Gitmo and GoDaddy: Changing one man's mind on torture.

[TOK]

Patrick, as much as I will agree that Iraq will be a quagmire, the objective of this thing was to prevent future attacks on American soil. In that sense, it has been successful. Perhaps having the troops in Iraq gives the people that would be targeting continental US targets a shorter ride to work, but I really don't think thats true. The US has hardenend its borders.

What you see now are desperate grasps at soft targets of opportunity. Civilians, not even necessarily Americans working overseas and soft targets like train stations in Spain. They had their guard down just like the US did pre-9/11.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

As with stocks, your past performance isn't necessarily an indicator of future actions (but it certainly IS a fairly good bet that you'll revert to the actions that "work" for you.

Listen "St." Bootylicious, you ain't no angel. So stop acting as if you don't ask for it.

I was just trying to guess what way you were going to go.

Ok. Thank you for admitting that you are, in fact, actually asking for it. Why don't you practice acting how you'd like to be treated instead? I'll play along nicely...

You're almost out of material.

[DrewKaree]

With your sig, I think it's supposed to be

"Same drat time, same drat channel"

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Patrick, as much as I will agree that Iraq will be a quagmire, the objective of this thing was to prevent future attacks on American soil. In that sense, it has been successful.

Prevent further attacks by attacking a country that did not have the means to attack us? No WMD, no nuclear capabilities, no long range missiles capable of hitting Britain, let alone the United States. I don't think I'd call that successful.

It took Al Qaeda years to plan a successful attack. They were planning 9-11, specifically, for well over 10 years. Men were living and training as pilots in the United States over that entire period of time. What makes you think, just because there hasn't been an attack in a short 3-4 year span, that that constitutes "success"?

Furthermore, what would you have to say, if (god forbid) we are attacked again? I mean, if you can conclude that Bush's actions are right because we haven't been attacked, I guess the flip-side would mean that his actions are wrong if we are attacked again?

The "fly-paper" argument, to anti-Iraq War people, is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The CIA has just released a report stating that Iraq has now, quite possibly, become an advanced training area in ground warfare for terrorists wanting to fight against Americans, then LEAVE Iraq and use that training to destablize their own region/government. We anti-Iraq War types want Bin Laden, and we want Afghanistan secure. Unfortunately, even that has yet to happen and now, we fear, even if Bin Laden *is* captured, we've already created 1000 replacements through Americas actions in Iraq.

Perhaps having the troops in Iraq gives the people that would be targeting continental US targets a shorter ride to work, but I really don't think thats true. The US has hardenend its borders.

Or, as I mentioned above, it gives them more effective training for killing Americans. Read about the report here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1119456668-

What you see now are desperate grasps at soft targets of opportunity.

It really sounds like you've bought the administrations spin; hook, line and sinker. I'm not trying to be offensive or condescending, but that line above is almost an exact quote of some of Cheney and Rumsfelds comments. Why would you take their assesment at face value? Wouldn't they, of course, want everyone to believe that everything is going A-OK? If you are an objective thinker, wouldn't you want to form an opinion based on info gathered from soldiers actually on the ground, and the Generals commanding them? (most of which have recently concluded that the insurgency is GROWING, and the attacks are becoming bolder, more sophisticated and more frequent.

How did you come to this conclusion that they are desperate? Which - again - according to this administration, they've been since the start of the war in Iraq, over three years ago. See here: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/archive/00_desperate.htm (Scroll down to see how long ago this administration began using the term "desperate.")

How long do they have to be desperate, before we consider them "undesperate"?


mrC

[Dexter]

on a brighter note, things are going just swell in eye-raq (sarcasm off)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=650186

[fredster]

Dexter, that's an editorial. Not news okay? One man's opinion.

[Dartful Dodger]

Was that the goal of the war?

I don't know what reasons you have for fighting in this war, but no more planes have been flown into buildings, so my goals have been reached.

[Dexter]

Looks like he likes to throw around allegations without any proof.

Well if you can invade a nation without proof.....

Sort it out chuckles.

