Great post. Your point on India was excellent. But again, I remind you personal attacks serve no purpose. Stick to counter augments.

1. Right, Saddam was just trying to pursue nuclear power plants.

Well, there’s certainly no proof he was building nuclear weapons, and you’ve provided none. Having unenriched Uranium is no crime.

2.And how about the trends of Muslim opinion towards extremism and Osama Bin Laden?

How about them? They mostly live in Pakistan and the Gulf States. As I said, Pakistan is probably the state most likely to use nuclear weapons in its never ending feud with India. Its government is in shambles and its very close to being taken over by extremists. Isn’t India a democracy, shouldn’t we invade Pakistan to protect India? Pakistan has enough nuclear weapons to create an ecological nightmare for the entire world, you idiot. If there was any place to invade it was Pakistan. But hey, they don’t have oil and they might have given us a hard time.

3. And still no answer to defend Obama politicizing the Iraq war at the expense of victory.

Bush screwed up the Iraq war beyond belief. Its well documented, with a staggering amount of cronyism, corruption, sheer incompetence and the most politicizing of the deaths of soldiers I’ve ever seen. Obama’s just started, he may get to Bush’s level someday, and no doubt like any politician he’s out to politicize anything that will help his chances of staying in office. But I’m pretty sure you never complained when Bush did it you hypocrite. Like I said, its a shame that the price of Democracy is letting idiots like you anywhere near important decisions.

I stand corrected on my comment about the uranium story. When I first read your post the hyperlink did not work. I assumed it was because you were just making up the story. I was wrong and I apologize.

On the justification for the Iraq war, if you concede that the justification was false (the uranium story reaffirms the fact that there was no WMD in Iraq) how can you still persist in believing the war was justified. All of the post justifications you give occurred after Iraq was invaded.

And yes your time-line was and is still wrong. You stated “Obama’s position in late 2007 which was to pull the troops from Iraq when it had become obvious the Americans and Iraqis had turned the tide on Al Qaeda”. First of all yes the additional Army units were in place by the middle of June but the additional Marine Corps units were not in place until September. Second the congressional resolution opposing the surge was passed in February of 2007. So were exactly did then Senator Obama state that he wanted to “pull the troops from Iraq” ?

Finally, these comments are supposed to be about Barbara’s article so in closing I’ll restate my earlier point: the President didn’t authorize the presence of the press, the families of the killed service members did. If you don’t want the human cost of war to be shown to the public, tell that to the families of the dead services members. It’s their decision, their the ones who’ve made the sacrifice.

Right, Saddam was just trying to pursue nuclear power plants. And how about the trends of Muslim opinion towards extremism and Osama Bin Laden? And still no answer to defend Obama politicizing the Iraq war at the expense of victory.

Why don’t you save ME the time and just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la la la!

<iHe said yellowcake uranium is a commonly traded commodity used for nuclear power generation. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process, he said, but because of the unstable nature of Iraq, the United States and the Iraqi government decided it should be moved out of that country.

Iraq did have a nuclear power plant which was destroyed by the Israelis, so it seems likely that the uranium had been hanging around since the eighties. The uranium was not weapons grade. There was no reason to believe that Iraq was anywhere near the capacity of enriching the uranium. No reason whatsoever. And even so, why does the idea of Iraq having nuclear weapons frighten you when the fact that our ally, the decaying state of Pakistan, has enough to blow the world up all by itself. A person with such upside down concerns can only be called stupid.

I inserted the link in my last comment. You’ll notice “the 500 tons of uranium” is blue which indicates it is a link.

I won’t quibble with you over motivations for the war. I concede that there are valid arguments against invasion, especially from the outset. However, once Al Qaeda joined the theater in Iraq (as insurgents – and particularly in the bombing of the Golden Mosque) there was no longer any question about the importance of prevailing in Iraq. Regardless of the reasons for entering the war, all parties should have been united against the real enemy once they appeared – whether such aid came in the form of military support, diplomacy towards allied nations or propaganda that furthered the war effort.

And no my time-line is not wrong. The troop surge began in April of 2007 but continued to be deployed in the early summer months of 2007. By the end of 2007 death rates in Iraq were at around a third of what they were 6 months earlier. It’s really not my fault that Democrats and apparent independants are not at all informed about the Iraq war even though you feel so strongly about it. Try doing your own research for a change.

“And BTW, what does any of this have to do with Barbara’s article?” Moho start it.

On your first point, you stated in post #57 that “500 tons of uranium that was recently shipped out of Iraq to Canada”. Where did you discover this. I’ve never seen or heard of any such report. Please provide a link to the documentation that you read this from. Personally, I think you made it up.

On your second point, you stated “Bush was right to confront Islamic terrorism head-on”; that’s true, but Islamic terrorism was almost completely absent in Saddam’s Iraq.

On your last point, concerning then Senator Obama’s position on the surge, your timeline is completely wrong. The additional troops compromising the surge weren’t even in-theather until the fall of 2007. How could then Senator Obama say in late 2007 “pull the troops from Iraq when it had become obvious the Americans and Iraqis had turned the tide on Al Qaeda”? Take some time to research your position. Otherwise you’ll wind up making absurd statements like that.

And BTW, what does any of this have to do with Barbara’s article?

Mr. Independant and Moho,

There remains controversy about the actual threat of Saddam’s regime. We will know more about Saddam’s nuclear program in time, but the 500 tons of uranium that was recently shipped out of Iraq to Canada might suggest that there was something going on. My previous comment didn’t argue that there was imminent threat, but rather the more obvious point that Saddam was certainly hostile towards the United States, and that due to the Iraq mission, that Iraq has now become an ally.

On the second point I agree with Mr. Independant’s response, but I’m not sure that this refutes my argument. The reputation of the United States and the reputation of Al Qaeda among Muslim nations is one of the more critical factors in the war on terror. George Bush was right to confront Islamic terrorism head-on and trust in the moral superiority of America’s military over that of these extremists. It wasn’t wrong for him to wager America’s reputation against that of Al Qaeda in this manner. This was what he meant when he talked about “winning hearts”. Moho, we all have our delusions but sometimes the truth can be a cure. You’ll notice how the date of this survey coincides with timing of peak violence in Iraq. More recent data on the decline of popularity of Bin Laden and extremism are available here.

And Moho, your final point about counter insurgency shows that you still don’t know anything about what has happened in Iraq over the past two years. The change in rhetoric from the Democrat party about the Iraq situation should be some indication to you that you’re on the wrong track here.

Finally, despite all of this you still think Bush was an incompetent moron. What do you two have to say about Obama’s position in late 2007 which was to pull the troops from Iraq when it had become obvious the Americans and Iraqis had turned the tide on Al Qaeda and military and civilian deaths were on drastic decline? What explanation do you have to support this suggested policy? Was Obama an incompetent moron, or was it that victory in Iraq was just too devastating to his campaign? So much for caring about the interests of the United States.