Good.

I'm proud to be American every day, but our victory in Iraq makes me even prouder. The citizens of all the countries in the coalition of the willing should be equally proud. Those who opposed this should be hanging their heads in shame.

This invasion and occupation was financed entirely on credit to be paid by the next generation.

This violates the precept of no taxation without representation, a precept upon which America was founded.

It hardly needs to be said that while the neo-cons were focused exclusively on Iraq and the Middle East, America went down the drain. I and many others believe that was by design, and that by ignoring the events that have resulted in the "diversity recession" the cheerleaders of foreign wars implicitly approve of both illegal immigration and trillion dollar bailouts. In short, the Iraq war was a deliberate cover for the Bush Administration to ruin America while nobody was watching.

Will Obama or a subsequent administration hold neo-cons financially liable for the Iraq war?

Will bloggers who knowlingly spread misinformation about the Iraq war be rounded up and have their assets seized to pay for the war they so aggressively pursued?

I've seen stranger things happen this week.

Congratulations to the U.S.,their allies and the Iraqi people. They have a hard won and well deserved victory.

oh don't be such a shortsighted twat

the American taxpayer paid for putting a stop to the capers being cut by the Barbary pirates...which was arguably a very very good thing

NeoCons Owe Us Money, thought it was the democrats with Franks, Carter and Clinton that were the base case of the economic disaster by removing the regulatory controls. Now bloggers have to pay for the Iragi war, who are these powerful people? The war seems to be over in Iraq and the US and Iraq democracy were the victors I thought. Aren't the democratic congress approving the bailout?

By the way neo-con means liberals who have become new conservatives after rejecting the liberal mindset. That's not us we have always been conservative.

Think you are looking for rabble.com.

nonsense, neocon. Your outline is logically skewed.

It's wrong to claim, as you do, that a current cost that sets up an immediate result via a long term debt is equivalent to 'taxation without representation'. Invalid analogy.

Debts, after all, include all infrastructural costs such as roads, buildings, hospitals, schools and so on, which are all financially set up to enable a population to have the results now, and spread the costs over a number of years.

As for Iraq, it was, in my view, a correct action to take. Effectively, Bush has kept America safe since 2001, an impressive result. And above all, the result of that war was to move Islamic fascism from its diversion into the West, back where it should be. In the Middle East.

It is the Islamic states who must, themselves, confront the destructive result (fascism) that emerges in their own conflict between the need to modernize Islam and the ME political systems..and their own agenda of refusing such modernization.

America down the drain? Again - nope. How about some empirical points to support your opinion?

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush intended to allow America to 'go down the drain'? Why?

How on earth can you correlate 'illegal immigration' and 'trillion dollar payouts' (?) with Islamic fascism and the Iraq war? Such a correlation requires lassoos that are beyond any actual reality.

Illegal immigration, by the way, has been going on for a long time; I'm certainly opposed to it, and the key problem is...Mexico. It's Mexico that is offloading its impoverished class on to the Americans rather than providing an economic, social and educational infrastructure for these people. Then, these illegal immigrants send a lot of money 'back home' to support their relatives and that lets Mexico even further off the hook for any support for these people. Did you ever think of that?

So, a zillion cheers for America and Iraq, for winning their freedom against dictatorship, for setting up a democracy with a constitution and election, and thus, for setting up a structure that will smother the emergence of fascism.

What ET said.
:) and...
Congrats USA and IRAQ!
No more torturous wedding days of death for virgin Kurdish brides. As they're now not being kidnapped to give to a psycho son to become a bloodied and tortured play toy for it's perverse sexual gratification.
On the very day she was to have honor as a bride and become a wife. Note: the snappy progressives couldn't care any less about this, easier to hate Christians and Jews I suppose.

CONGRATS IRAQ AND USA.

Thanks for this post, Kate. VI day recognition is long over due.

Silicon Valley Jim:"Those who opposed this should be hanging their heads in shame."

Liberal ex-PM Jeancula Chretien: Sidewinder.

http://archives.vigile.net/05-4/13-cornichon-jeancula.jpg

"Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report
Jean Chretien supported the powerful third world bloc of the UN. He supported France, Germany and Russia whose oil and debt interests in Iraq apparently ...
www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050120Gray.htm"

Politically incorrect is right. I wish I could post an article on a bulletin board at work, but I fear that would be considered political. Regardless, there is no room on the bulletin board because of all the environmental information pamphlets.

Victory in Iraq is something that all Americans can be proud of.

Congratulations to America and Iraq!

Some other countries that have contributed to the war in Iraq:

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

It is victory - no doubt about it. Now lets hope that the Iraqi's don't screw it up. I still say that the fat bastard Muktada al Sadr has to be taken out. The US still has to ensure that Iran and Syria keep their hands off of Iraq.

Well done America and the coalition of the willing. You have struck a major blow to tyranny and terror. The rest of that region which is run by brutal tyrants is taking notice and their citizens I'm sure, are looking at a democratic Iraq with envy.

The US still has to ensure that Iran and Syria keep their hands off of Iraq.

Exactly. Call me cynical, but if American interests in Iraq still have to be enforced by Americans -- i.e., if the Iraqis are not ready to deal with regional threats on their own -- is it not a bit premature to be declaring Victory in Iraq?

Wasn't the whole point to assist the Iraqis to build and assume control of their own nation?

Not to say the US has not taken care of business there. But to talk about "victory" in a part of the world where enmities last for centuries seems kind of absurd to me.

And here I thought victory in Iraq day was back in May, 2003. Is this a different Iraq?

I assume I'll be roasted alive for playing devil's advocate here, but am I the only one on the right who is uncomfortable with such a decisive claim being made?

How the hell is victory against terrorism in a country measured anyways? Has all thr fighting stopped, is the enemy vanquished? I haven't seen any reports of soldiers and citizens celebrating in the streets. I certainly haven't heard of any of these chickenshit terrorists turning themselves and their weapons in on mass or their leaders signing any peace pacts. Are we not still just a couple of explosions away from much more death and warfare?

Either the MSM is more corrupt than even I suspected or I have finally managed to entirely miss one of Kate's parodies.