ROTFLMAO

[fredster]

Well if you can invade a nation without proof....

We had proof he broke the UN sanctions.  We have proof he violated the treaty.

That's enough proof Dexter.

plus this - http://www.husseinandterror.com/

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We will see what he has to say tonight without filters.

Well, I wouldn't go that far...a speech is a filter. It's pre-scripted, rehearsed and performed. A news conference where the press were allowed to ask questions would be a better example of seeing him speak without filters.

But he doesn't do many of those, in fact, Bush has given the least amount of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

Don't fool yourself. Tonight's speech is nothing more than a public relations event, meant to prop up his horribly sagging poll numbers (even though Bush claims not to care about polls). He's performing it in front of soldiers at Bragg because they'll make a nice propogandists backdrop, since they're trained not to question leaders, nor protest questionable actions. He most likely will not outline an exit strategy, he won't give us a timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq, and he won't acknowledge the reality of the battle on the ground, nor give a true estimation of the depth of the insurgency (He'll say they're "desperate").

However, if he's honest, I'll be suprised...and I'll give him credit. If he just spouts off more moral platitudes, and jingoist bullsh!t...I'll be drunk, since I'm playing the "Bush Speech Drinking Game."

A list of phrases to drink at every time they are uttered (please add to this list):

    * any variation on "hard work"
    * "purple fingers"
    * "democracy/liberty/freedom is on the march"
    * "the world is better off without Saddam"
    * "I think about ... everyday"
    * "evildoers/deadenders/murderers/suiciders"
    * anything to the effect of "the insurgency doesn't want democracy to take hold"
    * "desperate"
    * "rape/torture/murder rooms are now closed"
    * any scripted line that illicits the mandatory "Hoo Rah" or "Hooah" from the military backdrop.

mrC

[patrickl]

plus this - http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Pfft that old lame cop out again. Saddam pays money to familiy of victims == Saddam supports terrorist groups -> mention total number of people killed by terrorist group and thus imply that he was totally responsible for all deaths. Typical propaganda stuff.

The US gave much more support to terrorist groups. To make things worse, that was actually to the terrorists who eventually attacked the US.

The Iraq invasion is a lie, a mess, a bloodbath and it created problems for decades to come. What little good has come of it cannot explain all that away.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well if you can invade a nation without proof....

We had proof he broke the UN sanctions.  We have proof he violated the treaty. That's enough proof Dexter.

Since when did your side start caring about what the U.N. has to say? When it suits your needs? Annan also declared the way the U.S. finally went to war illegal, the U.N. also declared our elections process entirely flawed. Do you support those allegations by the U.N., or again, just the ones that suit your needs?

plus this - http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Too bad the 9-11 commission concluded that there is absolutely no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda attacked us. I read through ALL the "interesting" evidence presented on the site you linked too, and their entire premise boils down to one case decided by a district court judge. Flimsy at best....I'd rather take the word of an entire government bi-partisan commission, that spent 2 years investigating that very thing.

Links: (registration required)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html

Funny thing too, both Blair and Bush stated they could not prove a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But that seems to be forgotten; drowned out by all the other propoganda.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

[fredster]

Me? Care about the UN? No.  Patrickl does, so I just pointed up the fact.  Keep repeating "The Iraq invasion is a lie, a mess, a bloodbath and it created problems for decades to come. What little good has come of it cannot explain all that away. " Over and over. 

I'll give you this, we'll know before the close of the decade just how much impact this has had on the middle east. 

MRC, No connection in the 9/11 report? Check this - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp

It's the sky is purple thing again MrC.

[TOK]

Patrick, as much as I will agree that Iraq will be a quagmire, the objective of this thing was to prevent future attacks on American soil. In that sense, it has been successful.

Prevent further attacks by attacking a country that did not have the means to attack us? No WMD, no nuclear capabilities, no long range missiles capable of hitting Britain, let alone the United States. I don't think I'd call that successful.

mrC

I'll address this part first without quoting your whole post... How are you so sure that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons? Because they didn't find any, after getting into inspect 6 months after the US requested? The UN screwed our chances of ever having the answer to this question by being too passive. You'll say that it's just as likely they didn't have them. If not, why would Sadaam Hussein PRETEND to have them, stalemate the UN and cause the US to invade?

