Cheney had all this worked out with Bremer. Decider had been told to OK the deal at lunch.

We are in this mess because Cheney is extremely competent at controlling Bush. Chaos in Iraq justifies our presence, and was part of the real plan all along.

The message here is that the only thing truly important to Dubya is lunch.

I think it's CYA now in the Bush world. And to be honest with you, I think Bush's incompetence did cost us in Iraq. Everyone knew we would overrun Saddam but it was the part after that we HAD to get right. And that dumbass would not read a memo over 1 page?? Hello??? ... How do you govern a mom and pop store, let alone the biggest country on the planet, when you refuse to do something that simple? I think we could have actually done something good there but for this moron.

And just think if you are an Iraqi that helped the Americans? You're dead when we bail on that country. We will make Saigon look like a birthday party.

Kenji -- you made me laugh out loud with that one... too perfect. : )

Don't misunderestimate this administration's incompetence.

The number of things this administration has botched in Iraq is astonishing. But they did get one thing right: the Baghdad Embassy has plenty of roof space for an evacuation. Something tells me that we will need it.

While I agree that this feels like a Cheney maneuver, it seems to me that Cheney's aims were more to undercut his rivals, namely Powell and Rice.

NEW WORD NEEDED, PLEASE....

—Kevin Drum

The word is HUBRIS...and it applies not only to Bush but everyone who supported the war.

> It's not that I'm convinced he's wrong, it's
> just that every month or so we discover yet
> another piece of Bushian incompetence

I am puzzled as to why you think this is an example of incompetence? Could you read the damned PNAC library please? It is all published, publicly-available position papers. They said 10 years in advance what they wanted to do. Yet you keep being surprised year after year after year after year when evidence surfaces that they did what they said they were going to do and put the people in place they could trust to do what they wanted to do. Powell and his buddies they couldn't trust.

Cranky

"Nonsense, Khalilzad believes. "I feel strongly that the U.S. ruling was wrong. We could have had an interim Iraqi government. I argued, based on Afghanistan, that with forces, diplomacy and money, nothing can happen anyway without your support."

"...based on Afghanistan"...ya, that's really working out well, isn't it! And, nothing about the very premise of "forming an Iraqi government" under the tutelage of the occupation forces and the WH (or rather the OVP). Can anyone seriously argue that whatever Khalilzad came up with, such a "government" could only have been predominately Shi'ite anyway, or risk losing the support of al-Sistani (and SCIRI)? The US installed Sunni exile Allawi, and he was a success, wasn't he? Please, what-iffing at this point is a feckless exercise, as the only options open to US "nation-builders" were the London-based exile groups, including Chalabi...none would have succeeded, regardless of who was ultimately calling the shots for the Americans.

The moron status of the Decider is secure, but if he had been surrounded by honorable advisers, things would have been totally different.

Cheney (read PNAC) wanted the army near the oil, and so it is.

Decision made over lunch - Sounds like Shrub studying for finals at Yale and Harvard.

Frankly, given everything we've learned about the Bush administration's approach to Iraq over the past four years, it's remarkable that we aren't in even worse shape than we are. [???]

I am incredulous at this statement, and normally I wouldn't bother to stop and comment, but it really cannot go unchallenged. It must not go without comment to say such a thing. Let me finish the thought--would that "worse" shape be...oh, I don't know...safe and secure in our homeland? Is that what you were going to thank our good President for being? For being able to wander down to the corner market in your jammies and buy a gallon of milk for less than four dollars?

I wish I had a nickel for ever sad-sack liberal who laments how things are in this country. Life is tough so get used to it.

There are no terrorists clamoring over the border in droves. There are no bombs going off in Cincinatti or Las Vegas. There are no Islamicists running down the main drag in Anytown USA firing machine guns at your grandmother. There are no planes dropping out of the sky by the dozens. A mad mullah in a towel ensemble is not forcing decent American women to wear the burqaa. A man with a black mask is not cutting off the hands of little liberals who steal coffee from the student union with his scimitar in the town square. There are no set piece battles between the Armies of Osama bin Laden and our own National Guard taking place at strategic river crossings or road junctions.