Look, I entirely understand the need to support and acknowledge these brave men and women, especially when so many of those they die to protect treat them with disdain, but is pulling an arbitrary V-Day date out of our asses the right way to do it? I say it actually minimizes the sacrifice of those still over there in harm's way today.

Only thing I can say Darrell is that they stayed in Japan and Germany long past their victory parades and now look at them. IF the media boy-king of the US does pull out too soon I would expect Iran and Syrian to stomp them down to levels far worse than what saddam had them down at.

But that's just my opinion.

OR perhaps C.O., declare victory now before it's trashed purposely for the enemy and their media handlers to call it a loss in the new year.

OR do we HAVE to have the media decide everything for us?

manny:

Saddam was deposed in May of 2003, which was the original objective of an issue that had been ongoing since the 1990's.

The al-Quaida foreign insurgents who tried to move into the vaccum failed when the Iraqi people voted power for themselves and very clearly rejected militant Islamism.

Surely, even you cannot support a movement which calls the president-elect of the US a ‘house negro.'

Militant Islamism and your brand of marxism have once again failed in its alliance to subjugate people's inherent freedom.

To all ... whenever somebody uses the term neo-con, remember that it is a marxist sentiment behind that terminology.

Classic liberals, those who understand compassion comes from the individual, have been given the neo-con label by the marxist state-controls-all proponents.

Do not fall for this name-calling and redefining of the inherent good of humanity. In fact, resist anybody's desire to redefine who you are, especially the attempts by the obviously loony left (as opposed to sane left).

Iraq will have another election this spring and it is the will of the people, not the marxists and their radical Islamist proxies, who will carry the day.

I suppose we can now expect a right wingnut blogburst declaring a Bush Balances the Budget Day.

From our lefty posters, how dare we declare a -GASP!- Victory in Iraq!

Just like it used to be "everybody knows the earth is flat!" and a whole host of other "everybody knows ______", "everybody knows" Victory in Iraq is impossible. The leaders of the Democratic Party agreed with the leaders of the Baathists and Al Qaeda and the lickspittle propagandists in the American MSM that "everybody knows, victory in Iraq is impossible."

Thank God that George Bush, the US Armed Forces and some allies and the majority of the Iraqi people disagreed.

"I suppose we can now expect a right wingnut blogburst declaring a Bush Balances the Budget Day."

No, Manny, that won't happen, as the budget isn't balanced. The Iraq War, on the other hand, did end a few months ago, so declaration of victory is now reasonable. If you have good arguments to the contrary, let's hear them, since you haven't made any so far.

set you free - thanks for your excellent post; astute and accurate comments. Thanks again.

The need for solidarity during the war was the reason so many conservatives gave Bush a pass on all his expanded government spending such as no child left behind and seniors drug plans. Of course Bush gets no credit for these from the left - just criticism for a deficit. History will show that Bush was very much a centrist president like his father and Nixon, not the rabid knuckle-dragging right winger the media makes him out to be.

Hmmm....according to this website there have been 14 US fatalities in Iraq so far this month. That's 0.64 deaths per day.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

But don't worry. Members of the US Armed Forces, some bloggers 10,000 miles away from the action have declared this to be VI Day. So when you're on patrol tonight in Baghdad, Fallujah or wherever, feel free to let down your guard. Because some keyboard warriors back home have declared that the WAR IS OVER!

Why today, you ask? Good question! Maybe because some folks consider 0.64 deaths per day to be "peace"? I don't know, but maybe the geniuses who came up with this idea will have an answer for you. After all, they *are* bloggers!

No, your president doesn't know anything about this. Neither do your generals or strategists. But those morons are the reason you're stuck in Iraq 6 years later. So lay down your arms and rejoice in the fact that the chickenhawks have declared "Peace in our time"!

Bloggers--is there anything they can't do?

JP: Is there anything an ignorant and cynical person, such as yourself, cannot say?

As has been said, you are obviously someone who has been free all your life, so you can now ignorantly choose to spit on it. But liberty matters, freedom matters, and all praise goes to the US and its allies for enabling the Iraqi people to regain their freedom and take charge of their own country.

We, the people, have declared this day as a symbol of that freedom. Stick that in your hat and remember: freedom matters.

"We, the people.."

My, that's awfully grandiose of you, ET.

LOL

This is just Kate and the right bloggers trying to tell their followers that Victory in Iraq has been achieved before Bush's term is over so the they can set themselves up to go on about how Bush won the war.

You see they need to do this so that when Iraq continues to be a total mess after Bush is gone they can complain about Obama screwing it up when he should have left it alone because it was a war that had already been won.

Of course this is not a victorious war because it's not a war, no one really knows what it is and in the future I don't think anyone will have an explanation for what the heck happened.

There's little doubt that Iraq is largely responsible for the financial crisis. The idea that all the financial turmoil is worth it because a dictator was removed or because there will be no more torturous wedding days of death for virgin Kurdish brides is absurd. IF that's the case, why doesn't Kate have a permanent 'Map of Injustices' on the left side bar showing all countries where there are brutal dictators. Then the President would know where to send the troops next.

Thanks,

sL

Mark my words.

Thanks Kate,,,,,,,Victory in Iraq, who would have thunk it ?

God Bless You Conservative Canadians.....
,

No, JP, it's not grandiose; it's a statement of fact. People exist; people accomplish things, and due credit has to be given to these accomplishments.

You may wish to deny such credit - credit to the American and coalition troops, credit to the Iraqi people who have themselves rejected dictatorship and chosen freedom, and credit, yes, credit, to the people who have supported this war for freedom.

You choose instead, to sneer at such actions. You choose to spit on freedom. [That's what a pompous statement such as LOL means; it is an act-of spitting'. On freedom. That's your choice.

ratt, you aren't making any sense. I suggest that you read the link and acknowledge a few facts: that the war was a just war; that the agenda was to move Islamic fascism back into its causal site, the tribal dictatorships of the ME; and, by enabling a democracy in their midst, to 'crack the tribal wall' and enable democracy to emerge in the ME and thus, destroy fascism.

This has been a success; the Iraqi people have a constitution, a rule of law, elections. Islamic fascism has been moved into the ME and is being actually confronted - by Muslims - who reject its nihilistic violence.

