This particular comment has been taken so far out of context that even the AP felt the need to run a correction.

As McCain said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

This type of lying is typical of the HRC and Obama campaigns. Every once in awhile they take a break from throwing lies and accusations at each other and go after McCain. I can't wait until they ruin their party for good in Denver.

So what is Clinton trying to do, get points on stating the obvious? She really has become the Washington, talk out of both side of your mouth, politician that most of us recognize her as being. She's as tied to Bush as McCain is. They both voted to give Bush Carte Blanc to go to war. The two of them are joined at the hips on that one and she can't get away.

To say that she has detailed plans to end the war is a confession of how naive she is. In the first place there was no officially declared state of war. In the second place there was not and is not anyone who can, or will, wave the white flag of surrender. Until there is some kind of truce or surrender there can be no end of this (war).

Don't be surprised to see Hillary strolling through the streets of Baghdad soon (licking a Baskin Robins ice cream cone.

From today's "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/

making-turn.html

Monday, March 17, 2008

Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest

Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington

University, Hillary Clinton indicated

the next clever move of the Clinton

camp--making a turn from attack on Obama

by insinuation and surrogates, to a

serious and detailed speech on the war

in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely

against Bush and McCain. Having drawn

Obama out to respond to the attacks, the

plan is clearly to now outflank, moving

forward on the issue of Iraq, thus

leaving Obama standing amid the mire of

the attacks while also attempting to

underscore the foreign policy

"experience" argument and to turn the

narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous

shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in

even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of

soldiers "who have made the ultimate

sacrifice" and who have "experienced

wounds both visible and invisible to

their bodies, their minds and their

hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to

keep as many troops after the surge as

before...is a clear admission that the

surge has not accomplished its goals.

Meanwhile, as we continue to police

Iraq's civil war, the to our national

security, our economy, and our standing

in the world continue to mount." She

then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to

her core domestic issues--health care

for the uninsured, pre-K for children,

solving the housing crisis, providing

support for college students, and

offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of

Bush to that of McCain, and citing

chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she

invoked the "unescapable reality"--we

can have troops on the ground for 100

years--but there is no political

solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "Withdrawal is not

defeat--defeat is keeping troops in iraq

for 100 years. Defeat is straining our

alliances and losing our standing in the

world. Defeat is losing our reseources

and diverting attention from our key

interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level

strong attacks against Clinton in

response to the onslaught of the

previous weeks, Clinton is now

premptively changing the message and

focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq,

and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter

is certain to draw media attention, and

is intended tactically to leave Obama

standing in the echo of his return

attacks, in the potential position of

being a step behind, with the questions

of Clinton, however legitimate,

unanswered. After having leveled the

most broad-brush attacks against Obama,

the Clinton camp is now attempting to

place Obama in the perceived position of

leveling attacks, rather than dealing,

as they now happen to be, "with the

serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn.

Instead, come strong--having first

*tied* Clinton's speech to the questions

that will now be raised about her, e.g.

"Hillary Clinton, has raised questions

about fitness for office--at the same

time that, as the person running second

in this contest, she has said that I

would make an excellent Vice President.

She has questioned my experience, when

she has less experience governing, and

key figures from her husband's

Administration who were with her at the

time have that that experience did not

occur. We know the other charges that

have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having

questions raised about herself, serious

questions about her own fitness for

governance, about her own "experience",

about her own--let's say politely

veracity, in statements that she has

made and is making, now--she would like

to change the discussion. Now--she would

like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I

know...this is just her newest change,

the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just

have to wonder. Where was she when we

were focusing on the serious issues?

