Conffederate
Confederate

June 10, 2008

Impeachment: Just Do It

Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has filed articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

I hope that the Democrat-controlled Congress will not treat this event with the seriousness that it deserves, and instead, high on their own fumes, launches full-blown impeachment proceedings.

Let's do this thing.

We've been listening the fringe left grow ever more hysterical over the past few years, perpetrating the "Bush lied, people died" hyperbole so long and hard that they now accept their fevered fantasies as fact, even as their own politically-motivated investigations proven otherwise.

So let us see the Democrats make their very best case for impeachment. Let us see every one of their "facts" placed under extreme scrutiny in a national spotlight, carried across network and cable news and wire services in an onslaught of continuous wall-to-wall coverage, with nary a second of coverage ignored.

Support your rhetoric. Make your best case directly to the American people. Lay out all the facts, under oath.

Give it your best shot, impeachment fans.

We can hardly wait.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2008 09:01 AM
Comments

Democrats and their allies in the media have been lying about the war for six years. Why do you think they'd suddenly start telling the truth for impeachment proceedings?

Democrats ignored the evidence and voted "not guilty" when the Slug was impeached and tried ten years ago. What makes you think they would vote with the evidence in an impeachment of President Bush?

Posted by: wolfwalker at June 10, 2008 10:14 AM

Although impeachment is warranted per the revelations of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, neither the Senate nor the House will go along with it. This is because key members of BOTH parties are culpable for misleading the American people in the justification of the Iraq War.

Refer to pages 164-165 of the Phase II report to find quotes of Senator Rockefeller that demonstrate his culpability. Recall that Senator Rockefeller is one of the select few in the Senate and the House who is briefed on the nation's highest levels of intelligence.

Further support for the culpability of both Democrats and the Republicans is found when one examines the warrantless wiretapping issue and the immunization of the telecom companies.

Back in February, Democrat Representative Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was adamant in his opposition to granting immunity to the telecom companies. However, this was before his committee was given access to any of Bush Administration's legal justifications for warrantless wiretapping.

Last week, there were reports that Representative Reyes was close to an agreement with House Republicans in that he was willing to let the secret FISA court decide if the telecoms should be granted immunity. This is almost a total reversal of his earlier position.

Although there is little in the way of hard evidence before the American people, I think that it is safe to say that something bad has happened and both the Democrats and the Republicans are trying to cover it up.

Thus an impeachment will never happen, no matter if it is warranted or not.

Posted by: justthetruth at June 10, 2008 11:11 AM

No! I don't want Cheney to be president! And after him it's Pelosi! Although, if we can get down to Rice, that'll solve this whole "first female president, first black president" crap.

Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2008 11:16 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 06/10/2008 A short recon of whatís out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at June 10, 2008 11:46 AM

Yeah, lets impeach a president for the liberatuion of 27 million people and the birth of democracy in the middle east. Thats a grat idea.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 10, 2008 02:08 PM

Justthetruth,

"Although impeachment is warranted per the revelations of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, neither the Senate nor the House will go along with it."

And those breathless "revelations" are......? Better go back and read the report: if anything Jay "Imminent Threat" Rockefeller repeatedly admits that President Bush's public statements on WMD's, Iraqi terrorist contacts, etc. were "substantiated by intelligence information" at the time. Rockefeller saw the same material that Bush did--so where's the beef? Hell, Jumpin' Jay Rockefeller as dumb as he is dishonest--he can't even keep his own story straight.

Methinks that if stuff like the Rockefeller report is the best the Donks can provide for an "impeachment case," then they're obviously gluttons for public and political humiliation.

Impeachment? Bring it on. That'll be a sure-fire way to drive Congress's favorability ratings down to negative double digits.

