Yawn.

You are right. It really isn't news. Next topic.

Right. Add the coverup of Bush/Rice 9/11 incompetence http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
add some torture, add you have the complete criminal presidency.
Again, why do we not impeach?

Why does the Pentagon hate America?

No one could have anticipated this!!

I won't be holding my breath for this to be featured on the front page of any paper in the U.S. with the implications spelled out for the 30% dead-enders.

Someone needs to shove this report up Christopher Hitchens rear end. That pompous fool was on Bill Maher a week ago still saying Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda.

But seriously, when do the impeachment proceedings begin? I'm quite sick of this administration's MO - lie, cheat, steal and when the truth finally is recognized (5 years later) the reaction is as noted above... "Yawn" and "It really isn't news".

But seriously, when do the impeachment proceedings begin?

Never. Personally, I'd love to see Bush & Cheney impeached, but it's a political nonstarter for the Dems.

Perhaps a courageous AG, under a Democratic administration, could pursue prosecutions once the Bush regime is out of power. I'd settle for that.

Rice may be rewarded with the VP slot for playing such a stellar role in this fiasco.

This is Great News!! for Clinton!

IDIOTIC, is that you?

Of course Saddam had no connection with Al Qaeda. This was common knowledge in 2002. Yet Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq. Why do so many anti-war women, then, support Clinton? Because she's a woman, and it's "time we had a female runnin' things".

So since the Pentagon is finally admitting it, can we just say "Sorry, our mistake," and bring the troops home.

Does anyone really think this is news to Dick Cheney?

Didn't think so...

It is news considering they will do the same thing again if people think its not news.

Support your troops - hold the leaders accountable.

"Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power."

There ya go. Saddam's interests ran directly counter to American interests, i.e. getting rid of Saddam. Therefore, we had to get rid of the chief obstacle to our 'get rid of Saddam' policy.

Jonathan Schwartz points out that the most interesting thing about this study is something that has gotten little attention: remember the supposed assassination attempt on George's pa, that everyone assumed was Saddam's doing? This huge study found no evidence for it.

That came as a surprise to me; I opposed the war from the beginning, but I had taken the claim about the assassination attempt seriously.

WHAT ABOUT THE MEETING IN PRAGUE?

The propagandists in the White House cook up an absurd story in an afternoon, use it to sell a war to an uncritical political-media establishment, and millions are spent over eight years to show that it was really and truely just a put-on.

Why are the people in the political-media establishment so stupid and so willing to entertain the transparent snake oil claims of powerful people?

this is not old news, it's meaningless news. The AQ connection was never real, certainly not for realists who supported the war. It was hyped in order to rationalize a botched strategy. To keep harping on this AQ nonsense as if those who supported the war did so at least in part for this reason makes objective analysis of the war impossible and feeds a liberal agenda. Those that supported the war, the thoughtful ones at least, did so because time was ripe to get rid of Saddam, pure and simple - it wasn't about WMD or about AQ or any other such thing: the US had been trying to get rid of Saddam since '91 and 9/11 finally made it possible. This may have been a wrong decision but it was entirely rational in the realist tradition but because the war has been hijacked by extreme elements on the right and the left it's impossible to have a realist discussion of the decision - and that means we will not be able to draw proper conclusions from what has become a debacle and are therefore doomed to make more mistakes in the region and elsewhere. This is the problem with Obama: his opposition to the war was meaningless because it did not deal with the real reasons we went to war, it was merely a pallid reflection of leftist anti-war sentiment and you are not going to be able to pull sound foreign policy from that swamp.

Oh, come one! Everyone knows the documents linking Saddam to AQ were shipped to Syria!

"Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power."

It's been Dick Cheney's, too.

Oh, God, this crap happens every day: We either discover a new abuse or are reminded of an old one, and one becomes numb to it. Shred the constitution? That's just the way he is. We knew he was a snake in 2000, and the son of a bitch keeps biting us, and we have to hold on to him for about 10 more months. I hope they travel to Europe after January 2009 and get arrested and tried in the Hague for war crimes, but haven't any real hope that it will happen.

So then the alleged connection may have been a pretense to fight the Iraq war so we could do-- what?

Let's get past saying the kinds of things you say in this post, and rather discuss the Iraq war more in terms of how you answer my question, above, and what those answers might mean. That is how we'll make some progress, and less is dilly-dallying.

It isn't news to Cheney either. He just lies about it. Makes the was seems less farcical to the Cheney base.

This conclusively proves that we need to bomb Iran.

Those that supported the war, the thoughtful ones at least, did so because time was ripe to get rid of Saddam, pure and simple... This may have been a wrong decision but it was entirely rational in the realist tradition

Since when is it a "realist tradition" to go to war because you can? Furthermore, how was the time "ripe" since we were already involved in a war in Afghanistan and hunting bin Laden? Didn't Hitler teach you anything about opening a second front before you're finished with the first one?

Swan,
Please report to the nursing station. It's time for your medication.

orson your analysis is, to be polite, extremely flawed. There was no reason to take out Saddam Hussein. He was not a threat to the United States, he wasn't a threat to world peace, and he wasn't even particularly a threat to his neighbors. He was a bad guy, but being a bad guy (while necessary) is not sufficient reason to "take him out." In the absence of a crisis, in the absence of any logical reasons, all that remains is George W. Bush's desire to go to war.

Overturning the leadership of a nation by force is an extremely serious deed. It cannot be done merely because you don't like that leadership, and even with a host of good reasons (none of which you provide) it cannot be done unless you have some assurances that your invasion will result in a better situation.

