“but he (Colin Powell) still believed toppling Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.”

The Iraq war has been a great success. America and its allies have liberated millions and democracy is rapidly spreading throughout the Mideast. When was Colin Powell ever “misled?” The term connotes nefarious intentions. At worst, honest mistakes were made. The main point is that Saddam Hussein was making it overly difficult to verify the status of his weapons programs. Iraq is the size of California. Only by invading could we find out what was really going on. Nobody but Saddam deserves blame for our confusion on this matter. Lastly, there is a difference of opinion concerning the Niger-Uranium story. Many do not agree with the views of the liberal CIA employees and their cohorts in the State Department.

The poor dear.

In the real world, what's it mean for Powell to be "furious and angry"? What did Powell's furror and anger effect? Did anybody lose their job? Or was it about as significant as me getting "furious and angry" over the employees getting my order wrong at the drive thru?

DT, define "democracy" and "liberated".

“DT, define "democracy" and "liberated".”

Iraq is liberated from Saddam Hussein and recently had a national election. Israel previously was the only democracy in the Middle East. It is good to see Arab Muslims starting to embrace the modern world. Don’t you agree?

DT, all that goal post moving must have you tired.

"DT, all that goal post moving must have you tired."

Zing! (applause)

“DT, all that goal post moving must have you tired."

Zing! (applause)”

Do you anything specific to add? Is it too much to ask for you to explain your views in a more adequate fashion?

Dave,
"...specific to add?"? How about do you date Cinderella? Were you a subject for the Brothers Grimm? Do you constantly smoke weed? Were you just let out of some asylum right after you mastered typing? Did you push Humpty Dumpty? Did you write Jimmy Clanton's most popular hit? Do you own ruby red shoes?
Explaining views to you "in a more adequate fashion" presents infinite possibilities-none of which YOU would understand-including your own because even they don't make sense-except to you.......perhaps.....nope not even that. But, as long as you stay occupied they won't send you back.

An Iraq that has a rate of acute malnutrition among children that is twice as high as it was under a dictator who was pocketing the vast majority of the oil-for-food money can hardly be called liberated.

An election where the identities of a good number of candidates was kept secret until after the vote can hardly be called democratic.

Perhaps Washington should order the invasion of California, since it has had such a great success with other areas of similar size. It is, after all, the only way we will ever know what those liberal commies are up to (Orange County excepted, of course). "The State of California has determined that [insert noun] causes cancer." Sounds like the rogue statements of a dictatorial regime going against the determination of 49 other states. Not to mention CalPERS, the state-owned communist welfare-state pension bureaucracy, and its ability to bring world financial markets to their knees with its buyings and sellings. Looks like an imminent threat to me.

Michael, the Neo Cons can call Iraq "democratic", "free" and "liberated" because they get to define the words as they see fit.

Don't give them any ideas, Michael!

Yes, when you're not sure what's going on in a country, the best way to find out is to invade it. Does North Korea have nuclear weapons? Let's find out, shall we....hmm...perhaps not.

On the subject of "democratic" and "liberated", we mustn't be cycnical: an election in Iraq *is* something to celebrate. However, we shouldn't get caught up in the government spin: to quote an article headline I read a couple of months ago: "One election does not a democracy make". We still need to put in place all the concomitant institutions and infrastructure that a democracy requires to function and we are a long way away from that.

There are so many sentences that we could take issue with in DT's remarks (I particularly like: "The Iraq war has been a great success") but there are a couple which should be corrected:

1. "At worst, honest mistakes were made." No, *at best*, honest mistakes were made. At worst, and unfortunately more likely, we were "misled" with all the "nefarious" connotations that that word implies.

2. "The main point is that Saddam Hussein was making it overly difficult to verify the status of his weapons programs." It's a little tiring to have to re-debunk such fallacies but I would suggest some reading on the chronology of events leading up to the war would be in order, paying particular attention as to who told the inspectors to leave the country. Finally, there was an excellent article that Steve wrote over at UPI late last year about Saddam Hussein's strategy of obfuscation/cooperation.

It's well worth a read in its entirety because it demonstrates how simple a strategy it was to identify and how we deliberately chose *not* to identify it in order to further our objective of invasion.

I used to think Powell could save the world. Now I know he is just another man hoodwinked by Bush. He has lost his glow. Don't any of these men have any guts to confront Dubya???

"“DT, all that goal post moving must have you tired."

Zing! (applause)”

Do you anything specific to add? Is it too much to ask for you to explain your views in a more adequate fashion?"

That "zing!" was my approval of his post, not my views or anything. It was funny. Or at least I thought so.