Was this a ruse and he didn't think his bluff was going to be called? Even if he hates the US, why would he not let non-US UN weapons inspectors in until months later under threat of force, then still try to stymie them? It doesn't add up.

I don't tow any political party line, I align myself with the party that is going to screw me the least. I also try not to forget what has happened to lead up to the events as they are. I never hear CNN address simple, direct issues like that about what lead to our occupation of Iraq. Al Quada has been linked to both the attack on the USS Kohl and the first World Trade Center attack (bomb in the truck). If the US didn't sit on its hands for that, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now. If this is what it take to prevent attacks on US targets every 5 years, or at least teach war mongering Middle East muslims that we will hit back hard when they hit us, I'm OK with it. Unfortunately, nothing is ever solved diplomatically with them.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll give you this, we'll know before the close of the decade just how much impact this has had on the middle east. 

I'll agree with you there...that statement seems entirely plausible.

MRC, No connection in the 9/11 report? Check this - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp

It's the sky is purple thing again MrC.

Yeah, it's not me who's painting it purple though...

FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED:
"We have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11," asserted Kean. "That just doesn't exist."

...

"The final report also amends the staff statement in two important ways, finding only no "collaborative operational relationship" and specifying that these contacts did not indicate "that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

That article was written by Stephen Hayes, a conservative journalist known for bolstering a discredited Defense Department intelligence memo in order to claim this Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. The article you linked to has been debunked fairly well here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586

Investigative Correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote that Hayes's article was "mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials (mrc: BIG SUPRISE!) more than a year ago -- and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials."

In other words, your claim that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda is based on info from the same people that said there were WMD's in Iraq.

No wonder you have trouble distinguising the color of the sky. 
mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll address this part first without quoting your whole post... How are you so sure that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons? Because they didn't find any, after getting into inspect 6 months after the US requested?

If Bush would have let to inspectors continue/finish their work, we would have reached the very same conclusion, in terms of WMD, we've reached now, which is, that he did not have any viable program, nor the means to manufactor a program. Furthermore, we would have reached that conclusion without shedding one drop of American blood, nor spending one damn American cent. Immediately before Bush rushed to war, the weapons inspectors had unfettered access to any area that wanted.

The UN screwed our chances of ever having the answer to this question by being too passive.

I can't say anything is absolute, but I'd say BUSH screwed our chances of ever really having the answer by being too aggressive.

If not, why would Sadaam Hussein PRETEND to have them, stalemate the UN and cause the US to invade?

Bush decided to invade, there was no cause.

Was this a ruse and he didn't think his bluff was going to be called? Even if he hates the US, why would he not let non-US UN weapons inspectors in until months later under threat of force, then still try to stymie them? It doesn't add up.

I imagine he was projecting a public image of defiance, but the reality behind the scenes, as testified by weapons inspectors, was that an 11th hour agreement had been reached and they would not, in fact, be stymied. Bush forced the inspectors out before this agreement could take effect. Face it, he wanted the war, he rushed to judgement, he got the war he wanted. Now we're all going to pay (both in our soldier's blood and our citizen's tax money) for his hasty actions.

Al Quada has been linked to both the attack on the USS Kohl and the first World Trade Center attack (bomb in the truck). If the US didn't sit on its hands for that, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now.

Exactly. And this is WHY the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Too bad the war in Iraq has pulled almost all the necessary resources away from Afghanistan and that country is slipping back into the hands of the Taliban.

If this is what it take to prevent attacks on US targets every 5 years, or at least teach war mongering Middle East muslims that we will hit back hard when they hit us, I'm OK with it.

