Well it has taken the Conservative party more than 10 years since their implosion and then only by a confluence of a more astute leader trying to claim the middle ground and because the LaboUr party is in strife.

Of course, the Liberal party has not recovered in decades.

US should not try to analyze the UK in the bi-polar US political way. They also have issues concerning a United Ireland, Wales and, particularly, Scottish nationalism.

Basra is the only route into or out of Iraq for American supplies and soldiers. If the British leave Basra, how do we supply our soldiers? Hope the Iraqis let our supply convoys through? And how will our soldiers leave?

And how will our soldiers leave?

Through Iran, of course....

My dinar investment isn't looking very good.

Tony knows his party is imploding, so he does care a little bit.

Or maybe because Prince Harry is headed there, the Queen is concerned?

W doesn't care for his party. But then again, neocons are only faithful to themselves and their dogma.

Oh yeah, at the risk of sounding "anti-semitic", neocons are faithful to Israel too.

Juan Cole is unimpressed with the happy talk surrounding Blair's announcement:

Didn't you just say yesterday, NOT withdrawing is a bad sign and now you're saying withdrawing is a bad sign also? You can't have it both ways. It seems to me withdrawing is VERY good. It means British troops are no longer needed because there is a democratic and self-sustaining Basra which is one of the reasons we liberated Iraq. what's wrong with that?

Through Iran, of course....

W quoting Hannibal from "A-Team"; "I love it when a plan comes together!"

Juan Cole:

Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.

Al:

It seems to me withdrawing is VERY good. It means British troops are no longer needed because there is a democratic and self-sustaining Basra which is one of the reasons we liberated Iraq. what's wrong with that?

Let's see... who is more credible...

Al --

you may be stretching a wee bit.

The British Army is coming out because it is politically and physically necessary. The UK Armed Forces are way overstretched, deteriorating rapidly and need some respite.

Aslo Afghanistan is seen as a necessary win as it is the legitimate war.

I might also add that the UK and Blair may have finally made the judgement that if the US is not going to broker a political settlement then, one way or another, the Iraqis are going to have to do it.

This may not be too pretty but it may not be as bad as some are trying to paint it, and not as bad as the course we are on.

So, as usual, there is no black and white, no glorious world on the other side if we can only open the door. It's all murky, grey and complicated and requires making judgement calls.

Which brings us back to US policy?

Well, Bush has been bitching about foreign fighters in Iraq. There is still another 150,000 foreign fighters there, maybe Bush can get them to leave? Perhaps Bush can attack their headquarters?

Didn't you just say yesterday, NOT withdrawing is a bad sign and now you're saying withdrawing is a bad sign also? You can't have it both ways. It seems to me withdrawing is VERY good. It means British troops are no longer needed because there is a democratic and self-sustaining Basra which is one of the reasons we liberated Iraq. what's wrong with that?

You're being disingenuous on purpose, I know you read the rest of the post about the British getting backed into the airport by the militias and Blair not wanting to sink his party.

Talking (blogging) neocon points verbatim 24/7 must be good money, I can't believe any sane person spouting this propaganda anymore for free.

If the British leave Basra, how do we supply our soldiers? Hope the Iraqis let our supply convoys through?

Looks like some more juicy contracts in the pipeline for Blackwater et al.

Talking (blogging) neocon points verbatim 24/7 must be good money

Most for-hire wingnut bloggers are sold on the weekly bile enemas that are part of the benefits package.

You know, The rightwing trolls have some points.The problem is they are bad points,They have been wrong on every issue since heir Bush was appointed President.Why do they post here on this site,I don't know,If only they could point to one issue they where right on would help.

With the President making all these new rules,What stops the next President from throwing Bush and Cheny in Gitmo declare them enemy combatants and leave them there for ever?

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation."
Vice President Cheney, on the planned British withdrawal from Iraq, February 21, 2007.

Just one of the GOP Quotes of the Week...

John John - Yes. Al, Egbert and friends have points; however, if they were to wear very tall hats, they could cover those points up.

All this time, the religious right was saying the Europeans are declining in population because they don't believe in God, marriage, family.

But now we know it's because they are pulling out.

seems to me withdrawing is VERY good. It means British troops are no longer needed

And yet far more additional American troops are needed than the British troops being removed.