Posted by: MarkJ at June 10, 2008 02:08 PM

You guys need to stop drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid. They Lied. They knew they lied. The evidence is there. The CIA sent them (Hadley) a memo debunking the sources for the yellowcake theory in October 2002, 5 months before the invasion. they still left the the "16 words" in the state of the Union that were designed to strike fear into the American people.
Hadley even offered to resign over it, but instead, Bush promoted him. What a retard!
There is no way any reasonable person who actually reads the information out there can disagree. All you guys will do is attack the messenger because you can't handle the message. Don't like the book, then McClellan is a liar. Don't like the Phase II report (that the repubs said would be out 3 years ago?!?), then there is something wrong with Jay Rockefeller.
Please.
When you learn the facts, we'll talk.
If you wanna throw firebombs and act like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you will stay where they are, out on the (lunatic) fringe.
Conservatism and more importantly, the Republican Party, have been exposed and they are about to become irrelevant.

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:42 PM

Yeah, lets impeach a president for the liberatuion of 27 million people and the birth of democracy in the middle east. Thats a grat idea.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 10, 2008 02:08 PM

Yeah, killing about 600,000 of them along the way. . . Great "liberation" . . . for reasons he knew were false.

Bush and the Republicans are a joke.

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:45 PM

Democrats and their allies in the media have been lying about the war for six years. Why do you think they'd suddenly start telling the truth for impeachment proceedings?
Democrats ignored the evidence and voted "not guilty" when the Slug was impeached and tried ten years ago. What makes you think they would vote with the evidence in an impeachment of President Bush?
Posted by: wolfwalker at June 10, 2008 10:14 AM

I think you got the wrong party when you say who has been lying about the war . . . Bush deserves to be impeached and convicted more than any president in the history of our country. If you guys were brave enough to come off your right wing fence, you would agree. . . But I don't think you are brave. You'll just keep attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:55 PM

No! I don't want Cheney to be president! And after him it's Pelosi! Although, if we can get down to Rice, that'll solve this whole "first female president, first black president" crap.
Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2008 11:16 AM

Cheney should be impeached as well. Pelosi would do just fine until Obama is sworn in on January 20, 2009. Let's talk again in 8 years when we have a budget surplus, surging economy, and no wars based on lies. I hope you might agree then that he did a great job, as long as he doesn't get a blow job and lie about it. . .

Posted by: Phil at June 10, 2008 03:57 PM

Fascinating.

Phil, since every major Democrat has said exactly the same things that President Bush has said about Iraq, and most of them voted to use force to liberate Iraq in accord with the UN resolutions, will you be calling for the impeachment of most of your own party's Congressional delegation too?


Does your "600,000" figure count: Foreigner Jihadis killed in Iraq by American, Coalition and Iraqi forces? Does it include the number of Iraqis killed by Mahdi Army/Al Quaeda/Iranian Quds Force terror tactics? If it does, you are in the position of using the death tolls of Auchwitz and the Waffen SS to claim that the Allied liberation of Europe was somehow wrong. I will further ask if the number counts the massacres of Iraqis perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's own government.

Speaking of the War Against Socailism, Phil, do you know how many civilian casualties were created just by the D-Day invasion? Are you willing to use that number as an arguement against American intervention in Europe?

Phil, do you know how many times Bill Clinton was offered the opportunity to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and failed to do so? Do you understand that President Clinton was the last man who could've prevented the four thousand American deaths on September 11? Do you excuse that?

Phil is a certain type that we've seen before: he has no understanding of freedom, war, or the world; his ability to defend his positions is at best juvenile and verges on the preteen; he'd far rather believe a hundred lies than a truth that undercuts his own self-centered world view. I pity him, and invite others to do the same.

Posted by: DaveP. at June 10, 2008 04:47 PM

Okay, Democrats: Put Up or Shut Up!

Posted by: JEC at June 10, 2008 04:59 PM

We cannot withdraw precipitously from Iraq the way we recklessly invaded it without compounding the error. Impeaching the Commander in Chief is the only reasonable way to deal with the fact that he lied us into an unnecessary war, period.

Posted by: Ilya at June 10, 2008 05:31 PM

Phil, you do know that Lancet study was debunked, right?