You state that there is 'little doubt that Iraq is largely responsible for the financial crisis. What an incredibly ignorant statement. Don't you know anything about banks, mortgages and bonds? Don't you know anything about the enormous shifts in global financial and economic markets with the emergence of the middle class economies of China and India? Iraq has and had nothing to do with the global financial crisis.

I find it puzzling that both JP and Ratt, since they are against the Iraq War, which had a specific agenda against Islamic fascism, would prefer to have Islamic fascism increase in power and spread over the globe rather than have it cut off at its root cause. Why are you both so hostile to freedom?

my apologies - I wasn't referring to Ratt but to the post of Slevin.

'There's little doubt that Iraq is largely responsible for the financial crisis.'

Just think: had the US stayed out of Iraq, every cent that the economic travesties of the last two decades would require to erase could now be shoveled down that particular rat hole. Congress would already have the money in its hot little hands. Bailing out Detroit? Chump change. AIG? Take twice as much as you need. Bad mortgages? Uncle Sam will hold 'em all! So long as you you know it's still all Bush's fault, we can afford just about any kind of stupidity you want. Everything would be so much better.

And those poor deluded fools on the right wouldn't be trying to push the fatuous nonsense that getting rid of mass killings and rape rooms and plastic shredders and payments to support terrorists has nothing to do with the American government forcing banks to loan money to those with a demonstrated inability to pay it back.

Nice to see a victory instead of helicopters fleeing with people hanging off them. To young people you have no idea of how bad that was for American moral in the years after Vietnam. God Bless America for keeping most of these terrorists away from North America. For those brave men who gave there hopes plus lives away. To the Veterans who left hearth & home to fight against fanatics. How can you thank the people of a debt you can never pay back?

For those lefty's who think Cannada had nothing to do there , your dreaming. The two closest Militaries on the Planet, is Canada & the US forces.

Canada’s secret war in Iraq

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8110

"according to this website there have been 14 US fatalities in Iraq so far this month. That's 0.64 deaths per day."

JP: Just so you know, half of those deaths were non-combat and not a sign of increased or sustained violence in Iraq. 7 deaths are nothing to be happy about, but we should at least try to get our facts right.

The interesting thing about the heat coming from the nay-sayers here is that not even do most Democrats in Washington (including the President-elect) any longer agree with their extreme negative position. The few in Congress and the Senate who do agree sound increasingly shrill and desperate.

According to the authoratative, some say neocon, think tank Freedom House, Iraq remains Not Free. Yemen and Jordan are classified as Partly Free.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008

It is wrong to declare victory with 150,000 of our troops fighting in Iraq, a country that remains less free than even Yemen. You are wrong, ET, I spit on non-freedom.

Hopefully there will be little to no backsliding over the next few years in Iraq and they will continue to modernize their society.
And their girls will attend schools free from vicious attacks.

I want Iraq to be successful because it will really piss off all the naysayers and badmouthers of GW Bush when the history books record that it was Bushes vision (ok so maybe he was bullheaded too) that made it happen.

At a time when shallow creeps like Chretien refused to even offer moral support to him.

Way to go George!

The great Richard Perle, [...] ventured this prediction in 2003:
“And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.”

Well, well, today you sneer and jeer no more, you freedom haters! The Dick was dead right.

Iraqis could not contain their excitement yesterday as the old central Baghdad square was renamed after George W. Bush in a highly emotional ceremony. Following an ancient Iraqi tradition, an effigy of President Bush was held upside down as a show of respect and then burned to the ground.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/bush-statue.jpg
Collective jubilation reached its peak as the assembled masses broke into Iraq's new national anthem, "Bush the Babylonian Burning Man." Throngs of admirers were then allowed to show their gratitude by banging on Bush's head with their shoes. When the effigy fell head first into the crowds, adoring fans got a chance to pelt it with their own plastic water bottles and spit on it with their own saliva -- what a scholar at the Heritage Foundation has already dubbed "The Great Spit of Freedom." Thousands of grateful Iraqis held up giant signs that read "Death to America," obviously an innocent misspelling of the words "Our American Hero!"
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002707.html

Folks should have parades anyway.

We don't have to wait for the Left-wing "community organizers" to arrange any victory parades. We should have our own right-wing "community organizers" to get right-wingers together, just like the Leftist ones do, to have parades and the like.

And spread the word to FOX News, Global News and the blogosphere. They can cover it; to hell with the clearly-biased Leftist MSM.

As I said, bloggers attempting to declare their own VIA day is only due to the fact that the GW is just about gone and they want to try to kick start Fox or other right media to pick it up and get a blind rally going so they can say the war was won by GW before he left office and therefore anything that happens under the new administration isn't the fault of GW because it's a war that was already won and done.

GW can sleep on the lawn with the other single celled organisms

No, JP, I retain my view of you; you spit on freedom.

The fact that Iraq has a constitution (May 2006), a rule of law, free elections, and is itself actively engaged in opposing any actions of terrorism within its borders, means - freedom. For some odd reason you don't acknowledge this significant accomplishment. Why not?

The fact that Iraq is now not merely rebuilding but building and modernizing its cities, means - freedom. As for your link, I suggest that it's out of date; the Iraqi military and police are, more and more, taking charge of repressing terrorism.

The US '150,000 troops' 'fighting' is an incorrect image. Read the links given under the header, for heaven's sake! The fighting is down to a minimum!

slevin - what is your point, other than to display your own ignorance of both history and economics?

"The fighting is down to a minimum!" = Victory in Iraq Day 11-22-08

?

JP. dizzy...

Guys, don't bother trying to hit ET, Hate - er, I mean, Kate - and the rest here with reality. Remember the article where a senior Bush administration official said "We create our own reality"? That's who these guys take their cue from.

You know: "There is no question that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" "Mission accomplished" - that kind of stuff.

Now, the day after Bush has been burned in effigy in Iraq, we have "Victory in Iraq Day". Yay!

These guys have been jerking themselves off to their fantasies for eight years that they really can't tell the difference between their own propaganda and reality. Sad, isn't it?