Is this because overall, things are going worse, not better, in Iraq, requiring a greater total outside military presence? Or is it, instead, because each American soldier is far less effective than a British soldier, so even though things are better and less military force is needed, the small British pullout requires substantially more American forces to be brought in?

Well, all I know is that these "people" puke up the same script all of the time and they must know they have no credibility, so why bother?

Either they are making money from this abomination, NSA spies and their private contractors, or there are truly willfully ignorant human beings.

I can't wrap my brain-housing group around that.

OF COURSE the Brits withdrawing is a good sign. How much more clearly could they say "Mission Accomplished!!!"? Of course you libs absolutely hate any sign of victory.

Here's an even better sign that you libs will try not to admit: Not only are the Brits leaving Basra, they're NOT going to Baghdad they're going home. Proving that the surge is working so well in Baghdad that we don't need any additional help!

Watch for Bush to declare victory and bring all the troops home starting in early 2008. That's going to drive you libs bananas. BWA HA HA HA HA!

The Tories don't have much of a leg to stand on, since they're not calling for an outright pullout either.

And isn't it interesting that Prince Harry may go to Iraq? No one from the ruling classes in America would even consider joining the Army, much less in a position to get shot at.

"Support the troops! But from a distance."

You're being disingenuous on purpose

That's Al's M.O. (And that of most of the other Bush supporters who post here, I might add...)

You can't have it both ways. It seems to me withdrawing is VERY good. It means British troops are no longer needed because there is a democratic and self-sustaining Basra which is one of the reasons we liberated Iraq.

This is merely a strategic advance towards the rear...If there job is done in the south, maybe they could help out with the surge in Bagdahd.

Iraq War Boosts Conservative Party.

Kinda different.

British royalty have a history of military service. Most European states in the modern era were consolidated by militaristic nobility. It was a badge of honor to show this to your enemies.

American "royalty" is entirely, "I make more money than you, thus I am better than you."

I'm not against anybody making an honest buck, but don't prevent anybody else from making a good living to profit yourself and then lording it over them just to say "I am better than you."

American Hock, cute!

Bush could in fact declare victory at ANY time. No one knows what the parameters of "victory" actually are, so it is open to whatever Bush decides it is, and when.

I bet his superlative speech writers are working on a beautiful victory speech right now, using all the most patriotic of cliches, full of rapture and unabashed self-congratulations, to include the shaking of hands of soldiers both whole and disabled, glitter and confetti for all.

Cheney will attend, his bloated self-satified grin firmly in place. No one will get close enough to ask Mr. Cheney what he has done for the American people in his whole 8 years while we were overseas doing democracy for the Iraqis.

And then we bomb Iran while everyone is still clapping.

Blair is spinning like a madman. To keep all the troops there is political suicide for his party. Pulling all of them out or setting a firm timetable will expose his spin when the militias take over after they are gone. BTW, the British withdrawal has been going on for about 2 1/2 years. They started with 40,000 troops & now have about 7,000.

American politicos of both parties in the US have the same problem. An increase of 20,000 troops is a joke. First, we just plain don't have them. In Nam, the surge was in the hundreds of thousands, & it sill didn't work. We blew out opportunity to win hearts & minds almost 3 years ago, when Bush refused to send in the necessary troops to have a chance of success. On the other hand, pulling out immediately or setting a firm deadline for withdrawal will let the insurgents lie low till after we leave. Then the real bloodletting will begin.

Any American or Euripean plan will be rejected w/o examination. So, the only option seems to be hang in long enough for the nations in the region to hammer out something they can all agree upon enough to tolerate each other, even if it takes UN peacekeepers. Prince Bandar, former Saudi ambassador to the US, is trying to do just that Part of the plan is to persuade Iran to stop supporting Syria & Hezbollah, giving Istael & labanon breathing space. He has made a little progress. Big Oil & US gasoline customers won't get all they want, but a complete rout in Iraq (& Afghanistan) would make it worse. Time to settle for half a loaf, George, before we lose it all.

I don't think the Queen is worried about Harry going over there. You only have to look at his uncle Andrew's record as a helicoter pilot ... decoy duty for incoming missiles!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York

I think the British will eventually come to regret sending so many of their troops into the meatgrinder of the English countryside.