You whiny, pathetic liberals are safe and snuggly in your beds every night. You are not dodging bullets and bombs--the US military is doing that for you so that you can be safe. We are controlling the Iraqi battlespace and we are stopping the growth of worldwide Jihadism. Not only has the surge worked--thank you, Hillary Clinton for noticing--but now that the insurgents see that we mean business, they are fleeing for greener pastures. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing the country, and many of them are insurgents who can't stand up to the vicious aerial bombardments we have been levelling upon them.

One thing you never hear is a "thank you" for the men and women who are keeping liberals safe to bitch about things they know nothing about. It's high time for some gratitude instead of the same terrible attitude.

I see Rogers's "Jack Nicholson-in-A Few Good Men" personality is dominant today.

Perhaps there has not been the level of incompetence we all seem to believe. It does serve the interest of some parties that Iraq, the most educated and powerful Arab country in the region, be so completely destroyed that it could never rise again. Thoroughly rip apart the very fabric of it's society, plunder it's resources, establish permanent military bases to control the Gulf, and control Chinese access to energy resources.
If Bush and co. are as evil as some of us believe, their actions do follow a certain logic.

In the Vietnam analogies department, unstaffed decisions taken over Tuesday lunches at the White House were one of the complaints lodged against Lyndon Johnson's administration.

In this case, staff preparation might have helped with the whole "unity of command" argument, because in fact there never was any such thing during Bremer's tenure at CPA. He never had control over military operations in Iraq and seems to have been barely on speaking terms with Gen. Sanchez. Of course he didn't know any of the Iraqis he had to deal with before he got to Baghdad, and Khalilzad's presence could hardly have hurt in that respect.

New words- White House conspiracy.

Interesting post. Not sure I agree with you.

Willl do something different for me, will think about it and then react.

The plan to destroy Iraq was modelled on the plan used to destroy Palestine, and it worked very, very well. The incompetence theme is just a way to distract moderates from the war crimes committed. Moderates would prefer to believe all of the death and destruction caused by America was a mistake rather than premeditated. Like Khalilzad, they hope to escape ajudication for crimes against humanity.

Norman Rogers: "There are no terrorists clamoring over the border in droves. There are no bombs going off in Cincinatti or Las Vegas. There are no Islamicists running down the main drag in Anytown USA firing machine guns at your grandmother. There are no planes dropping out of the sky by the dozens. A mad mullah in a towel ensemble is not forcing decent American women to wear the burqaa. A man with a black mask is not cutting off the hands of little liberals who steal coffee from the student union with his scimitar in the town square. There are no set piece battles between the Armies of Osama bin Laden and our own National Guard taking place at strategic river crossings or road junctions."

So in other words, we should be grateful that Bush decided to fix Iraq instead of the United States. All of a sudden, the Flypaper Theory makes more sense.

Excuse me, but as I remember, the original plan did not involve Bremer at all! General Jay Garner was the original choice, but was swapped hastily for Bremer after only a short time in the job.

So what happened there, and why is history being rewritten to imply Bremer was the original choice?

May I suggest "clusterfuck?"

May I suggest "clusterfuck?"

I'll second that! I have been using "clusterfuck" as a label on my blog for months now.

Garner was moving quickly to hold elections before we had time to get the caucus mechanism rigged. He was suffering under the illusion (as have millions now) that we were actually in Iraq to establish democracy. He had to be replaced by Bremer, who knew the real deal.

? incompetrensible: incompetent beyond comprehensibility

Perhaps it's yet another backdoor attempt to rehabilitate the once grand but now shattered reputation of Colin Powell.

The narrative seems to be "I told you so" by Powell regarding the Iraq occupation, neatly ducking the fact that indeed he did tell us so and before the United Nations and the whole world.

