Zogby?....Hmm, I remember that name somewhere. Wait, it's coming back to me. He was the guy that said that his numbers conclusively showed Kerry would be the winner. ;)

I agree that it has gone more smoothly than I expected. As to "very successful" though? We have no way of knowing that yet.

First there were tons of WMD's and we knew exactly where they were. Then, there were weapons "programs" and we would find the labs. Then there was nothing. Now, those things don't matter. ... I knew that pattern looked familiar.

Bottom Line: Things could go well there, they could also erupt into a civil war. The fact is, none of us have any idea how it will turn out at this point. This is but a very small step in the process. There is still no forseeable date for when there will be a trained Iraqi force that can maintain any semblence of peace there. Calling it a success at this point is wishful thinking in the highest order.

And regardless of how successful it turns out, you will have a hard time convincing me that bombing the holy hell out a country, killing untold numbers of civilians, detaining and abusing suspects indefinitely who were never even tried nor convicted of anything, and disrupting an infrastructure that has yet to be repaired, was the best way to go about this. We got the guy we wanted to get but Americans are still dying and won't be coming home in the forseeable future. Was taking out one man really worth 1300+ American lives? Was this really our only option?

Hardly.

By what definition has the interim government "taken over"? There is no police fore to speak of. The national guard has been depleted by desertions and executions, and infiltrated by spies. They were unable to provide security for their own elections, and even with our help, 35 people died (I mean, holy crap, the targets were known, the time window was known, the methods were known, and there was still nothing that could be done about it). Bush has said he doesn't expect the new government to ask us to leave after the elections. Well, freaking duh! It's not because they love us so, it's because if we leave they know chaos will ensue.

It's not a democracy, it's an occupation. There is no evidence of a viable government in that country. The people have not stepped up in an effort to defend themselves. The citizens have by and large shown that they have no desire to put their life on the line to defend their freedom. Until I see an Iraqi military and police force step up to the plate, I will not consider it a legitimate government.

A series of steps. All steps that were said to have no chance of succeeding. Of course the government isn't viable yet. The invasion was less than 2 years ago. My point is that what was criticized as never having a chnance of happening step after step and day after day is happening.

Every step was supposed to have no chance of succeeding. Each step is proceeding on schedule. Those then become ignored with "well, so what???? The next step will never happen!" All too predictable.

No desire to put their lives on the line to defend their freedom? How about showing up to vote at around a 70% clip when terrorists have sworn to kill you if you do?

Another Zogby tidbit - 60% of Iraqis want freedom of religion with no strict Islamic rule.

Yeah, MBC, Zogby sure did blow the election.

The FIRST step was setting up a viable military force. They failed at step one, probably the single most important one.

I watched the news for the first time in close to two years tonight.

Watching this, and the turn out gives me a sense of hope. There were minimal attacks. It gives me a hope that Iraqi citizens will defy the insurgents and their threats. And that maybe one day Iraq can be a functioning country [again].

Don't read this as I changed my mind on the war, or that I believe the turn out was high, or that the election will be the end of the insurgency. I know for a fact that there was zero turn out in at least one area. I still think we handled this the wrong way and that this was Jr. finishing what daddy started. That doesn't mean I can't have a sense of hope.

I was unable to post the picture on this site - go check it out, this picture has more than a thousand words.

Iraqi Voter

Sorry to drag this back up, but I've been meaning to readdress this. We're not talking about priorities. We're talking bald face hypocricy. It's not like Bush said, "Sorry Taiwan, we'd love to help, but we're a little busy right now." No, he sided with China. This from the man who's said that wherever people are struggling for their freedom, he'd help. Gee, well, here's a prime example, and he instead does the exact opposite and tells them to screw off.

The thing is, I don't know enough about the situation to know whether he was right or wrong to do that. But that's not even the point. The point is, the man is cramming this freedom and liberty rehtoric down the American public's throat as if he's on some holy mission, and then doesn't follow through. He talks in grandiose ultimatums, but only applies them to Iraq. So what does that say? Clearly he doesn't believe the rhetoric he's spouting, else he wouldn't be having brutal dictators touring his private ranch. So to me, it just shows that he's using the rhetoric to cover his mistakes, and to cover whatever his real motives in Iraq were (which has been so shrouded in lies and double-talk that I'm oblivious to what those are, but oil and revenge are likely candidates). It probably means he doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people beyond how their plight affects his approval. So whatever the outcome in Iraq, the fact remains that Bush is a pompous blowhard out for his own interests.

Oppressed citizens of non-oil producing countries do not deserve freedom. Everyone knows that, GD.

It probably didn't help that we trade so heavily with China and they are huge investors in many area's of the country. Gotta keep the shareholders happy.

I saw this yesterday and thought I would share. It's from the NY Times, dated September 3rd, 1967.