Labour is taking a thrashing in the polls and Mr. Brown does not want the Sisyphean task of pacifying Iraq clouding his premiership. This is all very plain to see. But the British have known they were leaving for some time and were waiting for the right moment to exit stage left. No one in Britain thinks this war was wise or well executed. From the very get-go Britons were shocked by what seemed like an emasculated Tony Blair shamefully kowtowing to an illiterate little potentate like George Bush. They were willing to tolerate Blair’s evangelical do-gooding zeal but he went too far and destroyed his reputation. He is nothing but tiresome. "Shameful" is the way to describe the whole affair.

My own feeling is that this is nearly the last of the imperial flourishes. Britain is evolving toward a European norm and feeling rather small in the face of a rising East. From a British perspective America all of a sudden seems so un-modern. Its neo-imperalism, neo-evanglicalism, sexual frigidity and antiscience culture are anathema in modern Britain. It still must cling to the Anglo-sphere led by the United States but it will seek, like most states, independent partnerships in the new world order.

Al's (and many of the other right-wing trolls on this site)sole purpose in posting is to get a rise out of people here.

I really doubt he believes a word of what he posts, but undoubtably he's amused when people take him seriously.

Denmark! You forgot Denmark!

By August all our 400-some regular army troops will be gone, "replaced" by 4 observation helicopters and some civilian advisors to the Iraqi police and such.

So we're gone too, leaving Basra on a Hercules.

And in the wake of this withdrawal sending additionally 200 combat troops to Afghanistan.

You can't just go around ignoring Denmark like that ... ;-)

Regards.

I see no signs of Haliburton leaving Iraq.So we know we will be there for awhile.When word gets out that Haliburton is packing up then our troops will be comming home.Yes that is right we are there to allow Haliburton to make it's fortune in Iraq.Sad really really sad.

Tony Blair :

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/PrimeMinisterAnnouncesUkForceReductionInIraq.htm
U.K. Ministry of Defence
Prime Minister announces UK Force reduction in Iraq
21 Feb 07
...We are able to announce this reduction in Force levels because of the growing capacity of the Iraqi security forces...
...This announcement reflects the progress that has been made in the south towards complete Iraqi self-reliance, and also the challenges that remain...
...Since the outset our plan, agreed by Iraq and the United Nations, has been to build up Iraqi capability in order to let them take control of their own destiny. As they would step up, we would, increasingly, step back...

THE NEW YORK TIMES
published Thursday, October 20, 1966; Page 1
Aiken Suggests U.S. Say It Has Won War
By RICHARD EDER Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19--Senator George D. Aiken made a "far-fetched proposal" today for achieving peace in Vietnam: that the United States declare that it has won the war...
..."It may be a far-fetched proposal," said the 74-year-old Republican, who is a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "but nothing else has worked."...
...Senator Aiken said he was aware that his proposal, made in a speech to the Senate, might strike some as a bit of political drollery. It is intended with all seriousness, he said -- though with only faint hopes that it would work -- as a suggestion for freeing the Administration of one of the considerations that keep it on its present course: the concern that unilateral de-escalation would impair its military credibility...
...The Senator said his proposal was not designed to solve the political problem of Vietnam, but simply to eliminate the issue of the credibility of United States military power -- or more loosely, the question of "face".

I love how freq ken uses the frickin phrase "sounds like" before doing his Strawman attacks.

Frickin have intellectual integrity.
Frickin take responsibility of your statements.
Frickin stop reminding me of the Churchlady.

Six british troops killed since Christmas, compare 7,000 troops to 140,000 US, gives you a monthly scaled death toll of approximately 60 dead per month. 23 British troops wounded last month is in scale with 460 US troops wounded. 132 total dead scales up to 2,600. Certainly doesn't sound like things are better around Basra.

Colonel Tim Collins of the Royal Irish Regiment say "Shia militias are wreaking mayhem in the South. I don't think we can pretend it is a stable situation. But there is a higher priority here. Tony Blair's popularity has never been so low and the Parliamentary Labour Party is in turmoil. They're looking for cheap wins and if that costs lives it doesn't matter to them."

They don't need to leave. If they're no longer needed in Basra, they can join the surge in Baghdad with their American comrades.