Where was she focusing he concerns when

Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where

has she been when we have been focusing

week after week on the serious issues of

resolving the war in Iraq, on providing

security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next

week? Do we want a President who does

not know what she will say from week to

week? Who does not know who she will be

at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the

turn, and playing catch-up, let her make

her turn--and then box her within it, by

tying it to and framing it within the

context of her previous changes and

actions.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/

making-turn.html

The same old BS. McBush almost said mosul..the last throes. 4 more years!q

From today's "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Monday, March 17, 2008

Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary Clinton indicated the next clever move of the Clinton camp--making a turn from attack on Obama by insinuation and surrogates, to a serious and detailed speech on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely against Bush and McCain. Having drawn Obama out to respond to the attacks, the plan is clearly to now outflank, moving forward on the issue of Iraq, thus leaving Obama standing amid the mire of the attacks while also attempting to underscore the foreign policy "experience" argument and to turn the narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of soldiers "who have made the ultimate sacrifice" and who have "experienced wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds and their hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to keep as many troops after the surge as before...is a clear admission that the surge has not accomplished its goals. Meanwhile, as we continue to police Iraq's civil war, the to our national security, our economy, and our standing in the world continue to mount." She then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to her core domestic issues--health care for the uninsured, pre-K for children, solving the housing crisis, providing support for college students, and offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of Bush to that of McCain, and citing chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she invoked the "unescapable reality"--we can have troops on the ground for 100 years--but there is no political solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "Withdrawal is not defeat--defeat is keeping troops in iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is losing our reseources and diverting attention from our key interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level strong attacks against Clinton in response to the onslaught of the previous weeks, Clinton is now premptively changing the message and focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq, and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter is certain to draw media attention, and is intended tactically to leave Obama standing in the echo of his return attacks, in the potential position of being a step behind, with the questions of Clinton, however legitimate, unanswered. After having leveled the most broad-brush attacks against Obama, the Clinton camp is now attempting to place Obama in the perceived position of leveling attacks, rather than dealing, as they now happen to be, "with the serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn. Instead, come strong--having first *tied* Clinton's speech to the questions that will now be raised about her, e.g.

"Hillary Clinton, has raised questions about fitness for office--at the same time that, as the person running second in this contest, she has said that I would make an excellent Vice President. She has questioned my experience, when she has less experience governing, and key figures from her husband's Administration who were with her at the time have that that experience did not occur. We know the other charges that have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having questions raised about herself, serious questions about her own fitness for governance, about her own "experience", about her own--let's say politely veracity, in statements that she has made and is making, now--she would like to change the discussion. Now--she would like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I know...this is just her newest change, the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just have to wonder. Where was she when we were focusing on the serious issues? Where was she focusing he concerns when Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where has she been when we have been focusing week after week on the serious issues of resolving the war in Iraq, on providing security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next week? Do we want a President who does not know what she will say from week to week? Who does not know who she will be at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the turn, and playing catch-up, let her make her turn--and then box her within it, by tying it to and framing it within the context of her previous changes and actions.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

No, No, No. McCain won't leave the troops in Iraq for 100 years. He will pull them out of Iraq in order to invade Iran, leaving both countries as failed states and ideal breeding grounds for terrorism.

US troops will still die for nothing, but HRC was off by one letter in where McCain wants them to die.

"As McCain said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

This type of lying is typical of the HRC and Obama campaigns. Every once in awhile they take a break from throwing lies and accusations at each other and go after McCain. I can't wait until they ruin their party for good in Denver."

Posted by: Jeff | March 17, 2008 10:01 AM

Jeff:

So how long should we stay there if they are still getting shot at or killed? How many dead Americans? 5,000?? 10,000? At what point do we say that this war was a mistake, and get out of this situation?

Remember, even the Pentagon says there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq before the invasion. It was only AFTER we went in there that they moved in.

"They both voted to give Bush Carte Blanc to go to war."

This statement is politically convenient because Obama wasn't even in the senate in 2003 when that vote was taken. He's found a way to be absent on nearly every difficult vote since.