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/25/document-drop-a-new-critique-of-the-2004-lancet-iraq-death-toll-study/

You might want to get, y'know, *facts* on your side-- or are you just too busy using ad homen arguments to come up with actual arguments?

Posted by: Foxfier at June 10, 2008 05:50 PM

I guess, Phil, that all the following people also lied about the war in Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards, US Senate floor statement.

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

"No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry, speech at Drake University, Iowa.

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Again, Senator Kerry, during a Democratic primary debate in South Carolina.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy, speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President William Jefferson Clinton, address to Joint Chiefs and Pentagon staff.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton, addressing the US Senate.

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator Edwards again, Senate floor statement.

There are lots and lots more.

So, Phil, should we also impeach Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton? (Can't impeach Edwards, he's not in the Senate anymore.)

Posted by: C-C-G at June 10, 2008 06:31 PM

Phil and Ilya (sorry if I misspelled that, it's rather hard to distinguish "I" and "l" on my system)

I wholeheartedly welcome an impeachment of President Bush. Bring on the facts and evidence. Do not imply 'because of what we know now', the invasion of Iraq was incorrect. Attempt to prove it was incorrect based upon the information available at the time.

You on the left in this case have already convicted without actually hearing and seeing the 'evidence'. Therefore, your objectivity is obviously non-existent. If the evidence proves GWB is a liar, I would cast a guilty vote. If not, then I would acquit.

If you could honestly say in to your inner-most selves you have the same attitude, then you really need to modify your statements. If not, then enjoy YOUR Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Mark at June 10, 2008 06:53 PM

Bush has months left in office. The Clinton impeachment took 5 months. Seems like a waste of time and money to me. If they wanted to impeach him, they should have done it a lot sooner.

Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2008 09:36 PM

That was supposed to say "Bush has 7 months left in office."

Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2008 09:37 PM

Not going to happen for a lot of reasons. The first of many is that someone already introduced an impeachment bill in the 110th Congress: the Democratic leaders wanted to simply bury it, while the Republicans forced a procedural vote (to table it or send it to committee, I forget which) so that House Democrats would have to be on record about it.

Posted by: Matt at June 10, 2008 10:18 PM

Ryan, the Dems have no intention of following through. The threat is just a chunk of red meat thrown to their ultra-wacko followers like Phil.

The Dems are smart enough to realize that an impeachment trial would open the door to the full reading of reports like the Rockefeller report, on live TV, with lots of people watching. And with the Rockefeller report, as mentioned above, indicating that Bush's statements were supported by the information available at the time, that would give the Dems not just egg on their face, but a whole omelet.

They're not that foolish, at least not yet. If they keep chasing away the relatively reasonable members of their party, like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, tho, they might be that reckless before too much longer, tho.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 10, 2008 10:21 PM
they still left the the "16 words" in the state of the Union that were designed to strike fear into the American people.

You mean these, Phil? "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

They were true then and remain true today. Niger is not what the British report was based on. G00gle "Straw defends UK uranium evidence" and read the first link.

Posted by: Pablo at June 11, 2008 11:50 AM

Pablo: Nail. Head. 'Nuff said. :)

Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 05:37 PM

PS - You guys already know who you are voting for anyway. . . please stay in here and keep your (lack of) sources to yourselves!

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 01:28 PM

my comment was removed because it was too long. If you care or want to read it, email me. meyerlaw924@gmail.com