Again, how does your theory hold up if we are attacked again? The Al Qaeda network is a network of individuals from various countries around the world. They are not beholden to any state or government. Members are created when people in impovrished environments percieve the actions of greater states as imperialist and without justification. Most of the muslim world understood and supported our actions in Afghanistan, with Iraq, not only have we destroyed that support, but we've given the people of their region more reason to fight against us.

Unfortunately, nothing is ever solved diplomatically with them.

Then why have our military general's, under Rumsfeld command, recently decided to meet with the insurgent's in Iraq?


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Bush decided to invade, there was no cause.

Roosevelt decided to invade Germany, there was no cause.

[TOK]

All thats going to come of a US meeting with insurgents is a lot of blown up Iraqi civilians (by the insurgents). These people don't want peace, just like Palestinians and Israeli's don't. It might go for a day or so, but someone is going to give someone else a crooked look and the bullets will start flying again.

I don't have a solution for this, some people just aren't happy or know how to act without a cause/war. If they'd stick to blowing each other up, I wouldn't even care.
I was in Ontario for a few days last week and got a taste of how America felt pre-9/11... Not getting bombarded with Iraq news, not hearing about the economy going south, just not a lot of general crappy news. I'm not the type to stick my head in the sand over bad news, but I must admit it was refreshing not to have it for a couple of days!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bush decided to invade, there was no cause.

Roosevelt decided to invade Germany, there was no cause.

Yes, there was Dear DD! Germany (and Italy) declared war on us after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and had already conquered most of Europe. So, Roosevelt invading Germany makes a LOT more sense than invading...say, Spain! (ie: Saudi funded terrorists, harbored by Afghanistan, with no links to Iraq, attacked us on 9-11...yet Bush decides to put 95% of our resources into a war with Iraq?!)

Furthermore, are you really equating Nazi Germany w/ Saddam's Iraq?

WWII Germany = Conquered most of Europe, MASSIVE & advanced Army, Navy, Air Force.
Modern-Day Iraq = Completely contained, crawling w/ weapons inspectors, veiled in No-Fly Zones, no WMD, decrepit Army, no Navy, no functioning Air Force.

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, your statement still makes no sense. Iraq was a "War of Choice." Whether one thinks it's good or bad for America is debateble...whether or not it's comparable to WWII, is absolutely not.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Btw, fredster...not sure how we would have outlined the criteria, had you accepted the bet, but you *may* have been a $100 richer!

Bush did mention enlistment, but with the caveat of "those interested in the military." Not quite the shot in the arm our Armed Forces need, but it's more than I thought Bush would say.


mrC

[fredster]

I know MrC.

I didn't watch it, I had some friends come in from out of town.

You have never understood the President.  It's to the point that when you say something about, I know the truth has to be the opposite by default.

At least we don't have to argue about if that statement met your criteria for me to cash in.  Besides, I know you are tight on cash and you couldn't afford it anyway. 

[Dexter]

I didn't watch it, I had some friends come in from out of town.

Heres a quick rundown...

WHERE: Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
LENGTH: About 29 minutes.
APPLAUSE: The speech was interrupted once with applause. Soldiers also clapped at the end.

SEPT. 11: Bush mentioned "September Eleventh" 5 (five) separate times.*
TERROR: Bush mentioned "terror", "terrorism" or "terrorists" 35 times.*
IRAQ: Bush mentioned "Iraq" or "Iraqis" more than 100 times.*
* according to written copy provided by White House.

Some Democrats accused him of falsely reviving the link that he originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad:
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

[Dartful Dodger]

So, Roosevelt invading Germany makes a LOT more sense than invading...say, Spain!

Invading Iraq makes a LOT more sense than invading...say, Spain!

[fredster]

Quotes from the speech.

And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

 recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis

[Dexter]

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed

[fredster]

Bring it out Thursday.

[patrickl]

And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

[fredster]

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

And your solution is --?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You have never understood the President.  It's to the point that when you say something about, I know the truth has to be the opposite by default.