We've been through this several times before -- and on this blog no less.

Why, what's wrong with "qWagmire"?

.... It's high time for some gratitude....Norman Rogers at 12:14 PM

Ever since 9-11 you've been wearing the same pair of socks and panties because you were soooo scared. Because there haven't been any domestic attacks since, it's must be your stinkies are keeping the terrorists away.
Thanx.

hey Norman Rogers, I think you need to go buy some adult diapers. It must be terrifying being a republican bed wetting pansy. Quick, call Dick Chaney and have him check under your bed for scarry monsters.

Norman, are they really "clamoring" over the border? Better get some earplugs. You're slipping, friend.

Brojo, sure is smart. Those damn moderates! If only we'd all voted for Ralph Nader, maybe our fathers wouldn't have had multiple affairs with women in our church congregation! Moderation is destroying our country!

Norman

There are no terrorists clamoring over the border in droves. There are no bombs... etc.

There weren't any of those things happening in 1992-2000? So when was the last time you thanked Clinton for a job well done, asshat?

Matt's a smart guy, but there is an enormous range of possibilities between his once upon a time, let's invade Iraq days and his current incompetence dodge days.

I was against the war BEFORE it started, thanks to Paul Krugman, but I don't buy the incompetence dodge one bit.

Zalmay Khalizhad certainly has more experience in the matters than I, but his recommendations were the recommendations of many at the time. Also, see Brad Delong's blog today about the Marshall Plan and Marshall Wheat and consider what a) ZK's plan would have accomplished along with b) more troops for security, c) far greater use of local Iraqis for reconstruction contracts, and d) a liberty ship plan of building and shipping 1MW containerized portable, grid-ready, generators starting in May 2003 (available off the shelf if you just use teh g00gle.)

Invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. It was wrong EVEN if it turned out to be largely "successful" or handled competently.

This wrongness supercedes the incompetence - by a very long way. Of course, not taking the requisite care in planning and execution of this policy demonstrated that no one really cared about the country/people/threat we were supposedly helping/liberating/eliminating.

It was all bullshit, and the incompetence lays that bare.

BUT.... the incompetence "dodge" is a convenient maneuver for pro-war "liberals" to straddle the issue - they can criticize the prosecution of the war without questioning its aims.

I blogged on this Bremer /Khalilizad dual pro-consul position several months ago, as the incident is described in Cobra II, a good read for those who want to know all sides of the Iraq issue.

Cheney & Rumsfeld were running the Iraqi post-victory pacification like an inside-the-Beltway political operation---that is, corruptly and incompetently.

The foolishness started when Rumsfeld canned Gen. Garner because he wanted "fresh ideas" and threw away hundreds of man-years of preparation the Warrick group had prepared.

Rumsfeld was and is an incompetent fool, but is thankfully gone. As is Gonzales, who I commented about here yesterday was already dead meat.

luci: Invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. It was wrong EVEN if it turned out to be largely "successful" or handled competently.

Absolutely. But still, if the thing had been competently handled there would have been a lot less pain and suffering on both sides. If it should turn out the "incompetence" was not accidental that damns the lot of them even more.

This is the only explanation that makes sense

barrisj:Please, what-iffing at this point is a feckless exercise, as the only options open to US "nation-builders" were the London-based exile groups, including Chalabi...none would have succeeded, regardless of who was ultimately calling the shots for the Americans.

Remember the acts on variety shows back in the fifties and sixties where performers would keep a row of plates spinning on top of poles? There was a limit to length of the row imposed by the need for the performer to dart back to the first pole and refresh the spin when it started to wobble and threatened to fall. Maybe Khalilzad would have been good enough to keep the plates spinning until our troops were well into the withdrawal process.

But I actually think that other posters are right. Cheney wanted us in Iraq to control the oil supply, and is perfectly happy to see ongoing violence that pumps up Halliburton profits. The last thing he wanted was a truly democratic Iraqi vote to kick out U.S. troops and prevent the Iraqi oil industry from being privatized.

