so do the Jooooos themselves, clown, Bush loyalist Zelikow being one in a more honest moment.

Like traditional conservative James Burnham said, the only interest in the Mideast for America is oil and whoever has the oil will sell it at market prices. Of course the neo-cons whose primary loyalty is to another nation beg to differ and the amoral military-industrial complex begs to profit.

Quite a slip, you’ve had it. You only wish.

Nice to see Truthy is so concerned about the welfare of others.

And who are all these disgruntled, leaking, “former officals” who have been plastered all over book shelves and TV hawing their dissent on the Iraq intelligence if there was no dissent? I do not hold sorrow for what happened to Saddam. He deserved it. And more than that, I’m glad we had a hand it seeing it served on him. But, I would suggest, that the notion that the POTUS would double-check and question and vet the intelligence given him by other agencies…has “already” been tried by the nutroots and congressional propeller head intellectuals who have decided that the president, attempting to vet intelligence given him, was treason of some sort or another. In fact..the dems think it’s an imeachable offense for a POTUS to have his own staff to even question the intel given them, or , even worse, to make their own judgements about it, do they not?

As to intelligence, the intelligence communty failed on a catastrophic scale. That point has “entirely” been pushed aside. Nobody talks about it. It was Bush’s fault. He “lied” and thousands “died”. There was PLENTY of dissent as well, as evidenced by the talking heads and books on tthe market now which speak directly to it. There was dissent written in the NIE summary. And for all the bluster, and book sales and money speaking engagements, not ONE of those people was willing to go on the record about it and say so. In fact, quite a few of them, when their statements were put into congressional record, said gave very different impressions than they do in public, on TV or in their books/aticles (Joe Wilson included). Go figure. Oh, there is no doubt, the President Bush was making a hard case for holding Iraq’s feet to the fire. And there any number of cases to be made about why Saddam should be dealt with. Just to list them takes nearly any entire page (as evidenced by any number of resolutions passed declaring it so).

But we are where we are “now” and need to think about where we go from “here” based on what is “in front of us”, not what should have been, or could have been, or would have been. We already invaded Iraq. Saddam is dead. The sunni/baathist dictatoral control of Iraq is dissolved. We have fought our way through the aftermath, mistakes and all. And we face what we face now. There are certainly fundamental truths in the area now that are apparently hard to accept by some, based on political, idealogical positions. That’s on ALL sides of this.

One only need be mildy observant to recognize that it is important for Iraq to have some kind of peaceful co-existance with it’s neighbors other than killing a million of them, and using WMD, or threatening the same. And if all the “Truth be told”, then we’d have to talk about Iran and other countries current invovlement in destabilizing, and murderous, activities inside Iraq as well. As Mick Jagger said witnessing a stomp down in front him at Altimont….”People….who’s fighting and what for”? You can’t stop asking those questions just because you disagreed with the reasons for the initial invasion. We are how many years into this already? Who is killing who, and why, is important. And you certainly can’t just ask those questions of “one-party” to a multiparty conflict and declare any sort of deeper understanding of the situation. Everyone has their “interests”. Not just the US. And everyone’s interests, and the actions they take in the course of persuing those interests, must certainly be looked at and seen clearly to have any sort of depth of understanding about where we are now, what is possible, or what is down the road. I’m not so sure being fluent in election 04 rhetroic, pre-war arguments, etc., and expanding that into the future is really capturing the essence of the situation on the ground and what kind of dynamics exists today, etc.

Just a thought.

Michael Yon: My Friday Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal

“The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.”

The Iranians apparently believed that the Shiite leadership would oppose any operation in Basra. The Iranians believed that Sistani would take the position of Shiite first, Iraqi second. And that is a natural conclusion for an Iranian to come to because that is how Iranians think. And one tends to think that one is stable and normal and good … and that everyone else on the planet would think just the same. Well, that is how miscalculations are made because often other people don’t think exactly the same way. You cant expect other people to think the same.

Liberals make the same mistake all the time. Their solutions are great as long as everyone else thinks just like they do.

Chew on this one for a while.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/17/iraq-poll-improvements-across-the-board/

Norm/truthie/Soothie are going to implode!