Prime Minister Blair is attempting to get his spin in early tomorrow, UK time on BBC Radio 4 when he is to be interviewed on the Today Programme at 08:10 by John Humphrys. I recommend that our US friends locate an internet feed of this show as it is going to be brutal.

Ah, Kevin.

Leave it to "Havin' it Both Ways (aka 'Wrong Way')" Drum to now argue that withdrawing is "bad."

I thought you wanted your prescious little troops withdrawn so they wouldn't get any more ouchies.

Well, now the British are doing exactly what you want, and you still complain.

Why don't you tell us what you want, Wrong Way? Or do you just want to vent you're spleen at Bush?

Juan Cole? Who's he, another of these lefty hippies?

Kevin Drum: If the Guardian is right, the real story here isn't that Britain is withdrawing from Iraq, but that they're actually planning to stay longer than previously planned.

But that was yesterday.

I suppose that it would be nice to have them redeployed to the "surge" in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, here is Sen. Jim Webb's opinion, 1997, about a previous Congressionally mandated withdrawal:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16181/article_detail.asp

A little truth for the conservatives:

- We have lost the war for Iraq.
- The best we can hope for is Iraq to end up as an Islamic republic that hates the U.S. worse than Saddam did.
- 3,000+ American soldiers have died for nothing. Nothing more than the arrogance and hubris of a little, spoiled man-child from Texas.
- 9-11 had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with Iraq.

Have a nice life.

TCD

If Blair were smart, he would redeploy all Brit troops to Afganistan, winning the war there and letting GWB holding the bag in Iraq.

Of course, he might then jeopardize his seat on the Carlyle Group board....

If Blair were smart, he would redeploy all Brit troops to Afganistan, winning the war there and letting GWB holding the bag in Iraq.

Nonsense. If Bush hadn't already won in Afghanistan he wouldn't have diverted troops from there to Iraq several years ago. Old news, Bush won, get over it. The Brits are going home because Bush has basically achieved peace in the middle east, with nothing left that a bit of a surge won't be able to mop up. Then after winning in Afghanistan, winning in Iraq, and bringing a cowering North Korea to its knees, just watch. Iran is next, then Syria. Start figuring out what you'll be telling yourselves when Bush wins the Nobel Peace Prize for transforming the middle east single-handedly ... or, rather, when he declines the Nobel Peace Prize because, and I quote from his future memoirs on the matter, "It sounded sort of French."

14,000 NATIONAL GUARD SCHEDULED FOR IRAQ WAR

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday.

"National Guard officials told state commanders in Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma and Ohio last month that while a final decision had not been made, units from their states that had done previous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan could be designated to return to Iraq next year between January and June, the officials said." (New York Times).

And that, boys, is your reward for voting Republican. Congratulations.

Hock --

watch out! You are starting to sound dangerously close to the real thing. There might be a self-induced involuntary transformation going on, sort of like "The Fly".

You won't like the meds, the empty windowless rooms, or when the men in white coats come and strap you down and sedate you when you start raving about all them liberals underminig the eternal success of the the rei...States.

Ease up, buddy.

- 3,000+ American soldiers have died for nothing.

You call winning the 2002 midterm elections 'nothing'?
You call keeping the White House and both Houses of Congress in 2004 'nothing'?

Mission accomplished, baby.

Remember, Iraq was never a 'war' -- just the world's most expensive campaign commericial.

"Labour is taking a thrashing in the polls and Mr. Brown does not want the Sisyphean task of pacifying Iraq clouding his premiership. This is all very plain to see. But the British have known they were leaving for some time and were waiting for the right moment to exit stage left. No one in Britain thinks this war was wise or well executed. From the very get-go Britons were shocked by what seemed like an emasculated Tony Blair shamefully kowtowing to an illiterate little potentate like George Bush. They were willing to tolerate Blair’s evangelical do-gooding zeal but he went too far and destroyed his reputation. He is nothing but tiresome. "Shameful" is the way to describe the whole affair.