Obama's at least as big a supporter of the war as HRC. Obama voted to fund the war until 2006. That alone should tell you he's playing politics when he says he's been against it all along. Sure you have, pal. And Jeremiah Wright is your harmless uncle, too.

yawn... same old tired scare-tactic rhetoric by Luke and Bill r.
McCain wishes nobody to die, but rather live free and void of war. Jeff's comment is accurate in that McCain demonstrated dedication to finishing the job and as commander-in-chief, he would be dedicated to doing so, just as most soldiers want to do. They are fully aware of the positive impact they are having despite the sacrifice and occasional bad news. They want to finish the work and its the right thing to do.
queue the stringy-haired, lovable hippy.

So what has Clinton done to end the war. Oh yeah, she voted to let Bush invade and has consistently voted to give him everything else he wants.

Jeff,
Remind us again how Iraq, the Korean War, and World War II are so much alike.

Steve-

"It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

I don't hear the call for peace there, do you? I don't hear a man who wants to avoid war, I hear a man who ius already planning multiple new wars.

No fear mongering on my part, just John MCCain's own statements.

Until there's a flourishing democracy in Iraq. Leaving now would further destabilize the region and leave the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel, with thousands of new threats as Iraq becomes the Islamic Republic of Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda's there now, Bob, whether it fits your political agenda or you like it or not.

To win the war is to have it continue; ending the war is to lose.

To support the troops we must leave them to be killed; bringing them home to their families is not supporting them.

To help the economy we must increase our debt; balanced budgets are bad.

Letting a terrorist attack happen on our soil is protecting the country, as long as it only happens once.

Jethro, it's simple, really, leftist partisan robots such as yourself would've been calling for an end to the "occupation" of Germany and Japan after World War II, the same way you're calling for all the troops to leave Iraq to sectarian violence and unabated bloodshed today. You would've said the same thing about our bases in Korea.

You are the people who marched on Daley Plaza and protested our soldiers going into Afghanistan. How can anything you say possibly be trusted when the reactionary left has said, through those protests, that the Taliban should've been allowed to stay in power?

I don't agree with a lot of what he's done as president, but what's George Bush or ANY president to do when intelligence tells him Iraq is not cooperating with UN inspectors and that Saddam Hussein is still a threat? He knows that people like you, who are concerned only with another four years of non-stop campaigning against the incumbent, are going to scream bloody murder at the top of their lungs, anyway. Why not put the safety of the American people first if the reactionary left is going to be angry with whatever decision you make, anyway?

Al Qaeda's there now, Bob, whether it fits your political agenda or you like it or not.

Posted by: Jeff | March 17, 2008 11:41 AM

Yes Bob...listen to Jeff. He thinks the war was a good idea. He has backed it since the begining, and plans to back it till we're bankrupt. There is a clue in his sentence. It's that Al-Qaeda WASN"T there before. Had better judgement prevailed, things might have been different, but Jeff and the others believe that with all the mistakes bumbled by Bush, that Bush and sameMcBush had the right judgement. WRONG!

Jeffy:

Don't look now, but thanks to W. pulling our troops out of Afghanistan and putting them into Iraq, the Taliban is regaining its' power in Afghanistan.

The UN inspectors NEVER said that Saddam was not cooperating. They had to leave Iraq because W. was ready to invade.

Oh, and that intelligence?? The CIA was saying that some of the information was not reliable.

Again, how are we more safe because of the war in Iraq?? How safe were those people that were killed in the bridge collapse in Minnesota?? Wouldn't we be safer if we took the money we are spending in Iraq and spent it here on making the country's bridges and roads safer??

"I don't agree with a lot of what he's done as president, but what's George Bush or ANY president to do when intelligence tells him Iraq is not cooperating with UN inspectors and that Saddam Hussein is still a threat?"

He scould read the report the UN inspectors themselves wrote that said Iraq WAS cooperating and begging for more time to complete their work in the days before the invasion.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

I think just about any President could do that, don't you Jeff?

