All the fuss about the latest coordinated attack on the Iraq situation is media BS. I can understand someone having strong feelings and voicing them. But changing your position to meet a political goal (votes) is simply lying. So when I read a retired General has described Iraq in various ways depending on the political condition at the time (i.e., which party held the presidency) I am saddened and disgusted.  From American Thinker:

Nevertheless, in February of 2000, long before President Bush assumed office, Zinni felt confident enough to provide a strikingly familiar threat assessment on Iraq to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

– Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …

– Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. [Emphasis mine]

What bothers me is how we can let chameleons like this ever rise to the rank where their shifting views can impact the lives of many, many people. This is not a jobs bill or highway bill where shifting some features here or there can gain passage. We are in Iraq and must succeed. There is nothing to be gained here accept promises to the Old General that the Democrats will back a future campaign or speeking tour. For the men and women in harms way, this only paints brighter targets on their back.

Pathetic. More here.