What the hell- let'em have a few more months of their fun and games. They've really done all the damage they can do (we hope!). Then the adults can take charge and try to pull this truck out of the ditch. Let's hope they have a tow truck big enough.

It may well be imperative for President Obama to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Board to deal with all the reckless prevarication that's gone into creating this utter disaster, if only to ensure that such a disgrace never occurs again. That might harsh their buzz a little bit! So let them have their little fantasy playtime now. It's likely their last chance.

real, JP - why do you assert that Iraq is 'an utter disaster'?

Why do you view the freeing of a people from a dictatorship, a movement into a democratic structure with a constitution, free elections, and the rule of law - as an 'utter disaster'? And why are you opposed to the reality of freedom in Iraq? A real situation, not a fictional one.

JP - I strongly suspect that you have no idea of the nature of and the causes of Islamic fascism; you don't understand that it has been developing for a century, and in particular, since the second world war in the ME. You don't overturn such a movement which has moved from a political to a religious ideology, in a day or a month or a year.

And, since the other Arab and/or Islamic states are still tribal and haven't yet moved into democracy, Islamic fascism remains and operates in Iraq, trying to prevent democracy.

real - You also don't seem to know anything about the nature of a state system; be careful, a state operates by rule of law, not by the Messiah complex. Obama was elected by many people because they were living within a fictional phase of 'the Messiah brings in change'. That was a fiction, geared with one agenda - to grab the vote and get elected.

Immediately, Obama moved to confront this first phase (getting elected) by changing the PowerPoint Slide. He directly stated that, on this slide (the first year) he is not the Messiah. His cabinet selections are, heavily, from The Past, in particular, the Clinton Past. So much for change.

Oh, and something else, real and JP, Clinton's refusal to acknowledge the dysfunctional regimes in the ME, with their burgeoning fascism, led to the necessity for the Iraq War. I'd suggest that you think about that, but since you both seem to lack any historical or societal knowledge of the area - I won't suggest it. Enjoy living in your fictional world.

JP,

I think you need to check your facts and your nomenclature. A Neo-Con (Neo means new in Latin) is a Conservative who became so after embracing then rejecting Liberalism. These commentators here didn't embrace liberalism... they are Conservatives. Just because something sounds good does not mean that it's true.

Also, what's with your goal of diminishing the accomplishments of the Iraqi people? Personally I don't really care for the Americans who entered the war under false pretenses, but for the Iraqi girls who can go to school, and the Kurds who no longer live in fear of being GASSED by the Baathists (Saddam...fyi), why can't you accept that serious progress has been made?

Have you ever heard of the Japanese soldiers who 20 years after WW2 were still camped out on pacific islands, ready to fight a war that was over? I think that analogue might suit you well.

Jon

GW can sleep on the lawn with the other single celled organisms

Posted by: snivelin at November 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Evil McChimpyBush can sleep with any form of life he wants, unlike you--sleeping wida fishs

ET

When has democracy been imposed on a tribal society by force before? What are the benchmarks by which we can judge how the present experiment in Iraq is doing?

I'm being kind to you by pretending your trope that Iraq was invaded for 'democracy' has any factual basis. It doesn't. As Alan Greenspan noted Iraq was invaded for oil.

Have you ever heard of morality, ET? The lie I cited above from Cheney about the WMD that he knew for "certain" that Saddam had is representative of all the lies and misleading insinuations told to the American public to get them to go along with the invasion of Iraq - er, sorry, the 'regime change'-- er, sorry, the 'disarming of Saddam'. Basic morality tell us that good cannot follow from an action based on lies.

Why did they lie? Guess 'cause no-one would support the 'roadmap to democracy and freedom' or whatever nonsense you're trying to retail here, if they were told the straight goods.

Your pie in the sky ideas are far from realization. Nice though, that you consent to have so many others fight for them. Or are you posting from Iraq?

As for all the Obama/Clinton stuff. Yes, yes, we know you're a dyed inthe wool partisan who will go to any lengths to defend 'your side'. Just another 'party over country' fanatic, gobbling falsehoods from his masters and defecating them in all directions as he goes down defending the most hated president in the history of the USA. Yay!

According to the AP article (dead tree)that I just saw, those were Mookie Al Sadr's supporters burning Bush in effigy... obviously typical non-partisan Iraqis, no? with no vested interest in upsetting the newly emerging order in Iraq.

Whatever else is going on in Iraq, don't credit these buffoons with representing the will of all the citizens there.

I assert that today, November 22, 2008, is in fact NOT Victory in Iraq Day. Why bloggers, why are you making this up out of whole cloth? How does this lie benefit YOU? Besides giving your leftist enemies ammunition galore I mean...

"It may well be imperative for President Obama to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Board"

Well, that'd hardly be surprising: with Maobama's hard left socialist extremist background and mentors, pulling off a Stalinist move like that would certainly be in character.

Perhaps he could first start by putting the drive-by media on the dock, for their utter complicity in failing to report the true authors of the subprime mess, and failing to provide unbiased coverage of obama's links to terrorists, racist america haters, indicted felons, et al.

As for WMD, "real", perhaps you might recall that ol' saddam was in breach of 14 UN regulations concerning that topic, and he wouldn't comply. If he had, perhaps there would have been no 2003 invasion. Regardless, he is worm food now, and perhaps those several thousand Kurds he gassed (with nonexistent WMDs, of course) may rest easier.

As for "Iraq for oil", stretch your brain a bit: the US could have had far easier access to iraq's oil if they had only eased up on trade restrictions, and not fought to unseat hussein. And, too, if you want to do some interesting reading on who really benefited from iraq's oil, try googling "TotalFinaElf, Desmarais, Power Corp", and, "Jean Cretien".

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

real- again, you need to study history and political theory.

First, democracy can't be imposed. It has never and can never be imposed on any society, for the basic reason that democracy is a political mode that emerges from within the society, from the people, to represent the people.

What Bush did was to release the Iraqi people from a dictatorship - something you and JP refuse to acknowledge - and this fact enabled the Iraqi people, themselves, to set up their own democracy.

