I had dinner with my parents this evening, and my mom said that a friend of hers wondered why the administration didn't just, you know, plant WMD to back up their case. I think the answer is that it simply never occurred to them that they would find no weapons whatsoever. They knew they wouldn't find much, I'm pretty sure. But they were absolutely convinced that they would find enough to trump up into a justification after the fact.

Hell, all of us thought there was probably something. Nothing worth killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans over, but something. Nope. Nada.

The interesting thing is that all this time, our government has been demonizing Saddam as a madman, and now that we discover that he had nothing, they say "it just doesn't make sense; why would he do that?"

Well, you lied your asses off to get us into a Middle East invasion, assuming that the madman made sense. He doesn't. It's not on him anymore.

Well, Matt, I of course agree with you, but our Republican leaders are now saying it was Saddam's fault because he didn't disarm (he did) and didn't prove that he did. (It is hard to prove a negative.) The Bush talking points seem to be similar to "Saddam never let the inspectors in" bullshit. He didn't disarm and was deceptive about what he was doing, rationale enough to invade.

"Bush doesn't even need to see or hear the evidence since his gut tells him the truth."

We are getting closer to the truth -

aWol's "guts" are closer to where his brain is anyway.

why does it concern you so about gw's military history?

Why does it concern YOU so what we talk about?

Geez...aren't we sensitive. What's your fucking problem? You ought to get out of your little Left Coaster world every now and then.

mike - the problem with GWB's military record comes from his demands that other people be accountable for their decisions. As such, he needs to be willing to be accountable for his own record - but this seems to be beyond him. Also, it makes him one of the chickenhawks that didn't serve when they could, yet are quite happy to see others die in their little war.

Geez, mike, that really hurts my feelings. When a thoughtful, sensitive person like yourself asks me so politely what my problem is, it really serves as a wake-up call, though.

Thanks Mary, at least you have the guts to answer my question. Are you included in the group back in '92 when all the liberals were saying that Bill Clinton's draft-dodging was irrelevant? What about Howard Dean's "back problems" that eventually eliminated him from serving? Does that matter? Must a president or leader have military experience? Is that a pre-requisite? If so, I wasn't aware of that?
You say it is because Bush asks others to be accountable for their decisions? To what decisions are you referring? Also, a "chicken hawk"??? You've got to be kidding? So the millions of men and women who have never served are "chickenhawks"??? Let's get a bigger broom out for your sweeping generalizations, for goodness sake. That's a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry!

matt, you simply aren't worth my time. sorry i offended you.

matt, you simply aren't worth my time. sorry i offended you.

Mike, the difference is that Clinton didn't send others to die while he claimed to have seen combat himself, which Bush never did. And tell me Mike, were you one of those who bashed Clinton for parsing words during the Lewinsky debacle, who now wants to look the other way when your guy lies about his military service and cannot release his full records, and wants to play wordgames himself when his defense is that he himself used the word imminent? His administration did use the word imminent and gave the primary reason for the March invasion to be that Saddam was an imminent, grave, and gathering threat.

Were you one of those who thought that Clinton's lack of military service made him unfit to be Commander in Chief? And as for chickenhawks, Bush, Cheney and many other top Republicans fit that definition perfectly as people who dodged military service themselves, who want to lead, but are only too willing to send other folks' sons and daughters to war to die for questionable motives.

So the millions of men and women who have never served are "chickenhawks"???

Well, mike - millions of people don't start wars either. The problem is the people who can start unnecessary wars (aggressive wars) and don't care how many people die in them or all the thousands of soldiers who are coming back crippled for life - while this White House tries to chip away at veteran's benefits and even the pay for soldiers actually serving on the front line. That is why this President and his ghoulish gang are chicken hawks. Clinton never tried to cheat the vets or soldiers so he could enrich his friends. And he didn't start wars either. Which one do you think has more honor?

mary,
the bottome line is that you are sleeping a lot safer tonight because of that chicken-hawk president of ours. better hope some limp-writed idiot doesn't win the white house in nov, cause then you'll REALLY see the shit hit the fan! i understand your convern for our soldiers. it's admirable, and patriotic to do so. but don't you feel that our president deserves respect? when clinton was in the white house, i wasn't popping off about this or that. i had enough confidence in him (and congress) that he wouldn't fuck it up too badly. that's really all you should expect out of a president. the last one to really mess it up was nixon (ok i admit it). but don't give me this cut in military pay bullshit. i know plenty of military men and women (wright-patt, oh) who are pleased with this pres. so unless you're in some backwater military base that's being cut, 'cause we can't use you right now, stop whining for god's sake and show a little respect for the president. he's doing the best he can, as did clinton and MOST of the others before them.

the bottome line is that you are sleeping a lot safer tonight because of that chicken-hawk president of ours.

That is so true. Clearly, any night now, while I was sleeping, I might have been annihilated by Saddam's fictional WMD.

mary
let's move on! wmd - there never was, never will be! we wanted addam out, end of story. he's gone, you should be happy!

Well, Mike. Early last year before the war, I realized that if Bush took the US into war with Iraq, he would screw it up in the same way he's screwed up any other business he ran. And I let my elected representatives know that if we needed to take out Saddam because he was a very bad man, we should what for a more competent administration to do the job. I have to say, I was not surprised to find my fears fulfilled. In July, it was pretty obvious that all the Bush administration was prepared to do was to shock and awe -- and totally screwed up the aftermath --which, of course, has long term consequences for both Iraq and us. Here is my post about this failure to adequately plan for the post-battle period.

I know I do not feel safer knowing someone who is so prone to short-term thinking and caring so little about the overall consequences is in charge of our country.

mary

post war results rarely work! the last example of this was vietnam. still remains a communist country, and started by Kennedy and continued by Johnson! Ended by Nixon I might add, but an ever-loving mess! War is hell!

"Chickenhawk"

.