Spanky's Place

1 - THANK YOU!!!

2 - I can't agree, Spanky. I supported the invasion (publicly - it's on my blog). But that was based on the information I had at the time, and that information had been filtered and manipulated, and I now know that it was absolutely incorrect. But I did support the war, and I was wrong to do so, and if anybody wants to call me a flip-flopper they're welcome to. I'll take my lumps, but I'm not too stubborn to learn.

Who attacked us, again? Al Qaeda, right? Didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee (now there's an oxymoron joke waiting to happen...*snicker*) just release the final proof that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and 9/11? Didn't they, in fact, confirm that Saddam and al Qaeda hate each other (something that, given their very fundamental - in both senses of the word - religious disagreements is unbelievably obvious in hindsight)? Didn't President Bush himself recently admit, much to Dick Cheney's chagrin, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Isn't the Taliban, an organization that aided and sheltered the people who did attack us, resurgent in Afghanistan while we're bogged down in a country that didn't attack us? Shouldn't we finish the *real* job and focus on al Qaeda?

Last time I checked, the Democrats wanted to focus on the terrorists. It's the Republicans that have wasted thousands of lives and three years fighting the wrong war. I want to win the war. The real war, against al Qaeda. But we can't win it if we're not even fighting it. And we can't fight it until we get out of Iraq.

By the way, Keith Olbermann is also pissed. And with good reason. { Link }

3 - Stellar points my friend, stellar points indeed.
-Devin.

4 - I think it's interesting, yet never surprising, that this comes down partisan blame. The decision for going to Iraq was based on intel compiled not only from information obtained during the very short period of time that Bush had been in office but also from intel gathered during the Clinton administration and administrations prior. Also, democrats and republicans alike voted to go based on the information. The reason for going to Iraq was not solely because of 9/11. That was one reason. If you'll remember, another reason was WMD's. Now...I know what you are thinking...There weren't any WMD's [See the part that explains information from the Clinton administration]. It is common knowledge that the Clinton administration expressed a grave concern for Saddam's possession of WMD's long before 9/11. It is inaccurate to say that Bush chose to go to Iraq solely based on 9/11. A majority of the people seem to think 2 things: 1) The president made this decision on his own. 2) He made this based on information only about 9/11.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - William J. Clinton

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. " - William J. Clinton

In my opinion, Bush admitted that Iraq "had nothing to do with it" only after the aforementioned information was deemed to be inaccurate.

I do agree however, that the information everyone is looking at now, could be unbelievably obvious in...(how did you say it?)...HINDSIGHT. Unfortunately, we live our lives looking forward.

In no way do I think the War has been handled well at all, but all I ever hear from Democrats is criticism and a cut and run strategy. I have not heard a single good solution. Trust me...I'd love to hear one that doesn't involve packing up, leaving, and hanging the Iraqi's out to dry. Not an option in my opinion.

Do I think we should be pursuing OBL and the Taliban more aggressively than we appear to be? Yes.
Do I think the world is a better place with Saddam in custody? Yes.
Do I think the US is in a great strategic position in the Middle East to help with the brewing problem in Iran? Yes.
Do I think that's the REAL reason we went to Iraq? YES!!!!
Can the US Government tell their people we are going to a country to set up a strategic position to defend against something so potentially threatening that you don't even know about yet without provocation? NOOOO!!!

Lastly, I want to address your final string of assessments line for line:
"It's the Republicans that have wasted thousands of lives and three years fighting the wrong war." - the Dems voted for it too but I addressed that above.

"I want to win the war. The real war, against al Qaeda." - Great News! So do I. What do the Dems offer as a solution?

"But we can't win it if we're not even fighting it. " - you're being extreme to prove a point (I hope). We are but not as fervently as I would like to see.

"And we can't fight it until we get out of Iraq. " - thank WJC for downsizing our US ARMED FORCES. Oh! And there is is...that Democratic solution for cutting and running.

5 - A couple things:

1. Sodom had WMD. Hell, he used them on his own people. Where are they now? Who knows. But if they buried air force planes in the desert, how hard would it be to hid a bio/chem progect? Not very.

2. The Dems knew/know Sodom had WMD.

A few quotes from the Democrat powerbrokers during the Clinton Administration:

"[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton (D)

"Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat... to the security of the world." - Vice President Albert Gore (D)

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." – Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (D)

"[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." – National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (D)

"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." – Sen. John Kerry (D)

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process." – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton (D) – All of them

3. 60 years later and we still have troops in Germany. 50 years later and we still have troops in Korea. We still have troops in Cuba..........And 100 years from now I hope we still have troops in Iraq and carrier forces in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

We'll never control the Middle East, but having an instant strike force in the heart of it is a good thing.........Like it or not, we are staying, and it doesn't matter which party is in control.

6 - And how about this that came out earlier today:

{ Link }

Seems to be pretty good intel.

7 - Hey there Chris! I can't believe I didn't have you on my blogroll!

The situation has been corrected, your is now over there on the right, in the Politics and History category.

-Devin.