You don't need to be 'kind to me'; I suggest, however, that you be 'kind' to yourself. That means that you do some research into history and political theory. No, Iraq was not invaded for oil. What a simplistic notion. After all, the ME states have no choice but to both rely on western technology to extract their oil, since they reject education and science, but, they have to rely on western industrialism to use, i.e., purchase, their oil.

Iraq was invaded to stop Islamic fascism, which had diverted from its origin and cause, which is political tribalism, and was moving into the west as a rootless utopian ideology. Bush moved it back into the ME, which had to confront the fact that political tribalism was creating a fascist population.

I suspect, strongly, that you have no understanding of tribalism. Or of fascism. Or the societal structures of the ME.

Morality? The first duty of a leader of a state is to protect his state; Bush did that. As for the theory of WMD, that was a factual belief, and the UN sanctions enabled that belief to continue as fact (why was Saddam Hussein sanctioned in the first place, and why did he reject inspections?). But the WMD was only an 'efficient cause' for the real agenda - which was to free the Iraqi people from a dictatorship to enable them to set up a democratic state...within the Islamic world.

After all, Bush has been talking, for some years now, about the agenda of enabling democracy in the ME. Nothing private or silent about such an agenda. Perhaps you don't read or listen to his speeches.

Are you serious? Are you denying that now, Iraq is a democracy? That it doesn't have a constitution, rule of law, free elections? Really?

The fact that you hate Bush is your problem. I think that history will show his actions in the ME as an exemplary and courageous step that stopped Islamic fascism in the world.

real- I suggest that you are the partisan here; you don't seem to know much about history or theory and simply follow the crowd. Ah well.

JP - you can assert anything you want. That's freedom. But a 'real freedom' has to be grounded in reality. The reason why so many of us are acknowledging Iraqi freedom is because it exists. In reality. They have moved into a democratic situation - and are taking control of their future as a people, not as slaves of a dictator.

"The reason why so many of us are acknowledging Iraqi freedom is because it exists."

Maybe you should let Freedom House know that "fact". Until then please don't insult our troops by insisting that the war/occupation/police action/whatever is over. Everyone knows that's a lie.

ET:

This spring's election will be, what, the fifth in Iraq?

People risked much to go to the polls and they even got it right by dipping a voter's finger in purple ink ... that would rule out the multiple voting encouraged by ACORN in the US.

In that sense, Iraq seems to have a more effective way of keeping voter fraud down.

It's a fact the vast majority of the Iraqi people despise the foreign invaders ... those would be the al-Qaida types.

No democracy is perfect and no free society is totally free from asshats who use their freedom to spit on the concept of freedom.

But, they're free to do so here. Wouldn't get that chance in a marxist, fascist or Islamic republic.

Spout away asshats.

war's over folks. Victory is ours...never mind 235 Iraqi security forces and civlian deaths this month or the 14 americans who have died thus far in novemeber.

"Mookie Al Sadr's supporters burning Bush in effigy"

Mookie el sadr is...a Shia as I recall. Most Iraqis are. The ones who are supposed to like bush the most, ya know; for setting them free. Really, I think they are waiting to kill all them sunnis and join up with Iran soon as we get outta there. So I guess we gotta stay forever. Yea! Everything moving along like a well oiled plan ought to.

Yep, there are always people in any democracy who will spit on individual freedom.

Even happens in a fledgling democracy like Iraq.

I see a lot of Acorns falling.

jp- the headline is 'victory in Iraq day'. That means a victory for the agenda of the war, which was to free the Iraqi people and enable democracy to emerge.

That's a reality; we are acknowledging that reality. The fact that there are still Al Qaeda around; that there are still intra-Iraq tribal tensions for power; the fact that Iran and Syria are still trying to stir up trouble - that's another reality. As I said, you can't overcome the centuries of tribal fighting and the emergence of Islamic fascism in a year or even a few years. But you can destroy the infrastructure that supports them. And that is exactly what has occurred.

Therefore, these 'other realities' don't and can't deny the first one; that freedom and democracy has emerged in Iraq. That is what so many of us have supported, and are supporting. It's something to celebrate. Freedom matters.

Renounce this heresy about this

To say that today, November 22, 2008 is Victory in Iraq Day is ridiculous and you all know it. You can't just pick a date out of thin air and declare "Peace".

JP:

Just did.

Try and stop it.

JP:

Just declared today as the day of victory, that is.

The only ‘peace' anybody can create is inner peace.

Nobody can change the world, since evil will always find a way to sucker in enough weak human beings and make them believe the evil they do against other human beings is somehow the will of a higher power. Of course it is, the power of evil is stronger than an undisciplined human being.

The only worthy control is self-control, something that seems foreign to the Islamic extremists.

It’s about time people said “Victory in Iraq” in this modern day, it really doesn’t get much better and it certain is happening faster and better than the UN has been able to do in the Congo. The victory is in two parts, (4 if you want to get picky) first the initial invasion was accomplished in about 3 weeks with minimal loss of life on both sides, partly due to the Iraqi walking away from their posts, mainly because the Iraq army was constantly out fought, out manoeuvred and out thought by the US military. Compare this to the Iran-Iraq war where Iran was unable to make any headway over a period of 10years and with a combined causality rate of approx. 1.2million dead and millions wounded.

The 2nd part was the occupation, which in all fairness the US bungled badly and much of the blame falls on Rummy’s shoulders, had Gates been in charge I suspect things would have been different. In fact Michael Yon warned that Civil War was basically starting and if the US didn’t do something quick the country would be lost. The US Army and Marine Corp to their credit did an about face and reinvented themselves on the spot changing their tactics and creating the surge. The US did have some help, the AQI bungled the insurgency so badly that they basically drained the swamp they were hiding in and stuck out like sore thumbs. While they are still dangerous, they have totally lost the support of the people caused by their intense and barbaric cruelty to the average Iraq both Sunni and Shia. The military also out played Sadar who also bungled his chances and Iran is scrambling to reposition itself with the Shia government currently in power.

There is lots to go wrong and I expect it will, but it is now up to the Iraqis to sort it out, the US did what they could to sort out their problems and the respect for the US military is pretty high amongst the average Iraqi who likely trust them more than their own government. When I ask people opposed to the war, what they would have done in regards to the collapse of the sanctions, the lack of interest in carrying out the UNSC terms and conditions. Russia, China and France’s interest in accessing the oil fields and thereby financing Saddam to rebuild his army, I would say that less than 1% of the people I talked have any sort of a plan based on the reality of the ground.