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:01 PM

You guys aren't paying attention. That's what you are best at. . . Read deeper, look harder, try to shed your red-state goggles and maybe you will actually learn something.
First, to Dave P:
1) If you are trying to say the democratic senators who voted for war, knew what bush knew, that is false. Hadley had the dissent of the CIA; the NIE did not include the dissents. (Which turned out to be correct, by the way?)
2) The 600,000 number comes from a Study at Johns Hopkins U. Refute it with the level of sources they have, and I will listen to you.
3) Your reference to death tolls and Nazis is quaint but irrelevant to the issue. We were not going to Iraq to depose a horrible dictator who was a bad guy like Saddam, we were marketed the idea that there was an imminent threat to our safety, which has been proven false and was known to be false by Bush & Co at the time. Don't Change the purpose of the invasion after the fact, like Bush had to when it was proven he was wrong. You are just obfuscating and changing the subject to hide your equivocal argument. Hitler's menace was real, you canít retro-fit the argument to make your side correct because Hitler was bad, and so was Saddam, therefore we had to get Saddam just like we got Hitler. There is no argument against American intervention in Europe, so don't put words in my mouth. You cannot conflate the two into one sound reasoning to invade Iraq. It is intellectually dishonest. PS it was National Socialism, not Socialism. National Socialism was fascism, which is what the executive branch under bush has become.
SEE: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
fasēcism /ˈfśʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Ėnoun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Sound familiar?
4) The story about Clinton having the opportunity to get Osama bin Laden has been disproved. DO you even know the story about it? The "Source" was a Sudanese official, here, I will just paste one source, http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
try using sources sometime, it helps your credibility. Oh, and after you criticize my source, I'll just go find another one. . . but, I am pretty sure Fox News will not have it.
What is not excusable is the fact that when Clinton wanted to make a strike against Osama, the information on his whereabouts was withheld from him.
AND
That Condoleezza Rice was told that Al-Qaeda would be the most important threat facing America by the out-going Clinton administration. They ignored the threat, did not even convene a meeting on the threat of Al-Qaeda until September 10, 2001. So no, Clinton was not at fault for 9-11. Bush was. End of story. Bush was too worried about missile defense, in fact, Condi was going to deliver a speech about missile defense on 9-11 but obviously could not, why hasn't the text of that speech been released? Because we don't need the terrorists to know how far up their arses the Bushies had their heads!
5) As far as the "certain type" you say I am? I beg to differ. How dare you question my knowledge of freedom, war and the world?
Only a juvenile or preteen would accuse another adult of such . . . use sources, saying "You're Wrong cuz I said so!Ē is juvenile and pre-teen . . . that's all you have done. .
You have used ZERO sources. You use the same ad hominem attacks that will be flying around the internet in fake attack emails from now until November. You don't have facts on your side, so you lie. Back up your positions. Until then, I will continue to pity you.
As far as a self-centered world view, you are way off. I speak several languages, have a doctorate, have traveled extensively and have friends from the Deep South to the other hemisphere. I believe yours is the view that thinks Bush is right no matter what. Don't use sources, oh no. . . . That would be dangerous, but "Bush is right" and damn the torpedoes . . . deny the photos, the insider accounts, the mounting evidence of criminal activity . . . that's a self- centered world view.

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:02 PM

TO JEC:
Putting up, not shutting up! Now you do the same!
To Ilya:
Yes, it was reckless to invade. Saddam posed no threat. He was shut down with two no-fly zones. He could do us no harm. That's why the Bushes had to conflate 9-11 and Iraq. Which they did ad nauseum. Then, when that link failed, they had to find another reason for the invasion, after the fact. Withdrawal will be difficult, but no doubt, as soon as a demo is the president, everything that bush did will be that new president's fault.
TO Foxfier: Here are my "Facts"
Whether it is 650,000, 150,000 or 900,000, it was too many.
Michelle Malkin is not a source.
But, your using her as a source probably qualifies as an ad hominem attack.
Check out
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
I use the Wikipedia link only because it has the links to several pro and con positions . . . whether it is 150,000 or 900,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; it was still an unnecessary tragedy.

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:02 PM

TO Mark and Matt and C-C-G:
You are right, it won't happen for reasons I said above. But sadly, instead of discussing it, CCG has to call me an ultra-wacko. . . Canít handle the message? Attack the messenger. Although listening to Bush and co is enough to drive one ultra-wacko, I am actually a pretty stable, sane, and intelligent person. So, CCG, if you are going to call me an ultra wacko, let's stick to our rules and CITE SOURCES?
As far as showing you the information on why it was wrong at the time, it is already out there. Discredited sources used on mobile labs (Curveball), IAEA scientists rebuffed aluminum tube nuke theory, I will put together a post just for you Mark regarding the weakness of the evidence PRIOR to the invasion and how Bush and Co. massaged the horrific (and false) "intel" to get the vote for war. Stay tuned.