My own feeling is that this is nearly the last of the imperial flourishes. Britain is evolving toward a European norm and feeling rather small in the face of a rising East. From a British perspective America all of a sudden seems so un-modern. Its neo-imperalism, neo-evanglicalism, sexual frigidity and antiscience culture are anathema in modern Britain. It still must cling to the Anglo-sphere led by the United States but it will seek, like most states, independent partnerships in the new world order."
Posted by: bellumregio on February 21, 2007 at 6:00 PM |

Excellent analysis. Interesting that immediately prior to this "announcement" we have the necessity to "surge" troops in Baghdad, Naval reinforcements are on the way to the Persian Gulf, there is an NK nuke "deal", and the Iranians are making diplomatic overtures. Are we going to be leaving sooner rather than later?

I don't suppose the UK will really be free of their Special Relationship with America until the last of the WWII generation dies off.

If only George H.W. Bush had pulled out of Bar a little earlier, we wouldn't be in the current pickle.

"You call winning the 2002 midterm elections 'nothing'?
You call keeping the White House and both Houses of Congress in 2004 'nothing'?" - Conrad

No, he's calling the peaceful people of Iraq "nothing". Nothing significant anyway, not worth his time or effort. Their decade long slaughter at the hands of religious zealots is nothing for him to be concerned about.

But he does support human rights very strongly, at least during the marches and protests, but after that it's off to the coffe house to talk with his brethren on how compassionate they are.

If only everyone was a liberal.

Their decade long slaughter at the hands of religious zealots is nothing for him to be concerned about.

What "decade long slaughter at the hands of religious zealots " ?

What about the four year of slaughter caused by a
civil war ? Read the paper, the slaughter continues unabated.

Jay supports the Iraqis very strongly, as long as
he doesn't have to enlist. He loves to get on the blogs and talk about how brave and concerned he is.

If everyone were a neocon.

"What "decade long slaughter at the hands of religious zealots " ?" - Stephen

For more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of his actions -

On May 29, Human Rights Watch reported that a survivor who escaped after he was left for dead in a mass grave in March 1991 linked the thousands of victims unearthed earlier in the month to systematic mass killings by Iraqi Special Republican Guards and Ba'th Party officials,"

Reuters

Oh excuse me, two decades. Now let's see, Saddam was known to have taken part in prayer, so according to the liberal definition of religion,(you know that seperation of church and state thing) he would certainly qualify as a religious zealot. I mean afterall I am sure your spooked by Mitt Romney, but you have the audacity to call Saddam "secular". LMAO.

"What about the four year of slaughter caused by a
civil war ?" - stephen

What is so wrong with civil war? Our 4 1/2 year civil war resulted in a stronger better union, albeit one of the most bloodiest conflicts in history. By comparison, Iraqs civil war (which really isn't a civil war) is by far less bloody and may result in a better union.

But I suppose the liberals know better. They usually think they do.

If only everyone were a liberal.

Why hasn't anyone wondered whether the surge was actually designed not to put more troops into Iraq but to replace the British troops who are leaving? Bush has known about the British withdrawal for some time (I first read about it a few weeks ago). How popular do you think the surge would be if the public knew it wasn't a last ditch effort to fix Iraq but rather a desperate effort to maintain the status quo?

I'm sure all the hundreds of thousands of tortured and dead civilians (and their survivors) in the past few years feel better about it than the dead and tortured of Saddam's.

"Why hasn't anyone wondered whether the surge was actually designed not to put more troops into Iraq but to replace the British troops who are leaving?" Guscat

Well, because the "surge" troops are in the Al Anbar and Baghdad Provinces and the British Troops are primarily in the Al Basrah and Dhi Qar Provinces. Just FYI.

I agree with Bush and Cheney that the Brit pull-out is proof of progress. I just don't think we're talking about the same "progress".

Jay - pretty weak argument that Saddam was a religious zealot. I understand tho - once you've made your statement, you have to 'Stay the Course'.

Oh excuse me wishIwuz2, Saddam was a progressive secular, I forgot.

And according to trex, Baghdad was quite the multi-cultural international city prior to the evil Americans illegal occupation.

How should we label Ahmenijad - "enlightened"?

By comparison, Iraqs civil war (which really isn't a civil war) is by far less bloody and may result in a better union.

60,000 plus Iraqi's dead and its not over yet.

Weren't you the one that was so concerned about the "slaughter" ?

Our 4 1/2 year civil war resulted in a stronger better union, albeit one of the most bloodiest conflicts in history

Then why don't we just pull out and let them have at it ?