Since there was no objective threat from Saddam Hussein the better situation had to be for the Iraqi people. There were never any such assurances. And, unsurprisingly, the invasion has turned Iraq into a nightmarish landscape where the people know they were much better off with a murderous tyrant.

There are lessons to be learned, but no one attempting to balance between the lunatics who sold the war on lies and the rational people who opposed the war will be able to learn them.

bellumregio: Why are the people in the political-media establishment so stupid and so willing to entertain the transparent snake oil claims of powerful people?

For me, that's one of the biggest mysteries of this whole debacle. There were only a handful of people prior to the war who were calling it correctly, e.g., Strobel and Landay. But most of the rest of the media bought the bogus stories hook, line and sinker.

Halperin and Harris openly admit that Drudge rules their world, but what is our role in the extent to which the media constantly drops the ball, or doesn't pick it up to begin with?

orson,

Please. Everyone understands that the WMD and AQ-link stories were just the PR, but are you seriously suggesting that the primary reason we invaded Iraq was simply because the time was "ripe?"

And who do you mean by "realists?" Guys like James Baker and Brent Scowcoft? Did they support the invasion? Nope. Who, then, are the "realists" you're referring to?

This is yet another restating of information that was previously affirmed by several sources, including no less than President Bush himself (albeit reluctantly). OTOH, considering how many people I still hear insisting otherwise, it probably can't be restated enough ...

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

[plea to buy a $12.91 conspiracy theory from Amazon has been deleted.]

Does anyone really think this is news to Dick Cheney?

Don't bother Dick right now, he's off on a new task to bring peace to the Middle East , as only he can.

Even the dead-enders know their Emperor has no clothes. The media know, but won't write it. Everybody knows.

So, what do you do with the unnecessary bully who continues to taunt you even though you know his gun is unloaded?

John Edwards was right that what we need is leadership that has some backbone.

Why is it up to the anti-war crowd to prove that there was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden? You can't prove a negative.

I think it should be up to the war hawks to prove to the American people, in no uncertain terms, that there WAS a connection! Once again, the Democrats have allowed Bush/Cheney to frame the terms of the debate.

Sheesh - this is getting to be like a Roadrunner- Wile E. Coyote cartoon.....]

But seriously, when do the impeachment proceedings begin?

Hey, if a male prostitute can do overnighters in the White House without raising a hue and cry in the media from the religious nutjobs and the so-called oppposition party, you can forget about impeachment. Ain't gonna happen.

Hey, if a male prostitute can do overnighters in the White House without raising a hue and cry in the media from the religious nutjobs and the so-called oppposition party, you can forget about impeachment.

Every time I think about the Jeff Gannon nee Guckert affair (apt wording) I'm simply amazed that it seems to have disappeared down the memory black hole. Could we even imagine the feeding frenzy that would have erupted if this had happened in the Clinton White House? It's like nobody gives a fuck anymore.

to all those objecting to my post: I'm not saying that it was a good decision to go into Iraq, I'm saying you can make a logical case as to why it might have been a good decision and that reality has become lost beneath the inflamed and patently absurd arguments coming from both sides of the aisle. Realists opposed the war, realists supported it, but to suggest Iraq was just a harmless waif in the fertile crescent is profoundly naive. In proclamations published just before and just after 9/11 AQ mention three prime irritants: Palestine, American bases in Sauidi Arabia and Muslim children dying under the Iraq sanctions. Saddam was an issue that needed to be dealt with - whether invasion was the proper way to deal with him is the only debateable point - but it must be properly debated!!

orson,

It would be helpful if you explained why AQ's "prime irritants" meant that we had to "deal with Saddam" and not AQ itself:

1) Palestine. It's clear that Saddam gave cash to the families of suicide bombers. Are you suggesting that his cash payments of a few thousand dollars to each family was a major factor inhibiting a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians?

2) American bases in Saudi: Rumsfeld conveniently shifted most air assets out of SA. So we had to invade Saddam's Iraq in order to get better airfields?

3) Muslim kids dying under Iraq sanctions. Invading Iraq would cause fewer child deaths? Or what?

No one suggests or suggested that Saddam was a "harmless waif." But he was not an existential threat to the national security of the United States.

I guess that I'm simply not following your logic. Saddam was being dealt with...we had him boxed in with two no-fly zones. His economy was collapsing. He had no big time weps. Even Iran wasn't worried about him. How on earth could he have been a threat to us?

but to suggest Iraq was just a harmless waif in the fertile crescent is profoundly naive

Only someone with an agenda or a serious learning disability could read the posts here and conclude anyone was suggesting that Iraq was a harmless waif. That characterization is what rational people call "a fucking lame ass straw man." And your brandishing of said straw man demonstrates that you are in no way interested in "proper debate."

Even your post fails to enumerate how Iraq itself was a threat. JM deals nicely with your misdirection there. But like everyone who suggests that there was an honest way to support the brutalization of 25 million people, you never provide any details.

Here is the question anyone who supports the idea of the Iraq clusterfuck must answer: what assurances did you have before the removal of the leadership of Iraq that this removal would result in an improvement in the lives of the Iraqi people.

As a followup: given that those assurances were quite obviously complete bullshit, what have you learned from the failure of those assurances?

I guess you'd have to call Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice profoundly naive then. In 2001 he said '[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." She said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

In proclamations published just before and just after 9/11 AQ mention three prime irritants: Palestine, American bases in Sauidi [sic] Arabia and Muslim children dying under the Iraq sanctions.

So because our enemy al Qaeda was supposedly upset over Iraqi children dying under UN sanctions, the solution was to divert our resources from fighting that same enemy to, instead, addressing their concern by brutally invading and occupying Iraq???? And by any standard of human logic this makes sense...how, exactly?