That, or the hidden truth is found at the link Nemo provided.

Whatever, Kevin. Don't kid yourself. We'd be in the same boat. The conditions and our feasible capacity to control events over there are simply not conducive to the kind of tailored outcome you fantasize about.

And the real problem is that a President of the United States pushed a war on the sovereign People by means of fraud.

That's a very serious charge. A very serious charge indeed.

There weren't any of those things happening in 1992-2000? So when was the last time you thanked Clinton for a job well done, asshat?

Just a pet complaint, but Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001, not 1992 to 2000.

While many of you may believe, and rightfully so, that Norman Rogers and his ilk are nuts, it is important to examine what they believe. He and his, truly believe that attacking Iraq actually saved us from the "Islamofacist" hordes invading our country.

Think about that, there is no Islamofacist Army, no Islamofacist Navy, no Islamofacist Air Force or any Islamofacist state for that matter, yet these folks believe that this imagimary Muslim group was going to invade our country and take over.
Making women wear head scarves and burkas for Christ's sake.

They never identify who or how, just this mysterious group taking over. I mean it is rediculous, but these guys are considered "main stream." You see them on TV all the time spouting their bullshit.

Is Norman so cowardly that if, by some fantastic cirsumstance, Islamic militants were able to get here and try to take over that he'd lay down his hunting rifle and began learning Arabic? Is our military so easily cowwed that they would lay down their weapons, the NRA gun nuts with their 50 caliber Barret sniper rifles would simple bend over and take it. He and his ilk are living on the outer fringes of reality. We must call them on thier bullshit, so Norman if you truly believe what you say you prove yourself to be a fool and a coward!

If Matt Yglesias thinks we could have won (whatever that means) in Iraq in the first place, he is a fool. The clearest lesson we should have taken from Vietnam is that an American Army cannot win a war and occupation in an Asian land.

But even if winning had been an option, the conservatives have repeatedly demonstrated a level of incompetence in government that makes it clear that the decision to invade was fatally flawed from the beginning.

Beyond that, the inability to control looting demonstrates a failure to adequately plan for a war. The purpose of a war is to remove the effective government over a patch of ground. When that happens, looting is an inevitable result.

But did Bremer work to immediately implace a new, effective government to bring that benighted nation back under control? Of course not. His philosophy and that of all the conservatives is that government interferes with business, and authoritarian government interferes more than a democratic one, at least in foreign countries. So he fired all the government employees, disbanded the military and police, and stopped paying pensions to retirees and widows. When Bremer had finished about three weeks of work, he had created an instant "Failed State" of Iraq.

And what do we know about failed states? Well, Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out is an example. They got almost two decades of civil war resulting in the imposition of the Taliban by the Pakistani Military Intelligence Service (ISI). The Taliban, being authoritarian extremist fundamentalists and needed international currency, were happy to let bin Laden set up shop there.

Iraq is following a similar trajectory, but Iran has not yet been able to support an extremist fundamentalist Shiite authoritarian government. The Sunnis, funded by the Saudi Arabians (many of whom also funded the al Qaeda and the ISI established Madrassas in Pakistan) are slowing the Iranians down. But the arc of a failed state is already clear, and even we are getting so tired of Iraq's failure that we are looking for a successful dictator to put in place there. That's what this talk about getting Allawi to replace Maliki is all about.

The Bush administration and the conservatives are looking for the "Invisible hand" to come in and save them from their refusal to think strategically. Failing that, they will opt for a dictator they can support.

But the problem among the American conservatives is clear. They have no one who knows how to think strategically or historically. Nor do they want such a person. He would expose the fallacy of all their "conservative" principles-of-the-week.

Norman Rogers, even a liberal like me must concede that Bush has done a great job preventing elephant stampedes! Almost 7 years in office, and not a single incident of elephants stampeding in the United States! Thank god he's our president!