Now let's see, Saddam was known to have taken part in prayer, so according to the liberal definition of religion,(you know that seperation of church and state thing) he would certainly qualify as a religious zealot. I mean afterall I am sure your spooked by Mitt Romney, but you have the audacity to call Saddam "secular".

Does this make sense to anyone ?

I thought we went into Iraq for WMD's, 9/11 and
Al Qaeda...but, according to Jay, we went in to fight religious extremists like Mitt Romney.

Jay, your logic will take you far in the neocon ranks.

60,000 plus Iraqi's dead and its not over yet.

Afraid you're off by a factor of at least ten. The Lancet estimate in October 2006 was of approximately 655,000 dead in the Iraq War -- and casualties have only risen since then.

but, according to Jay, we went in to fight religious extremists like Mitt Romney.

Look, if we don't fight Mitt Romney here then we'll have to fight him there...or something like that. It's so hard to keep track of these shifting rationales....

Mr. Cheney disagrees:

Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that about one quarter of the British forces in Iraq were now being withdrawn, with more withdrawals later this year. While in Japan, Vice President Dick Chaney maintained that these reductions showed what success we are achieving in Iraq.

On Wednesday, Mr Cheney harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy."

Vice President Chaney now travels to Australia, where he will shoot a kangaroo.

from Homer at www.blogspot.com

Jay: I mean afterall I am sure your spooked by Mitt Romney . . .

It would appear by news reports from both conservative and liberal media outlets that it is the religious right that is "spooked" by Romney, not liberals.

More lies by that very epitome of dishonesty: Jay.

Apologies to the Floopmeister for sending our Toxic Waste to his shores.

Jay: No, he's calling the peaceful people of Iraq "nothing". Nothing significant anyway, not worth his time or effort. Their decade long slaughter at the hands of religious zealots is nothing for him to be concerned about.

Funny how Jay was so, so concerned about the Iraqi people and Arabs in general when his favorite family, the Bush family, was assisting Saddam with his butchering of the Kurds, the murdering of political dissenters, and the invasion of Iran complete with the use of WMDs and when his good buddy Ronald Reagan was financing the Butcher of Tehran, the Shah of Iran.

Funny how Jay has no concern whatsoever for the people of Afghanistan who are suffering because of Bush's diversion of troops to a futile effort in Iraq and how he has no concern whatsoever for the millions of other victims of even more brutal regimes around the world, example Somalia and North Korea, but would rather support far less useful efforts in Iraq only because Bush dishonestly told him this was the central front in the war on terror.

Funny how Jay was so, so concerned about the Iraqi people and Arabs in general when his favorite family, the Bush family, was assisting Saddam with his butchering of the Kurds, the murdering of political dissenters, and the invasion of Iran complete with the use of WMDs and when his good buddy Ronald Reagan was financing the Butcher of Tehran, the Shah of Iran.

Odd, too, that Reagan was also arming the Iranian mullahs in the 1980s, or that in the 1990s Cheney as head of Halliburton was doing business with Iran, all at a time when the wingnuts claim we were supposedly at war with them. None dare call it treason....

*Oh excuse me wishIwuz2, Saddam was a progressive secular, I forgot.*

You're excused, for now. Please don't do it again.

(Saddam a 'progressive'? - Sheesh! You nutball...)

Jay: What is so wrong with civil war? Our 4 1/2 year civil war resulted in a stronger better union, albeit one of the most bloodiest conflicts in history. By comparison, Iraqs civil war (which really isn't a civil war) is by far less bloody and may result in a better union.

So you think we should let them get on with it, right?

Isn't that exactly what the Democrats in Congress are trying to get the president to do? We're going to remove ourselves from their civil war. After all, we wouldn't have liked it if European armies had invaded and occupied the U.S. to make the North and South play together nicely.

jay: For more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of his actions

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." - Dick Cheney 1992

OT: if anyone is interested

"THERE WILL BE A HUGE PEACE RALLY IN WASHINGTON ON MARCH 7. 41 STATES HAVE ORGANIZATIONS CHARTERING BUSES ETC. IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE GO TO www.impeachbush.org "

see marchonpentagon.org for state by state transportation arrangements.

See you there, Jay.