That's a cheap, disingenuous statement. For one, I understand Bush completely (once he's finished mangling his sentences). Just because I disagree with most of what he says, doesn't mean I have no idea what he's trying to get at. In fact, I'd bet I listen more carefully to what he has to say than YOU DO. I'd imagine you just take everything he says at face value, and you couldn't care less if it's true or not. You simply have "faith" in him, and you need nothing more.

So, in all actuality, it's to the point that I've inundated you with so much material that is counter to your views that you have simply decided to bury your head in the sand and accuse me of "trying to paint the sky purple" every chance you get. Albeit, without ever showing exactly *how* I'm doing so.

You rarely support anything you say with solid facts, and you - quite often - throw out blanket statements that have no bearing in reality, nor proof to back them up.

I, however, back up the things I say with as much supporting material as I can find. I work to steer clear of op-ed's when possible, and I try to present . In the past, I've even gone so far as to telephone the parties involved, to prove a point. I've been right in the past, and I've been wrong in the past, but for you to accuse me of lying...is just pathetic. I incur as many (if not more) personal attacks as I dish out, yet I still make attempts to prove my point.

Yes, I do have strong opinions on things, and I distinguish between them and the things I'd put forward as "evidence" whenever possible.

Lastly, it's funny how I actually watched the speech and you were too busy, yet you'd accuse me of never understanding the president...what a joke. Just goes to show you how important you really think his statements & leadership are.

Some things from his speech that you may find interesting:

[Dartful Dodger]

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

This was started when 3000+ people were killed.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This was started when 3000+ people were killed.

Bears repeating, since you seem to have "Dubya Spunk" in your ears...IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. Jesus H. Christ you people are delusional.

[Dartful Dodger]

Bears repeating, since you seem to have "Dubya Spunk" in your ears...IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. Jesus H. Christ you people are delusional.

If it wasn't for the 3000+ people getting killed we would not have gone into Iraq.

That reminded us the just because the people that hate us are across an ocean, we can still be hurt.

So the 3000+ people that died had EVERYTHING to do with us stopping Sadam.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That reminded us the just because the people that hate us are across an ocean, we can still be hurt.

So we kind of did exactly the same thing to the Iraqis...unjustly attacked 'em, and reminded them they can be killed, even if they had nothing to do with the attack on us. In short, we've given their entire region every reason to feel threatened by us now, most likely condeming our nation to more serious attacks.

Code: [Select]

So the 3000+ people that died had EVERYTHING to do with us stopping Sadam.
It's clear that you don't plan on changing your mind any time soon, but I really wish you developed a better argument for your support of the War in Iraq. They are NOT tied to the attacks on 9/11 and your attempt to justify the war against Saddam/Iraq based on administration propaganda isn't working.

I mean, let's take ChadTower's argument for example (We are there to establish a forward base of operations in the Middle East, not to "spread freedom" or "avenge 9/11"..I'm paraphrasing a bit)...Although, I disagree completely with his assessment of the potential outcome, he has at least used logic, instead of blatant emotional appeals, to arrive at his conclusion and thus, his is a valid argument.

Bush's constant grandstanding on the graves of 3000+ dead U.S. citizens is really wearing thin with the American public. His speech last night is recieving criticism from both sides of the aisle for his gratuitous use of the 9/11 "trump card." It appears he presumes to speak for them every time he tries to link 9/11 with Iraq, when the reality is we will never know what they would have wanted, although I can BET they sure as hell would have rather have BIN LADEN captured as opposed to SADDAM!

You'd do your side a much bigger favor if you developed an argument based on more solvent grounds. Just because Bush has used 9/11 as a pre-text to invade Iraq doesn't mean the two events are linked. In fact, there is ample mounting evidence that Bush had already WANTED to invade Iraq and oust Saddam, irregardless of whether 9/11 had ever happened. These revelations completely undercut your (and the Bush Administration's) argument that 9/11 had anything to do with going to war with Iraq, and vice versa.


mrC

[JCL]

Good idea. Too bad starting a war only makes matters worse on all accounts.

And your solution is --?

It's pretty simple where to start: STOP SUPPORTING THE DESPOTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE!