Clinton didn't have any elephant stampedes on his watch, either, but as you know, 9/11 changed everything . . .

" Islamofascist Air Force "

Flying carpets.

Is Norman so cowardly that if, by some fantastic cirsumstance, Islamic militants were able to get here and try to take over that he'd lay down his hunting rifle and began learning Arabic?

No.

Is our military so easily cowwed that they would lay down their weapons, the NRA gun nuts with their 50 caliber Barret sniper rifles would simple bend over and take it. He and his ilk are living on the outer fringes of reality.

Excuse me, but our military is not "cowed." I'm sorry you hate the very people who give you the freedom to act like a jackass in public. The fact remains, gun rights have nothing to do with whether or not we remain SAFE as a nation; gun rights ensure that we simply exists AS a nation. Take away gun rights, and you might as well be living in Denmark. Good luck with that and no thank you.

Once again, liberals flap their arms and complain about the very safety and prosperity that George W Bush has bestowed upon them. Once again, none of you get it--Clinton let the terrorists into this country and Bush chased them back out. Any thinking man or woman can figure that out just by looking at all of the terrorism that has NOT occurred in this country since September 11, 2001.

But you're just liberals. You're safe. You have money. You have free time. You have to have something to bitch about. So knock yourselves out. I'll just be sitting here, rolling my eyes and thanking my Creator for the safety and security that is being provided to me by my government.

And no, I'm not a gun nut. I like jet skis. I have always had a fondness for fast watercraft. And, yes--I like shotguns. Yes, in full disclosure because someone found the hospital records and the story that was written about it--I have shot myself with my pellet gun numerous times. I am careless and I like to imbibe.

Sue me! I won't apologize for having the time of my life!

Reiterate again:

THE CHENEY REGIME IS NOT INCOMPETENT.

They have got exactly what they wanted, a long term war in an oil producer to fill their pockets with US gold and enable any form of domestic chicanery they could imagine. They wanted a long term military presence in the mid east. They wanted to go into the 2004 elections as a "war" president.

They are batting 1.000.

Bush is a buffoon, he has been nothing but a script reader since he started his 1st campaign.

Why do Kevin and most of the posters here refuse to admit what is blatantly obvious. Has the Cheney regime done one thing, ONE THING, that was for the good of the country, as opposed to the good of the ruling regime's pocketbook? Why do most people here still insist in believing that they must have some good intentions?

If you are on a picnic getting soaking wet, it is time to quit wishing the rain to stop, and go find some shelter.

You may make fun of Brojo, but at least he/she has their eyes open enough to see.

Why do Kevin and most of the posters here refuse to admit what is blatantly obvious. Has the Cheney regime done one thing, ONE THING, that was for the good of the country, as opposed to the good of the ruling regime's pocketbook? Why do most people here still insist in believing that they must have some good intentions?

Because they HAVE good intentions, sir, just not for people like yourself who bring nothing but scorn and hate to the table. Have you ever tried being nice? Have you ever tried being positive? A smile wouldn't kill you, you know. Look, I realize that for a liberal who wades into the gutter of personal attack and refuses to join the great economic engine that is this country, it must appear to you that Bush/Cheney are all manner of bad things.

Well, not to me! Goodness, I have done quite well in stocks over the last 90 days (I saw the downturn coming and unloaded quite a bit of stock in time to make a killing.) Now I have a bit of cash with which to speculate on currency markets--always a good place to be going into the fall. I usually bet against tourism, but that's a personal preference.

This is the greatest country in the history of the world. Billions of people are free from tyranny because of the power we project throughout the world. Strongmen everywhere cringe at the thought of having their tent incinerated by one of our precision guided bombs.

And the one thing they've done right? Ensuring that Saddam Hussein was caught and tried. Oh, and I especially like that part where he got to do the herky-jerky dance of desperation at the end of a tight rope, sir.

Khalilzad: "We could have had an interim Iraqi government. I argued, based on Afghanistan, that with forces, diplomacy and money, nothing can happen anyway without your support."