It's really quite simple Jeff. I believe America should be a republic, not an empire. Tell me how our existence is threatened if we left Germany, Korea, Japan and Iraq tomorrow. If you think radical al-Qaeda type terrorists have the capacity and ability to overthrow governments you truly do not understand the enemy and have been tricked by the GOP. Pakistan had recent elections and guess who came out on top? Hint: They were anti-Musharraf, so I guess that means they were pro-terrorism, right Jeff? I love it when you try to make everyone believe the occupations of German and Iraq are not different from each other.

Swamp, please remove the above anonymous as it violates your own stated posting rules. I quote: "Anonymous comments will not be posted."

You need to have the courage to post as Weinerdog43 to get on the Swamp!

As for factually incorrect statement, anonymous, you forgot tons of other people who thought the war was a "good idea" back in 2003. Those include Bill Clinton, who said he would've done the same thing Bush did until he changed his tune on the Hillary campaign trail, the international intelligence community, Hillary who voted for it, and even the Obamessiah voted to fund it until 2006 and never went on the record against the war until he started running for President.

Good luck unringing that bell, I say. You live in the perfect world. I choose to live in the one we have.

They're not. By leaving a military base in Germany we're not running an Empire. We're ensuring our safety by having an Air Force Base in a key hotspot in the world. If it weren't for Rammstein how would your precious NATO infraction in Serbia have ever happened? Thought so.

Americans do not "occupy" another country when they leave a military base there. That you can't get this simple fact shows how brainwashed by the reactionary left you've become.

This isn't 1920. We can't go back to unilateral isolationism and hope for bad things to not happen to our homeland. Get off the back of Pappy Jed's truck and try to understand the world, Jethro.

p.s. Luke, that's not what Hans Blix was saying back then and everybody knows that the UN was in Iraq's back pocket thanks to the Oil for Food program that enriched both Saddam and Kofi Annan's son.

It boggles the mind how much you lefties continue to make excuses for the corrupt Hussein regime and the impotent UN. Good luck unstriking that match, boys.

If it weren't for Rammstein how would your precious NATO infraction in Serbia have ever happened? Thought so.

Posted by: Jeff | March 17, 2008 1:06 PM

Umm Jeff, I was against that because there was no threat to our national security. Strike Two. Don't assume you know anything about what I believe.

Luke... McCain's words are realistic. There will be other wars, but not because he wants them. There WILL be other wars because forces in this world collide, good meets evil, and of course evil meets evil.

Jeff... good call on the oil-for-food scandal that never got a whole lot of press. I'd almost forgotten about that! Another reason Blix and many others were impotent and unreliable resources in the war on terror/war for Iraq.

p.s. Luke, that's not what Hans Blix was saying back then and everybody knows that the UN was in Iraq's back pocket thanks to the Oil for Food program that enriched both Saddam and Kofi Annan's son.

It boggles the mind how much you lefties continue to make excuses for the corrupt Hussein regime and the impotent UN. Good luck unstriking that match, boys.

Posted by: Jeff | March 17, 2008 1:06 PM

Jeff-

Read the date on the document I linked to. It is exactly what Blix was saying "back then" as it was his official report to the UN from March 2003, prior to the invasion.

You know what the UN was in March 2003 Jeff? Absolutely correct. They said they were finding NO evidence of ongoing Iraqi WMD programs because there were none.

Try unstriking that match.

Perhaps your inability to read and comprehend explains why you do often make state,ments that are factually wrong.

In Dec, 1998, President Clinton started a bombing of Iraq due to the fact that Saddam was creating WMDs. See transcript of his speech.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

In Macrh, 2003 President Bush started the invasion of Iraq in order to eliminate WMDs.

What changed between Dec, 1998 and March, 2003? What happened to the WMDs?

Iraq is a military operation - what we should say is that we must get out of iraq as soon as it's safe to do so from a military point of view - be that 100 minutes or 100 decades (preferably the former) BUT what is of GREATER concern is what happens to OUR country OVER HERE;

and over here, if Hil-LIAR-y has her way, there will be a corporate CLINTON OR BUSH butt-kisser in the white house OF THE U.S. FOR 10,000 YEARS ---

IF hil-LIAR-y has her way, history will read bush-clinton-bush-clinton until the U.S. ceases to exist (which will be about 3 and 1/2 years if is allowed to steal this election)

What happened Terry? I'll tell you what happened. A conservative got elected and they just can't seem to do anything right, at least according to the majority of your local liberal constituency.