CCG, you think Zell Miller is reasonable? Wow.
PS Joe Lieberman still caucuses with senate democrats; he is only an independent cuz he lost in the demo primary.
So, CCG, you said:
"And with the Rockefeller report, as mentioned above, indicating that Bush's statements were supported by the information available at the time, that would give the Dems not just egg on their face, but a whole omelet."
Why don't you show us the parts of the report that support your position? Itís public record right? Convince us . . . show us that the whole administration was honest and forthright with ALL the intel they had? Why won't you? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. You say it's there, prove it.

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:03 PM

And Finally, TO PABLO:
You are citing a 2003 news article of an allied British official's statement to C N N as proof??
Dude, read deeper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/08/nuclear.iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
stating: "Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC."
TO CCG: Nail, Head, 'Nuff said.
It was real and it was fun, but I am going to go talk to some independents who are not as hypnotized by the right as you guys are. At least they listen . . . and read. . .
Posted by Phil at June 12, 2008 01:18 PM

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:03 PM

"Bush lied, people died"

which part of that is false again?

Posted by: rapid at June 12, 2008 02:19 PM
"Bush lied, people died"

which part of that is false again?

According to multiple investigations (including those run by partisan Democrats), the part before "people died."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 12, 2008 02:29 PM

I don't know what investigations you are referring to. Why not enlighten us.

Is there such a thing as a "non-partisan republican?"

Do the facts discovered change because of who reports those facts? If it is a Republican, you believe it. If it is a Democrat, you don't. That's pretty accurate of the people in here, right?

Posted by: Phil at June 12, 2008 02:55 PM

Phil,

I'm still waiting for your promised post directed to me:

I will put together a post just for you Mark regarding the weakness of the evidence PRIOR to the invasion and how Bush and Co. massaged the horrific (and false) "intel" to get the vote for war. Stay tuned.

Please do post and I'll be happy to respond in kind.

Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 04:49 PM

Phil, would you accept the word of the Washington Post (no fan of the war)?

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find. ad_icon

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

I am still looking for the actual text of the report online, but that should give you a start on spinning.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 06:16 PM

Aha, found the report, Phil (it's right here, as a .pdf file).

Some excerpts for ya (the page numbers I list are from the bottom of the printed sheets, Adobe Reader's internal page numbers are 1 page higher, so don't go whining that I say page 15 when Adobe says 16.):

Page 15: "Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

Page 28: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."

Page 37: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information."

I won't bore you with more excerpts... those three should be enough. If you wanna read through 170+ pages of bureaucratese, you're welcome to.

I'd love to see that record read on all the major networks as part of live coverage of the President's impeachment, wouldn't you?

Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 06:38 PM

C-C-G, C-C-G, C-C-G... When will you ever learn that for dweebs like Phil, the glass is never half-full, it's completely empty. Even when you spill water all over your shirt...

There's more than enough mistakes made during and after the Iraq invasion to occupy West Point for the next quarter-century. Take Paul Bremer, for example. Or the lackwitted shouldering-aside of community authorities such as the local sheiks, or the earlier (idiotic) "Lone-Ranger clear and leave" strategy.

I won't even mention endemic Mid-East corruption in government.

But dinks like Phil will continue to tilt at their phantastic windmills, just because it validates their mindless pointy-headed beliefs.

Now. If y'all want to get into a mature, serious "lessons learned" with respect to Iraq, I'm your boy... :)

Posted by: Casey at June 13, 2008 02:58 AM

Casey, I do not argue that Iraq has been well-run by the Pentagon. In point of fact, there have been blunders in every war in history... the Battle of the Bulge, in fact, was the result of numerous errors by the Allies.

My only argument regarding that is that making mistakes doesn't automatically make what you're attempting to do a Bad Thing.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 08:05 AM