I agree that al-Maliki needs to get on board with the Bush plan, assuming the Bush plan follows the steps outlined in the COIN manual. If Maliki doesn’t separate from Sadr, then no strategy will really help.

The intelligence fiasco in the build-up to the invasion is an exceedingly ugly story and rather than receding into the past, its significance grows every day. It’s like the decomposing body under the expanding executive house. More keeps coming out about the fraudulent case for war, and the consequences of having only an imaginary plan for the occupation.

For Bush supporters who soldier on, the choices resemble what the go-getters from Enron faced: confront the bad accounting that’s gone on for years or adopt even more desperate measures to conceal losses and keep your hand alive. But if the AP had fabricated a source and relied on that source 60 times, maybe the tables could be turned again and the reckoning put off.

so true

As for the war not being a strategic mistake, does it not bother you that as each justification for war has been disproven, the war supporters have shifted to a brand new one, as if that was the one all along, without missing a beat? If someone wanted to borrow a hundred bucks from you, and changed his reasons for needing the money not once, not twice, but at least three times, you’d be suspicious of him, even if you were the most naive person on earth. You’d have to be a fool to believe his latest rationale without question, right?

That’s what I don’t get about conservatives, and this war. No matter what your party affiliations, or foreign policy opinions, or how deep your political loyalty, I simply can’t believe that you’ve had the meaning behind your war changed so many times, and never will you say, “Hey, wait a minute…Maybe this guy’s not being straight with us!”

And, I’m sorry, as a justification for war, “helping the Iraqi people” doesn’t cut it. It doesn’t. If that had been the reason from day one, America would have said thanks but no thanks and you know that. Besides, it can’t be true, because we did nothing about Rwanda, nothing about Darfur, it doesn’t make logical sense to say that we felt compelled to intervene for humanitarian reasons, while at the same time ignoring one of the worst genocides of the decade, which we could have been very effective at stopping.

And before you say, “to create stability in the Middle East,” remember that Iraq was one of the most stable nations in the region, technologically advanced, and free from the religious extremism you claim to fear so much. I know, I know, “You’re a Saddam lover! You must love Saddam!” I’m talking about the mature pursuit of global stability and American security interests. In that respect, we were way better off with Saddam in power than we are now.

So, in light of these things, maybe, just maybe, you’ll forget party loyalty and open your mind to the possibility that your leaders are not being straight with you. That rulers of powerful nations just might conceal their true agenda from the people. I know, it sounds totally nutty to you, like something from a James Bond film or a conspiracy theory website, but to us liberals, “nutty” is to catch someone in multiple lies, and then believe their latest claims without suspicion or criticism.

we acn argue it all day long

but these folls ahve hurt us in this way

our armed forces are overextended, undermanned, exhausted

and for what?

all this quarterbacking a war from a keyboard.

Interesting name for a liberal…freudian slip perhaps?

In seriousness, the war was not a strategic mistake - the mistakes were made in the execution.

Had we:

Invaded with a more robust force capable of securing the country
and
Kept the Iraqi Armies entact

We could have done a more robust reconstruction sooner and given people confidence in their government’s ability to secure them and provide services for them. We also could have put more Iraqis to work sooner, thereby keeping them off the streets.

But, we did it on the cheap and now we get what we have earned.

It is indeed time for those responsible for this national catastrophe to have an Accountability Moment.

1. The next time you toss an F-bomb here, your comment will be deleted and you will be banned.

2. Grow up. Your last statement makes me doubt you’re old enough to be commenting here. Only a fool (or a liberal) doesn’t constantly rethink his positions on anything.

“I haven’t written anything about Iraq recently and there’s a reason for it; I’m waiting until we hear from the only guy who counts – the Commander in Chief.”

You’re almost right. You see, W is the Commander in Belief. You just have to Believe that we will prevail in Iraq and all is well. It would really help if everyone in America could join hands and pray; then we would be invincible. At the very least, we should all show “resolve” (what ever the f**k that means) and then Victory will be At Hand.

We constantly hear Iraqi this or Iraqi that… Question: Do the citizens of Iraq think of themselves as Iraqi first, Sunni/Shiite/Kurd second, or is it vice-versa, that is, Sunni/Shiite/Kurd first, Iraqi second? Would it have been worth considering this before invading Iraq and assuming that modern Jeffersonian Democracy could be not only imposed, but successful, virtually overnight? Would it have been to America’s advantage to elect a Resident who understands, however remotely, the world beyond Texas and the Confederacy?

Rick, you on the Right wanted W, now you have him and his glorious legacy. Are you telling me that you were for W before you were agianst W? I’ve got some flip-flops with your name on ‘em…