Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

I think it's clear that they wanted to go in pre-9/11, but for the same reasons they proferred post. I believe they honestly believed Saddam was a real threat and needed to be deposed. 9/11 gave them all the momentum they needed to carry it out. But I really can't blame Bush. Per the Woodward book, he was being told by his minions that it was a "slam dunk." Hearing that type of evidence, it would have been gross mismanagement not to do something.

I agree about the incentives, but that has to be weighed against actual readiness. Pulling out completely would be a catostrophic mistake. Drawing down may give the incentives needed.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Real threat to whom? The suggestion that Hussein was a threat to us was always a joke.

And Tenet clearly told Bush what he wanted to hear. Part of leadership is figuring out how not to make sure that you're not just hearing what you want to hear.

And per the Woodward book, Bush's people were also telling him that they'd been looking for years and had never found any WMD. That he chose to believe Tenet, and not Franks (?), is at the heart of the problem.

Yes.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

when I read spank kicking Ty's butt like this i remember when I signed my son's team up for a b-ball league that was too weak. I thought it would be challenging, but our guys just kicked ass every game by bunches. In the end it made them weaker because they got used to winning without having to work hard. They thought wins were easy to come by.

Anyway, when i see spank dismember Ty I think of that. can't you guys find someone who can at least give Spank a challenge? Maybe you can hire Carville to show up occassionally, I bet he;s available nowadays.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

You wouldn't call Murtha a coward, but you wouldn't waste anytime trying to understand what he was saying, either.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Just for the moment, assume with me that he did lie. If so, why is it that you think Clinton should have been prosecuted for lying under oath, but that Bush's lies -- albeit not under oath -- are just water under the bridge? Do you just assume that our leaders lie all the time, except when they're under oath? If so, that's pretty pathetic.

If the war was a screaming success right now -- I know that's hard to imagine, but try -- I don't think you'd be saying, so Bush won the war, big deal; he still needs to make the case for the rest of his program on its own merits.

If the only question on the table is, what do we do with the Iraq mess, maybe so. But we live in a democracy, and that's not the only question on the table.

Please think about the role of the opposition in a democracy. If need be, read Chuck Hagel's most recent speech. (He strikes me as your kind of guy.)

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Huh?

You say we shouldn't just leave. Aren't you disagreeing with him?

And guess what. the fact that someone served in the military, and with honors, does not make them an expert in political decision making or global strategy.

To put it in terms you might understand- would you let one of your slip and fall plaintiff's decide when a major company should settle a toxic tort claim?

sure he has been in court, but he doesn't see the big picture maybe.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

I'd take Murtha's many credentials about things military over yours.

I don't think we should just pull out, but then neither does he, apparently. He wasn't one of the 3 votes on the resolution yesterday.

I disagree with most of the people who are saying we should just get out because I think they're focusing more on our part of it, and not on where that leaves Iraq. But I have about zero confidence at this point that the administration -- and, in particular, Rumsfeld -- has a viable strategy, or could distinguish one from their own asses.

And since this administration is famously disinclined to listen to what anyone else has to say, including the views of Democrats, career government officials, area experts, or anyone who knows anything, I think it's kind of funny that Spanky thinks everyone else should just go on being quietly ignored. If you put the very best people in charge of the situation there, perhaps something could be salvaged.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

spank seems to be hooked up. What bloggers should he tell Bush to put in charge?

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

How about Chuck Hagel, John Warner or John McCain? They're Republican Senators, not bloggers, but they would have a shot at the sort of minimal competence we all should expect.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Clinton looked straight into the camera and said "I did not have sex with that women". I could care less. Doesn't bother me. There are many things I want out of a president, but being honest, especially when it comes to national security, is not one of them.

What is pathetic is you expect a president to be honest all the time. A president that was obsessed with the truth would be a very bad president, and it shows a shocking lack of sophistication on you part that you don't understand that.

No it is not the only question on the table, but when it comes to the Iraq war, the only question on the table is what should we do now. The fact that the Dems are bringing up other issues about the war shows they are putting their own political agenda above the welfare of the Iraqi people and our soldiers who are in harms way. Their creation of this myth about Bush lying is only helping the enemy.


The problem here is that I have thought about it and you clearly have not put much thought into it. Hopefully my above comments will make you see the error in your thinking.

P.S. When you make statements like this "Please think about the role of the opposition in a demcracy" I hope you are jokeing around, because if not it shows a shocking combination of ignorance and arrogance. If you are trying to make a point: make it. There are many people whose advice I would entertain on what to think about, but it shocks me to think that you would think you are one of those people.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

If you think it was OK for Bush to lie to the country to lead it into war, why not just say so instead of continuing to talk about Clinton? I'm not defending Clinton.

No, it shows that we live in a democracy. Those of you who think that those principles are something to be dragged out every two years on Election Day and otherwise ignored are, thankfully, a minority in this country. Most of us expect our leaders to tell the truth, especially when they are asking young men and women to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us.

You're actually going to have to include some content in your posts if you want them to convey anything.

Spanky, you're more fun to talk to than Hank because you actually bother to include some substance and thinking in some of your posts, but when you get lazy and rest on the condescending attitude, it doesn't work for you.

What do you think congressional Democrats should be saying and doing re the war and Iraq? (Answer as an American citizen, not a Democrat or Republican.)

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Do you know what hypocrit means?

You never have included substance. Unless you mean linking to DU- inspired bloggers is an intellectual call out.

I once engaged with substance- I found no response.

I admit my every PB post is simple DADA, yet they have all the "substance" of yours/ You have no room to omment. the on;y person putting actual substance down is Spank/

You. ain't. substance. My daughter has a more thoughtful blog than you.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

Link, please.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

sounds fair. But first i need you all to pm me your real names and homes so i can check the Meagan's law list.

Watch Out for the Flying Pigs
 

First, I dispute your main point - that we have a "mess" now. We have free elections in Iraq, we have plastic shredders shredding plastic, and we have the beginnings of a move towards democracy and, hopefully (and in my mind, likely) more stability in the entire region. That would be invaluable all by itself. Remember Bush telling us, pre-invasion, that this was going to be a long, costly, drawn-out process? I do - explicitly. Remember how many times various anti-wariots called it a quagmire? I can't - too many. Yes, the mad killers are still bombing in defense of their fucked-up service to some hallucination of gawd or ala or whatever, but, given their record world-wide in the last several years, why would you assume they wouldn't simply be jihading all over the globe anyway? I'd rather see them wiped out in one area, as it makes for more efficient disposal.

Second, what you just described is what everyone does to get their way in our system. Look at the numbers put out by the R's and the D's to support anything - take SS privitization, for example. Both sides put out numbers that were, at best, fanciful. Both sides chose to present those facts that best supported their desires, and ignore the ones that militated against them. Did Bush do just such a selling job in service to what he wanted to do in Iraq? Yep. Didn't the anti-warites do their own version of the anti-sell at that same time? Yep. Remember the vote after the dust settled? We're in Iraq. Want real lies? Look at "the new hawk" Murtha, and the coordinated response by the D's calling him just that. That's not even spin - that's outright lying. Geez, for an honorless cohort to call another cohort honorless is just so much fun to watch.