Terry-

How many times must this be explained to you?

There were no WMDs in Iraq in 1998 . The 1998 bombing were intended to punish Iraq for non-cooperation with the UN.

From the Clinton speech you link to:

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq."

In fact if you read the whole speech (have someone explain the big words to you)you'll find that Clinton never claims that Iraq actually possess WMD's at that time.He talks about Iraq reconstituting his WMD programs.

What changed is that the UN inspectors were back on the job by March 2003, were getting cooperation from the Iraqi's and finding no evidence of ongoing WMD programs..because there were none.

It's pretty simple. Even you should be able to understand it.

Here is what the candidates said on various dates about Iraq, nicely laid out:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/03/iraq-the-candid.html?cid=107320186#comments

The reson for the invasion is explained in this piece published at the time:

IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL

John Chuckman

I do get tired of reading claims that oil is the reason why Mr. Bush wants to attack Iraq. Perhaps, commentators pick oil because it seems to give clarity where there is so little, evoking the slightly romantic image of 19th century troops in pith helmets scrambling for colonial resources.

I don't want to be guilty of discouraging Americans from giving up on their horribly wasteful and polluting SUVs, for there are many important reasons to encourage them to do so, but at least for now, oil supply is not one of them.

Yes, of course, Bush's light-truck constituency cares about oil, and Iraq's reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. But the notion that a great power needs physically to control sources of a plentiful raw material is simply outdated. The nationalization of oil reserves, a world-wide phenomenon of a few generations ago, is something not likely to be undone, and, besides, a very comfortable modus vivendi has grown up between producing and consuming governments.

Anything resembling American expropriation of Middle East oil fields would produce tidal waves, not just in the Arab world, but in places like Mexico and Venezuela. I cannot think of a better way of causing al Qaeda recruits to line up in a dozen countries much the way alarmed, idealistic young Britains lined up in 1914 to fight "the damned Bosch." Even with the hillbilly-crowd running the White House, I think it safe to say this approach is not on.

Iraq's reserves are of no value to Iraq unless their production is for sale. No matter who runs Iraq, it is a sure bet that its oil will flow for as long as the reserves hold out, at prices worked out under those cozy arrangements of producing and consuming countries. In recent years, it has only been America's harsh economic restrictions on Iraq that prevented a possible glutting of the oil market.

Iraq's reserves represent a gigantic future revenue stream, many hundreds of billions of dollars. Bush's crowd definitely wants this future revenue stream put into hands that are friendlier to American policy.

The uncertainty that Saddam Hussein represents for American policy-makers is not uncertainty over the availability of oil, it is uncertainty over what Hussein may choose to do with the revenue stream over the decade or so possibly left to his rule, and it is the uncertainty of what Israel may do in response.

Hussein's army is not a serious threat to Israel. Its leadership and equipment make it inferior in almost every respect to the IDF, and it certainly doesn't have the United States supplying round-the-clock military intelligence, new technical capabilities, a bottomless supply of spare parts, and diplomatic pouches full of cash.

But Hussein with a small nuclear arsenal is quite another matter. Israel is a small country, and just two or three nuclear devices could devastate its highly-urbanized population. And you wouldn't need missiles to achieve this. School buses, delivery trucks, aircraft, or fishing boats are all more accurate delivery systems than Iraqi Scuds.

That is the reason why Israel not only has nuclear weapons but has more of them than it would at first appear to need as a deterrent. The concept at work here is having a deterrent that compensates for Israel's small size vis-à-vis a threat from a much larger country or a group of countries.

The United States, it seems almost childishly unnecessary to say, does not care about how wicked or unpleasant Hussein may be. Nor does it care about his record on human rights. The truth is that he is no worse than the many cut-throats the U.S. cozily does business with.

