the intel was wrong.

So evidently you want to *believe* Bush when it suits your opinion, and discard him as a liar when it doesn’t? Shameless you are here, blast. I ’spect better of you.

Sorry.. I can’t let you get away with that. I don’t care what Bush says. He’s done a deplorable job of PR on this war. I agree with his actions. I don’t agree with his presentation to America.

I want to know ift *you* consider a vial of chem/bio weapons on an illegal missile a WMD? That does stand for “weapon of mass destruction”, ya know. Unfortunately, it’s possible this may become important for future debates, as the intel seems to point to chem/bio assaults on US soil. So are we differentiating, and that’s not a WMD? Or does it have a minimal number of people that are killed to meet the WMD test? If so, what’s that number? Enquiring minds want to know.

MataHarley: Is math a lost art anymore? Estimated cost of Iraq is about $5 bil a month. Even $1 tril would mean 200 months, or 16.6 years in Iraq. Please explain how you came to your “trillions” figure. Funny, I asked that of Larry W too. Still tapping toes, waiting… waiting… waiting.

Well, there are a number of sources who estimate the cost of the war from left to right on this, some estimate $2.5 Trillion (Stiglitz/Bilmes), CBO (including Afghanistan) says $1.7 Trillion, American & Brookings Inst. joint report put it at $1 trillion. Of course there are other estimates that juice the costs up over $3.5 Trillion.

Your list of good things? wow, you can do better than that. Most of that is wishful thinking or just an interpretation.

1: Iraq and Afghanistan progressing towards democratically elected Arab governments.
2: Pakistan is no longer an enemy with a nuke arsenal
3: UAE is assisting in halting the finances of terrorists
4: Libya abandoned their WMD program without a shot fired
5: Jihad has fallen out of favor with a considerably higher percentage of Muslims

1) you are kidding right? Like we can claim that these two governments are stable and will last, no. I agree that it would be nice, but “progressing towards” is not very descriptive.
2) Pakistan… wow. Chaos on earth, possibly behind terror attack in India
3) UAE is totally reliant on the US for security so that is a no brainer.
4) Libya, well, we have covered this already… I will give credit to Pres Bush for achieving this goal, but not because of the Iraq war.
5) Jihad has fallen out of favor. I don’t think if that is true it is because of the Iraq war. You would have to explain how that happened.

Saddam possessed stashes of chemicals, and possessed proscribed (i.e. illegal) missiles that the UNMOVIC found discarded in a Netherlands junk yard. Missiles acquired AFTER 1998. Let’s see… a vial of chemicals on a missile. Does that pass as a WMD in your opinion? Or does it have to be a nuke?

Come on, this is like beating a dead horse. Even the President says there were no WMD’s and the intel was wrong. It was a big screw up and if they had not jumped the gun and invaded, maybe they could have avoided this whole costly mess.

On the whole turning Afghanistan over to NATO, humm… that was the Bush policy… do you think it had anything to do with lack of US troop availability and wanting to pressure our NATO allies to contribute to at least that front? I think that is more the case then blaming the dems or anyone else.

And thank you for being one of the few naysayers that at least doesn’t emphatically state that life would have been rosy had Saddam stayed in power

Saddam was a bad actor, glad he is dead, I just think we payed way to much for the pleasure of seeing that cell phone video of his last minutes. Oh, and I do like communicating with you. Happy Sat.