Powell: It was a mistake not to move "more rapidly to [put] an Iraqi face on it."

In other words, the big failure was not setting up a Manchukuo-style puppet regime to do Washington's bidding while an American proconsul called the shots from behind the scenes.

Smell the freedom!

" Islamofascist Air Force "

Flying carpets.

Posted by: gcochran on August 27, 2007 at 3:24 PM
---
LOL Now if the cartoon that Nemo linked to had Steppenwolf's Magic Carpet Ride playing in the background it would be perfect.

"Frankly, given everything we've learned about the Bush administration's approach to Iraq over the past four years, it's remarkable that we aren't in even worse shape than we are."

A meaningless counterfactual. I've got one. We didn't invade, Saddam stepped down after handing over OBL, and lives in Colorado (turns out he likes skiing, who knew?), IKEA Baghdad opened last Fall. That was easy.

Prior to Richard Rainwater taking Bush under his arm and force-feeding success to him (Rainwater was the sugar-daddy who brought Bush in to the baseball deal & who later simply gave Bush his profits from the affair), Bush was an hilariously inept businessman. His ventures lost his investors hundreds of millions of dollars. And yet, Bush always came out of the schemes richer than when he went in. Bush's confidence and incompetence are boundless. That is the guy who occupies the White House. (Cheney is similarly gifted with boundless confidence and a head made of stone.) It's beyond a perfect storm of incompetence. It's a Biblical plague.

You may make fun of Brojo, but at least he/she has their eyes open enough to see.

Posted by: says you on August 27, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon Brojo. Quit posting comments under another name defending yourself! It's pathetic! Or is it all a product of the great "moderate attack machine?"

Mormon Rogers: "Sue me! I won't apologize for having the time of my life!"

The fact that THIS is the time of your life says more than we need to know about your, um, life.

the incompetence "dodge" is a convenient maneuver for pro-war "liberals" to straddle the issue - they can criticize the prosecution of the war without questioning its aims. Posted by: luci on August 27, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Many of us still don't yet know what the aims of the invasion were, only those put out as propaganda to support the invasion and those imputed to the liars behind the propaganda. The Imperialist militaristic chickenhawk conservatives have covered the reality up in lie after lie after lie after... ad nauseum. If we ever approach an understanding of the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq they will probable be in the realm of abnormal psychology.

Then, on top of that idiocy, we get repeated examples of stupidity, greed, and a level of utter incompetence that is equally incomprehensible and is totally shocking.

That has created a set of issues much too large to straddle. They can all be wrapped up in the ideological term "Conservative" or equally well in the historical term "Bush administration." But they cannot be straddled.

There is no single failure in conservatism. Conservatism is a coalition of failed ideas in economics, politics and society that a set of ignorant and frightened wealthy men and religious leaders have banded together to impose on America. No single part of it is the worst.

The idiotic preemptive invasion of Iraq and its subsequent hapless occupation are just example of the underlying failure of conservatism. The entire package cannot be straddled. It has to be picked apart and each level of failure identified and corrected.

That is a process that will take years.

Henk,

Can you tell me what country we invade to protect America from a take-over by crazed fundamentalist Christians, wacco Republican Libertarians, Reaganites and by irrational free-market conservatives?

Norman

gun rights have nothing to do with whether or not we remain SAFE as a nation; gun rights ensure that we simply exists AS a nation. Take away gun rights, and you might as well be living in Denmark. Good luck with that and no thank you.

Are you sure your baseball cap is locked on tight?

I am retired military and an NRA life member, and even I have never been told I was expected to fight for gun rights. Flag? Check. Mom? Check. Apple Pie? OK. Marginal, but I'll do it. But gun rights? That was never part of the basic definition back when I was one of uncle Sam's hired killers. Now state militias, presently called National Guards, that was a different matter.

