In other words, any American success in Iraq is like pissing in markus’ Wheaties. Not that I’m surprised.

Anyway, the debate that war supporters are really going to have to win will occur later this year, not with people like me, but with Republicans that are sick and tired and embarrassed about spending half a TRILLION taxpayer dollars to referree a civil war in Mesopotamia. Particularly Republican Congressmen and Senators running for reelection in 2008 that feel this way. Barring a miracle in Iraq, time is on the side of the antiwar forces.

Trouble for you, “anyone” is not equal to “markus”. You might note that Terrye and I, as just one example, have had some rather heated disagreements that seemed to continue to be discussions anyway. There is one person in this debate that “tolerates” disagreement just fine by selectively ignoring it, and it ain’t me. If I stick out in my disdain for you, it’s only because I’m more blunt.

And you are not debating in good faith. You don’t get to cherry pick which things you talk about and which ones you don’t, then call it good faith. You won’t engage with any kind of intellectual honesty. Thus, there is no point in trying.

I need a good shorthand response for everything you say. I’m sure it will save time for me and everyone else in the future.

Once more, from the top, with feeling, here is what I said:

1) In September 2002 the CIA gathered credible evidence suggesting that Hussein did not have an active WMD program.
2) Tenet did not include this evidence in his October 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
3) Instead, he claimed in December 2002 that proving he had an active program would be a “slam dunk.” Based on the September evidence, I characterized this as a “lie about WMD’s — a lie which also appears to be INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE.”

I’m still waiting for someone to challenge any of these assertions. Did Tenet not have access to the September evidence? Was that evidence in fact included in the October 2002 report? Was there good reason to believe that it was untrue? If so, what were those reasons?

“The key fact about the alleged Perle incident is its triviality in comparison with the lie about WMD’s — a lie which also appears to be INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE.”

If you want to see a liar, look in the mirror. You’ve been shown why your contention is not true over and over. You continue to repeat it, and ignore the replies. This behavior has been explicitly called out by me and others, including the aforementioned long topic. I have no idea whether you are “pinko” or not, but I do know you could play one of their “useful idiots” on TV.

I’m an optimist. I really hate to comletely give up on a person. You just became the third, in my 40 years on this planet.

Listen: this is America. We speak English here. Also, we ask accusers to provide evidence behind their accusations, rather than making the accused hunt down exculpatory evidence.

My reply to Alan, and his reasonable question: What would the situation be at this time had we not invaded? Two valid points are 1) we don’t know, and 2) it makes no difference, since we’re there now. Still, we’re talking history here (as is Roger’s initial post, and Tenet’s book) and we’re also trying to decide as a nation whether or not to listen to the people who got us into the present situation, AND WOULD DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN even knowing what they now know.

My answer to Alan is based on my conclusion that Hussein was a rational actor, an evil rational actor to be sure, but still rational. No less irrational than Hafez al-Assad was when slaughtered 20,000 Muslim Brotherhood members in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre#The_Massacre

Thus, I see him as a lot less dangerous than others. And I can’t challenge other to create a CREDIBLE scenario in which he remained in power and we ended up worse off than we are today, attempting to stitch together a country when don’t even speak their language, our military is stretched to the breaking point, the rest of the world despising us.

The worse case scenario — Hussein getting a hold of a chemical weapon and giving it to his Islamist enemies — was nothing but groundless fearmongering. Here’s a good test: how worried was Israel about Hussein during the last fifteen years he was in power? As neocons never hesitated to point out when it was convenient to their argument of the moment, the answer was HARDLY AT ALL.

Are you guys trying to out do each other? Is there a prize for the most stupid comment in each topic?

And before you think all of this unreasonable, what makes you think things would have gotten better or remained the same? And please don’t tell me about the efficacy the UN and sanctions, unless you are a Russian or French arms dealer.

I don’t know the answer either, but we all have to stop acting like the current situation is the worst possible outcome.