We shouldn't have overthrown democratic movements in Iran to install the Shah.
We shouldn't have helped Saddam in his rise to power.
We shouldn't have helped keep Saddam in power when he was gassing his own people and waging war against Iran.
We shouldn't be supporting Saudi Arabia (over and over again).
We shouldn't be dependant on theocratic (Saudi Arabia, etc) or secular (Iraq) shitholes for so much of our energy needs.
We shouldn't have supported the worst elements of Afganistani resistance.

Don't you know that there is a reason why people scoff at Bush's fine words about freedom and democracy? The idea that the US supports freedom and democracy in the Middle East is a freakin' joke!

If we stopped supporting these ---daisies---, maybe their own people would demand changes. Saudi Arabia is just about the worst and the Bush's have a special relationship with them. The US has zero credibility in this area.

But you just don't get it do you? You seem so ignorant of history as to believe in crap when it is spoon fed to you.

Can you imagine what a couple of hundred billion dollars (and counting!) would do if invested in energy self-sufficiency? The US spends less than a percent of this on fusion research.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

APPLAUSE: The speech was interrupted once with applause. Soldiers also clapped at the end.

Not to add insult to injury...but that one and only applause line in the middle of the speech was staged. It was prompted by Bush White House Staffers in the back of the auditorium. Fox News, ABC, and NBC all reported this in their commentary after the speech.

From AmericaBlog:
"ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did."
mrC

[fredster]

MrC, you really ought to take your medication.  Really.

You rarely support anything you say with solid facts, and you - quite often - throw out blanket statements that have no bearing in reality, nor proof to back them up.

yeah? when?

I don't recall a direct link to 9/11 from Iraq in the arguments for the war in 2002 and 2003.  The so called "link" was a generalization of all terrorists and countries that support terrorists.  Remember the catch phrase from 2001 - "You are with us or the terrorists?".  Saddam was in fact supporting terrorists, that's fact and reiterated in the 9/11 commission report.  He was also supporting terrorists in Palestine.  Plus, he had the capablitity of sometime getting out of the box the UN put him in with the oil-for-food money.  Left unchecked, he would have been 100X the threat we thought he was with WMD.

Now get this - Bush is in until 2008.  The war is on. No amount of hindsight will change that. It's a done deal. 

Now where do we go from here? That's the issue isn't it? Rehashing this in every freaking thread over and over isn't helping anything. 

It's pretty simple where to start: STOP SUPPORTING THE DESPOTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE!

We shouldn't have overthrown democratic movements in Iran to install the Shah.
We shouldn't have helped Saddam in his rise to power.
We shouldn't have helped keep Saddam in power when he was gassing his own people and waging war against Iran.
We shouldn't be supporting Saudi Arabia (over and over again).
We shouldn't be dependant on theocratic (Saudi Arabia, etc) or secular (Iraq) shitholes for so much of our energy needs.
We shouldn't have supported the worst elements of Afganistani resistance.

I agree.  Too little too late though.  Each of these has a counter.
Carter should have supported the Shaw.  We have to support Saudi Arabia for the energy or we'll suffer more collapse.  Look at what gas prices have done to us just going up .60 in the last year.

We couldn't choose which despots to NOT support. We can't even NOT support N.Korea now.  We still send them money.

Each time we did one of these steps, it was for a reason. D or R, it was for a diplomatic / strategic reason. We still do it.  Who knows what will the ramifications of diplomacy would / will be with each zig and zag. 

[Dartful Dodger]

In fact, there is ample mounting evidence that Bush had already WANTED to invade Iraq and oust Saddam, irregardless of whether 9/11 had ever happened. These revelations completely undercut your (and the Bush Administration's) argument that 9/11 had anything to do with going to war with Iraq, and vice versa.

Dude you even put wanted in all caps.

[patrickl]

Remember the catch phrase from 2001 - "You are with us or the terrorists?".

[Dartful Dodger]

Bush might invade the US next!

Nope, everybody on this planet now knows not to mess with the US.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Nope, everybody on this planet now knows not to mess with the US.

*yawn*