And what's wrong with Denmark? Better blondes, better beef, much better health care, and a great education system. America would do well to adopt such a model, although among European nations my favorite is still the Netherlands.

A certain brand of war opponent frequently gets worked up when this issue comes up. They are those who would have opposed the war regardless of whether they thought we had an administration in place that would have done a good job of managing the aftermath. I can sympathize with this perspective because I'm one of those people. But its a weird situation b/c I fall into that group based on my observation of what happened in Iraq.

The argument against foreign wars/intervention can proceed on various different grounds. Generally, most of them are based on the grounds that the war will fail, or be costly. But this assumption occurs at different levels. If you are Noam Chomsky, this is true because the US government wants it to be true- ie they never have good intentions in their 'interventions'. Then there are those- more like the crooked timber types- who are not obsessed with this aspect of the problem like Chomsky but also think a big part of the problem is just that even if you had good intentions, you'd probably screw it up and you shouldn't be taking the perogative to make these kinds of decisions for other people. Then there are those who oppose interventions only when they think, on the balance (or something) that it won't work out.

Sometimes the debate between these different groups gets really confusing. In one sense, they could all agree on the reason why one particular intervention is a bad idea: people will suffer. On the other hand, they have differences in their priors about why this is true.

So certain issues end up as proxies for other issues. Was Bush incompetent? Most say yes. But was that why Iraq failed? Some say yes. Others say no, Iraq would have been hard regardless. Others say no, we couldn't do this successfully anywhere. And the last group uses the 'incompetent dodge' to criticize the first group. Actually, the incompetence issue is a point for the first two groups to debate- but the third group has already staked out a position that the competence of the administration is irrelevant. It would be nice for them to acknowledge this when the issue comes up. Its just confusing and doesn't much help the debate.

Thanks you says. I know you are not a sock.

The problem is there never would have been an Iraq invasion to competently manage if a reasonable and public policy oriented individual had been occupying the White House instead of Bush.

Thus, the incompetence of the invasion was a foregone conclusion because the decision to invade was itself incompetent and ensured that incompetent people would be running the show.

I would have supported the invasion if it had been competently run is, therefore, absolutely a copout.

Nobody competent enough to have at least given the invasion a chance would have invaded in the first place.

It would all have been moot anyway, since there is simply no way to win (unless you define "victory" so narrowly as to be meaningless in terms of major public and foreign policy goals) any war against Iraq given the circumstances existing in April 2003.

For many of the same reasons we didn't invade North Korea to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capability, it was never in our best interests to invade Iraq to prevent them from doing so, even if Iraq had in fact been close to developing such capability. Iraq has never been any more dangerous to the US than North Korea, nor was invasion of Iraq any more practical.

The citizens of one country will not stand for being invaded, occupied, and controled by the military of another country, no matter how much the invaders protest that "its for your own good, really." There will always be an insurgency in response and it will always continue until the invaders leave.

Bush and the war supporters clearly learned nothing from the USSR's war in Afghanistan or the US war in Vietnam.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and that is exactly what happened in Iraq.

It is nauseating that original war supporters continue to look for excuses for why they were right and for ways it could have been successful.

Absent an attack by the country to be invaded or an imminent or ongoing situation of mass murder that can be prevented without an equal loss of life through war, neither of which existed in Iraq in April 2003, there is no excuse for invading another country.

The invasion of Iraq was immoral, it was unethical, it was criminal, it was impractical, and it was foolish.

Nothing will change that. Nothing.

May I suggest "Anticompetence"? In other words, not just a "lack of competence", but a "strong bias against competence".

Seems to fit Bush to a T.

New word... How about malcompetent? Hrm. A quick Google check reveals that I am far from the first person to attempt to coin it. And several of the top hits are directed specifically at the Bush administration.

dovobet tahoma message chua hypothetical languages writings gnutelladev compressed signaturesi

zeroboundary distances pierre incumbent logic awesome bioveda youve

schoolfilm nutshell decu adaptable sabogal approachable fourth deposlib justice blank