ET

You can spout your pseudointellectual hogwash all you want. Perhaps adopting the superior tone of "You seem to have no understanding of..." impresses those in your environment. But none of your arguments hold water on examination. They are the rantings of an unhinged partisan desperately trying to justify the unjustifiable. And throwing a lot academic words on top of it all for extra measure.

Has it really come down to phrases like "factual belief" for your kind, ET? If it was a 'belief' why was it stated as a certainty by Cheney? What possible reason for that could there be other than that they knew they had a weak case for war that the public wouldn't accept so they had to embroider and make up stuff to gin up the fear.

Contrary to your belief I've watched more than a few Bush speeches over the last 8 years, and in the run-up tothe war I heard a minute amount of time devoted to democracy in Iraq as compared to the "smoking gun becoming the mushroom cloud", re-iterated like a drum beat by him and Rice. For a factual belief it sure got a lot of airplay - this insinuation that if they didn't go to war a Hiroshima would take place in America.

Again: what a namby-pamby cowardly word-parsing on your part - 'factual belief'. It's an intellectual disgrace, and evidence of the emptiness of your argument.

Your assertion that my objection to the Iraq war is owing to my irratonal animus towards Bush reflects a concerning trend towards delusion on your part. I say delusion because I didn't once mention Bush in my post, and so for you to make such as assessment goes under your usual tactic of: just making stuff up. But that you do so when the evidence is here for all to see that your claim has no factual basis - well, excuse me for saying, but that's just kind of...crazy.

I know, I know, you can't help yourself in your sheer, tired, stale partisan hackery: the idea that anyone who disagreed with the war, or torture, or wiretapping - or anything the Bush adminsistration did - was suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (how clever!), it worked so well for you all those years!

But now the whole country has BDS, huh, ET? Because he's the most hated President in history now, ET. Below Nixon in the depths of diagrace of Watergate. Imagine that! That old saw just don't work anymore, ET.

And it especially doesn't work when the person you're arguing against hasn't even mentioned Bush, much less expressed animus towards him. That only exposes the fact that your arguments are partisan reflexes, not actual fact-based reasonings or refutations, but just slimey, dishonest smears designed to shut down debate. Well, it worked for awhile, didn't it?

AS for your other smear, it's difficult to see how your charge that I 'follow the crowd' can be true since I opposed the war back in those years when it remained quite popular. You are the one who followed the crowd, but then the crowd got smart - i.e., reponded with reason and logic to observable material reality. - you didn't. So now you're stuck with Orwellspeak like "factual belief" and smearing your opponent to distract from the fact that you can't make your case.

Since the war is over and...we won, why doncha all book a flight on over to get a heapin' helpin' of free messopotamia? Perhaps walk from your hotel in the green zone out into now peaceful bagdad where the locals will shower you with love and rose petals...don't forget to send postcards.

Jp, real, Y'all - go ahead - ask the bad guys in Iraq if they don't feel that they got their ass kicked a thousand ways to hell. They might just tell you they did. If they say they are winning or they have won this thing - they're lying.

Kind of reminds me of the bridge keeper in the Holy Grail movie. "Its just a flesh wound. Come back here and I'll bite your knee cap."

The war is won - no doubt about that. The challenge is to maintain stability and allow this new democracy to flourish.

JP, real and the rest of the naysayers cannot bring themselves to admit that Bush's boys and girls have done the job. Their hate for him would never allow them to. Take Slevin's comment "Iraq continues to be a total disaster." Ya right, Slevin. I agree with the declaration that on one else is willing to make. NOVEMBER 22, 2008 - VICTORY IN IRAQ!!!.

real - again, you don't seem to 'get it'.

A 'factual belief' isn't 'Orwellian'; it's a well-known philosophical phrase for a belief or conclusion based on facts. It contrasts with an 'intuitive belief' which doesn't rest on facts but on personal emotion; or a 'hypothetical belief' which is a conclusion that rests on an assumed hypothesis. And there are others: moral belief, which is a belief resting on a moral system. Religious belief...etc. The fact that you've never heard of the phrase - well, that's your problem.

Again, the WMD was a conclusion based on facts (and I'm not even going to define the gassing of the Kurds as an action of a WMD, though it was). But, based on their evidence, the US-UK concluded that Saddam's actions of developing a nuclear weapon were real and not rhetoric. After all, the UN sanctions against him weren't because he was doing nothing. Or, are you assuming that the UN sanctions were irrelevant?

You haven't dealt with my arguments, for example, against your statements that democracy can be imposed; that Iraq was 'invaded for oil'. You haven't provided any proof of your assertion that Iraq was invaded for oil- and one lifted phrase from Greenspan is hardly evidence.

You haven't explained how Iraq is a 'disaster' in your view; nor have you examined the relation between tribal dictatorships in the ME and the existence of Islamic fascism.

As for 'smearing your opponent', my telling you to read up on history and the nature of Islamic fascism is hardly a smear. It's a criticism of your lack of knowledge of the situation.

"I agree with the declaration that on (sic) one else is willing to make. NOVEMBER 22,2008- VICTORY IN IRAQ!!!"

No-one is willing to make that declaration (except some bloggers) because it's the blackest of lies. Today is November 23, 2008 and the war/occupation continues.

Al Sadr has always wanted to see himself running Iraq - and has opposed the US in the hope that by doing so, he will be swept to power by his countrymen. He is an opportunist, and willing to kick apart any progress made to date if it serves his ends. The fact that he is Shia is as important as the fact Hitler was raised Catholic; it may speak to what he will do to those from other sects/religions once he gets power but does not make him necessarily the only correct answer to Whither Iraq?

Again, the WMD was a conclusion based on facts ET

Nonsense, it was based on lies and propaganda, as anyone with an IQ above their shoe size knew at the time.

manny, please provide evidence for your, ah, hypothetical belief. Thanks.

It's a factual belief.