The problem with Hussein is that he won't play the game under rules the U.S. has laid down. Oh, he has cooperated in the past, and for considerable periods of time he was treated as one of America's useful clients, receiving many special favors. He was especially useful when he went to war against revolutionary Iran and ground down that nation's ardor and resources and young people with years of bloody conflict.

America's role in that conflict was the same utterly amoral one it has so often taken where it saw that the shedding of someone else's blood might achieve some desired dirty work.

But when it became clear that Hussein was working to arm himself with nuclear weapons, an excuse to flatten him and remove his capacity had to be found. Ergo, America's secret diplomatic wink at his intention to invade Kuwait, setting him up for Desert Storm. This was a conflict that also had little to do with oil, except that possession of Kuwait's reserves would swell Hussein's revenue stream and speed the day when the U.S. would be required always to address him as "sir."

After killing perhaps a hundred thousand innocent people with its bombing, destroying much of Iraq's water and sanitation systems (something not widely known in the U.S.), its electricity grid, and much other infrastructure, the U.S. never expected Hussein to survive in power. How much better to let internal pressures do the work rather than U.S. troops, it being certain that the coalition would have collapsed over an invasion of Iraq itself. All the arguments militating against an invasion today were the same then. No-fly zones, intended to irritate and embarrass him, CIA plottings, and, most of all, a murderous embargo were supposed to quicken events.

The policy has miserably failed. Hussein remains firmly in control, and no opposition worth mentioning exists. And talk about evil, more than a million Iraqis have died prematurely since Desert Storm as a result of America's embargo combined with the devastating effects of bombed water and sewer facilities. The U.S. unquestionably bears a terrible moral responsibility for all that death.

So despite clear evidence that Hussein had nothing to do with al Qaeda, had no nuclear weapons, had no ready prospect of having any, and ignoring the many valid arguments against invasion, the Bush crowd seized the opportunity offered by the angry haze around 9/11 to topple him.

Bush displays classic American impatience and petulance about having a problem cleared away as quickly as possible, even if it is done at the cost of other people's lives. What Bush is really telling the world is that instead of allowing a patient U.N. regime of inspections continue until the day Hussein departs the scene, he would rather start a war that will kill tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis, infuriate millions of people in other countries, and be done with the matter.

Bush has no reasonable successor to put in Hussein's place, and, as with almost all the U.S.'s inglorious postwar interventions, the poor people of Iraq will certainly be left afterwards in their smoking, rat-infested ruins to cope. The U.S. has no more patience for long-term assistance and planning than it does for the long-term efforts at diplomacy and international cooperation that could readily maintain the status quo.

Of course, Mr. Bush has a very noisy cheering section in Mr. Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu and their American supporters. It really is not possible for America to damage and cripple Iraq enough to satisfy them.

Were the policy summed up in concise and accurate terms, "Do you favor killing maybe another hundred thousand people (mostly civilians as is always the case in modern war) in order to get Iraq quickly off our diplomatic plate?" I wonder just how many Americans would continue supporting Bush? Of course, Mr. Bush's teams of hacks and propagandists do not use such terms when addressing Americans, and all Mr. Bush's words to them are charged with cheap emotions rather than facts.

But many of the world's leaders have conspired to blunt Mr. Bush's drive to war. We now hear from Mr. Bush an entirely different argument from what we heard not many months ago. The issue now is clearly weapons, not garbage about terror or evil or the need for democracy in the Middle East. But, of course, if the issue is truly weapons, an efficient inspection regime is all that is required, not a major war. In effect, Mr. Bush's pathetic arguments have been turned diplomatically on their heads.

This change is thanks to the brave efforts of some genuine statesman. Perhaps, it is most of all is owing to the heroic efforts of Mr. Blix and his team of U.N. inspectors. If Mr. Blix succeeds in stopping Bush's rush to war, he will be one of the most deserving candidates for the Nobel peace prize on record.