I knew Colin Powell's little performance at the UN was a charade. So did Scott Ridder. But ET, being incapable of critical thought, blinded as she is by partisan animus, bought that song and dance hook, line and sinker. And only she knows her shoe size for sure.

I mean, my gawd, didn't you learn anything from that babies being wrested from their incubators swindle from Gulf I??? There are none so blind...

Maybe it was wrong to invade Iraq, but to assert Hussein wasn't developing of possessed WMD flies in the face of documentary evidence provided by UN inspectors, who not only saw these weapons, but inventorized them. The only question is what happened to them - were they destroyed, or shipped to another state (like Syria)?

If indeed UN inspectors were liars or deluded, why did Hussein continue his obfuscation? Nobody, IMO, has provided a satisfactory answer to that question.

BTW, why would US invade Iraq so China, Russia, Germany and France could secure their access to their oil?

People need to do some research and think a bit before they tell others what is "factual."

Personally, I was against the invasion. But, there were some benefits, such as the AQ miscalculation that Iraq could be their next base of operations. All their involvement did was seal their fate in Iraq, presenting themselves as a target for US forces, while totally alienating the Iraqi people. That miscalculation also degraded AQ to where they are far less capable, and therefore dangerous, than they were.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the invasion of Iraq made US and West more vulnerable to terrorism. Believing it doesn't make it so, and we will see in the long run which view holds.

As for victory in Iraq, I'm not sure we're there yet. But, continued hostilities isn't evidence either. Democracy is about the majority ruling; if a minority make trouble that doesn't automatically mean failure, or even lack of victory.

Once US invaded Iraq, it was obligated to take the fight to the other foreign invaders, AQ; otherwise they would have created a far more dangerous situation than allegedly existed before.

Again, IMO, the proper doctrine for Iraq was containement, GWB chose to change to pre-emption. Many think he was wrong to do so, but that cannot logically be seen to negate any possible good coming from the invasion.

manny, again, provide some factual evidence for your conclusion that the issue of WMD in Iraq was 'all lies and propaganda'. Your reference to Colin Powell doesn't provide the facts about the UN sanctions for Iraq renewing its WMD program.

You state that you 'knew' that Powell's performance was a 'charade'. Could you provide us with the facts that led to your knowledge?

As for the 'babies in incubators', what does this have to do with WMD? Could you explain? Thanks.

shamrock - nice post with reference to the WMD and the UN, and the rejection of the 'the war was about oil' argument. However, I think that the main agenda of the war was to destabilize the tribal infrastructures of the ME, by enabling one state to set itself up as a democracy.

Since I maintain that the cause of Islamic fascism is a population living in a tribal infrastructure, when its population is too large for such a system, and when its transition to an industrial economy negates a tribal infrastructure and requires democracy - then, I think that the US led war, to enable democracy to emerge in the ME, was a correct action, as defined by the 'just war' theory.

As for the 'babies in incubators', what does this have to do with WMD? Could you explain? Thanks.

It has to do with the willingly credulous being so easily suckered with lies and propaganda. Beyond that, attempting to fill the gaps of your limited knowledge is a exercise in futility.

Or, to put it country simple, et, as a republican deep thinker once put it: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

no, manny, that's not a factual explanation. That's a red herring tactic where you try to diver the legitimate request for information into a spurious ad hominem charge.

Again, what does the 'babies in incubators' have to do with WMD? That's a legitimate request, for I can't see any relation between the two.

The UN Sanctions, esp. Resolution 687, focused on WMD. Again, would you provide some facts rather than hyperbolic rants? Thanks.

Manny - "I knew that Colin Powell's little performance at the UN was a charade." So Manny, how about sharing what the next hot stock tip is going to be or when and where the next major earthquake will happen. How about some Powerball Numbers oh wise one.

Funny I don't remember any guy named "Manny" being interviewed on TV spouting this amazing wisdom and knowledge he possessed.

Lets leave history to the historians. Those of us presently living in what will be future history are a little too jaded to be as objective as true historians of the future. Dwight Eisenhower knew this all too well when he directed that a complete photographic record be kept for future generations of the horrors of Hitler's concentration camps. Today there are those who are revisionists when it comes to events of WW2 but the record is there for all to see just as the record will be there for today's events.

Just as the record now shows that the Allies had to stay in Europe and in Asia for a transition to normalcy, the record will show that the US and its allies in Iraq had to do the same thing to preserve the new democracy. There is no doubt in clear thinking logical people that this war is won.

I assure you, btw, that nowhere in the record will you see that "Manny knew that Colin Powell's little performance before the UN was a charade."

Ah, make that Sisyphean futility.

Or perhaps the mother of all futilities.

manny, it isn't an argument to simply post irrelevant ad hominem 'put-downs'. It's a red herring to state that you won't provide any facts because you state that I have a 'limited knowledge'. Heh. Prove it. You are moving into an 'argumentum ad nauseum' state.

Again, manny, give us some facts that validate your conclusions. Facts.

"Nonsense, it was based on lies and propaganda, as anyone with an IQ above their shoe size knew at the time. ... It's a factual belief." - manny.

"Google = Iraq + uranium + Canada" - jwkozak91

ET, it isn't an argument to regurgitate Bush/Rove talking points and dress it up with your crackpot theories about tribalist Islamofacsism. There fact that there were no WMDs validates my conclusion.

Actually, manny, my theories about tribalism aren't crackpot; they are a pretty standard analysis of the political organization of a tribe versus a non-tribal societal system.

Since you haven't done any research in these areas, then, you are making the error of an 'argumentum ad ignorantum...an argument based on ignorance.

Furthermore, you obviously don't know the nature of democracy, and how it operates within a population large enough to enable a middle class; that's an industrial economy. If your population gets as large as an industrial one, and retains its tribal political mode - that's a dysfunctional society. Basic political and societal theory. Nothing to do with Bush/Rove arguments.

You still haven't presented an argument for your assertions which seem to rest not in facts but only in your subjective feelings, including the Colin Powell speech which you 'intuitively' knew was invalid, including your 'babies in incubators'.