The inspectors work against tremendous odds. Bush has pulled out all the stops in trying to browbeat, coax, or bribe others nations to support his goal. He has forgiven loans, dropped strictures, hinted at reprisals, and thrown around tons of money, and Mr. Blix has worked against a nasty White House campaign to harass and vilify him.

Of course, Bush's attitudes are inextricably linked to the experience of his father. If you don't think that such highly personal attitudes often play a role in history, you haven't studied enough of it.

Luke, so you're saying Clinton bombed Iraq because they DIDN'T have WMDS in 1998. Or it could've been because of operation: perversion diversion. Who knows.

Or that Clinton said he would've done the same thing Bush did in 2003 (go into Iraq and remove Saddam). Now he tells a different story, obviously. The game of cat and mouse that Saddam played with the UN inspectors was designed to increase his standing in the radical Islamist movement. It was also designed to keep the lucrative Oil for Food program working to enrich both Saddam and Kofi Annan's son. They simply could not be trusted. That's why Clinton relied on the US military in 1998 and why Bush did the same in 2003.

Read that, boyo. Just because we don't buy the BS that comes from Kofi Annan and the UN contacts that were getting rich off of Saddam, like you do, doesn't mean we don't know the facts.

You choose to tout facts that propped up Saddam's regime. We choose to tout the truth: that the UN was compromised and making money off of Iraq.

Luke,

Did you read the link? First paragraph from Bill Clinton's lips:

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Also, Luke we know that Saddam was in cahoots with France, Germany,and Russia in the OIl for Food scandal. He was real coroperative with the inspectors - one inspector and one or mor Iraqi official with him 24/7.

Also, read UN Resolution 1441 and see what the consequences of disobeying the resolution were. See what Saddam had to do prove that the WMDs were destroyed.

What you just stated is that the United States in 1998 invaded/bombed Iraq when they had no WMDs but were just thumbing their nose at the UN.

Yes Terry I did read the first paragraph, and then I read the rest of the paragraphs, which apparently you did not.

"What you just stated is that the United States in 1998 invaded/bombed Iraq when they had no WMDs but were just thumbing their nose at the UN."

Yes Terry, that is exactly the facts. I'm glad to see you're learning a bit.

Try and learn some more.

Both you and Jeff need to read the Iraq Survey Group report. It explains exactly what happened to the WMDs. They were all destroyed by 1998. Facts. plain and simple. Sorry boys.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

Amazing how McCain learned nothing from Vietnam.

Terry & Jeff-

Yep, I read the link, all of it, not just the first paragraph, unlike you.

And yes, we bombed Iraq in 1998 because they were screwing with the UN, not because they had WMDs. Not a policy of Clinton's you'll catch me defending, but that is the factual truth.

Since you boys are learning so much today, I'll give you some homework.

Read the Iraq Survey Group Report. It will tell you just what happened to Iraq's WMDs, long gone before 1998, and even longer gone by 2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

Even the Bush Administration admits there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003. Not me, Not Saddam, not the UN, but the Bush Administration. You two seem to be the only ones left who believe otherwise.

What on earth is up with the delayed postings?

Luke,

Sorry it took so long to respond, but I have a job.

Was Saddam screwing around with the UN in 2003?

Thanks for the link, you prove my point if you can follow a timeline.

So it is the Iraq Survey Group Report that you are resting you argument on? What's the date that the report was issue? When did the U.S. invade Iraq?

What I believe is that at March, 2003, the intellgence led bot parties to believe that Saddam still had WMDs.

"Was Saddam screwing around with the UN in 2003?"

Not according to the UN. Not according to Hans Blix, the man on the scene.

"What I believe is that at March, 2003, the intellgence led bot parties to believe that Saddam still had WMDs."

Led some in both parties to believe that after Bush failed to pass along the intelligence that challenged that conclusion.

In any event, the intelligence was wrong, and the decision to go to war was wrong, for the members of both parties involved.