Now, you are claiming that no WMD were found; that wasn't the point. Do you know the reasons for the UN sanctions, in particular, Res. 687; it was about WMD and inspections. I wonder why the UN bothered to set up such sanctions and such a resolution? Hmmm? Facts, manny - they are important.

Oh, and I can think on my own, manny. I don't copy Bush or anyone. I'm aware of the different societal and political structures; I know the nature of fascism; I know the developmental history of Islamic fascism; I know the enormous economic and demographic changes of the ME for the past 100 plus years. I know what happesn to a society when its societal systems become unable to 'fit' together.

I wonder if you've bothered to obtain a similar knowledge, or do you rely only on your subjective impressions and what you hear on the MSM?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4919.htm

Hey ET

I consider it to be a smear when someone suggests I don't hold a position in good faith because it's my considered opinion but because I have an irrational animus towards someone.

As I noted earlier, your smear is also a proven fabrication since there had been no mention in my posts of Bush up to that time, or any evidence of animus towards him.

And so your assertion falls under the category of
"baseless smear". Or rather - demonstrably baseless smear.

But why would you make such a demonstrably baseless assertion?

Because you know your argument is weak, and so you must harriedly come up with stuff to distract from that fact. The sad thing is you think you're putting one over on the rest of us.

You really are like a pathetic old punch drunk fighter, deluding yourself that your punches are landing anywhere. Attributing criticism of the war to hatred of Bush when Bush hasn't even been mentioned! Wow, what an intellecual triumph. Did you ever think you'd fall so far, ET?

Allow me to answer on behalf of Manny: his reference to "babies being thrown from incubators" is about the fabrication of that story used to sell the public on the first Iraq war. He was drawing a parallel between that and the fabrication of the WMD (Irag is going to nuke us) being used to sell the public on the 2nd Iraq war.

You see, the story about the babies, like Cheney's assertion that "We know for a fact that Saddam has WMD" was a baldfaced lie. A fabrication rather like your assertion that my opinions are a result of my hatred of Bush.

Your attempt to diminish others with your supposed vast knowledge of tribalism et al is handicapped by the fact that most of what you spout are hypotheses. You speak as though your hypotheses have been proven. They have not been.

As for your attempts to impress by dropping in factoids like democracy operating in a population large enough to sustain a middle class - well, that's nice ET. Thanks for this display of your 'erudition'. I'm afraid you're giving the impression of a not very bright person trying to come off as ... well, as the archetype of what a not very bright person thinks 'smart people' sound like.

Because for all your talk, the war is not over, and American lives haven't stopped being sacrificed for what remains nothing more than hypothesis on your part. That's what you're trying to distract us from with all your lying and your attempts to diminish others.

As well, if we examine your arguments closely we find their real origin: in your kneejerk Obama/Clinton disparagements earlier, and in your bizarre, baseless 'Bush hater' accusation we discern the outlines of the partisan hack: far greater than your concern about tribal societies of the ME is your need to defend your ideology above all else. For one who is concerned about democracy in foreign lands, your shameless allegiance to 'party over country' reveals a questionable loyalty to democracy in America.

C'mon Manny - still waiting for those Powerball numbers!! ET - you want substance to Manny's postings and so would I and I assume many others. As Manny states it "there are none so blind...... (we all know the quote). To Manny I would reply - There are none so naked as those who will not dress themselves with 'FACTS"!!!!

Facts! Manny, Facts!!!!

A belated congratulations to all the American servicemen and women, the servicemen and women of the coalition forces, the members of the Iraqi armed forces and police, and most of all, the Iraqi people themselves for their magnificent achievement in undertaking the long, arduous and dangerous journey of transforming a country ruled by a dictator into a democratic state where freedom and prosperity now have a chance. Godspeed to all the people of Iraq.

That banner is a gorgeous work of art.

I was arguing last night the Americans and their freedom (or at least stability) loving Iraqi allies have won.

I pray I am correct.

Gees I wish I could write pretty like Real. almost makes me want to try spell check. I have to admit that he is also kicking your asses. none the less, I feel that we must examin gulf war one, in which sadam hussien told us several times that he would need to invade kuwait if they didn't stop side drilling into iraq, and denying access to the shatt al arab. some of us remember that our girl ambassador april glaspie(really your girl, she was born in BC) told sadam very shortly before he invaded kuwait that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.. as I recall it was james baker who reiterated on several occasions to sadam that we had no defensive treaties with kuwait.

further, "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait. - U.S. State Department Spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler, July 1990

"Historically, the U.S. has taken no position on the border disputes in the area, nor on matters pertaining to internal OPEC deliberations. We have no defense treaty relationship with any gulf country. That is clear . . . we have not historically taken a position on border disputes. -- Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly before a House foreign affairs subcommittee on July 31, 1990

After this statement, Representative Lee Hamilton asked Kelly if it would be correct to say that if Iraq invaded Kuwait the United States would not be obligated to commit its military forces in Kuwait's defense. Kelly replied, "That is correct."

in the real world, that would be interpreted as giving permission. If the bush admin wasn't giving permission, then they were extraordinarily incompitent in not telling him the likely result of such an invasion.

days after sadam entered kuwait, a reporter asked Glaspie why she had given sadam permission to invade and she said "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait"

it's funny how many people actually believe US spy sats and you know...actual spys, wouldn't notice the massing of troops on the border. conversly, when george hw bush went on TV and told us that sadam was massing troops on the saudi border for further mischief,, the russians actually sold a TV station in south florida weather sat photos showing nothing but empty desert...
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/gulfwar.htm

ya know...fraud leading to death, destruction and a lot of pissed off arabs

This is hilarious! Good one. Whoever did this should get a job on SNL. I can't stop laughing.

Here is an idea...why dont we wait for the people of Iraq to choose when or how they would like to honour the victory.

ET?............uh.......ET?

Sometimes ET wins, this time...nope.

real - right of centre -manny - Matt - and the rest of the asshats - what is so pityfull is that none of you and I mean NONE of you have any idea as to how pathetically stupid you really are. I will leave you with that thought.

Thanks, different bob, for providing us with a Small Dead Animals Classic:

"what is so pityfull (sic) is that none of you I repeat NONE of you have any idea as to how pathetically stupid you really are"

Beautiful.