« Americans Don't Want More Government Control of Health Care | Main | Home, sweet home »

Signs of Progress

There are still plenty of images of death and violence to report from Iraq, but increasingly, there are also signs of progress -- some of it in areas recently determined to be lost causes.

On a series of maps just released by the Multi-National Force-Iraq, control of the country is shown shaded in green. On a January 2006 map, the shaded areas showing where Iraqi forces were "in the lead" were few and far between.

Each month following, though, showed additional areas turning green. By August 2006, more than half of Iraq was shaded. On later maps, an additional legend identified areas under "provisional Iraqi control" designated by a darker shade of green. By June 2007, more than half of the shaded area had been converted to dark green.

Such a visual illustration of progress being achieved in Iraq is something most Americans have yet to see. Instead they are still getting mostly negative images in their newspaper and television coverage.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not planning to vacation in Iraq anytime soon. It is still a violent and volatile place and those negative images are a big part of the story, but there is another part that has to be shown for the public to get the full picture. As the green map illustrates, and many other reports from Iraq indicate, there is some progress to report from Iraq.

Read the rest at the Examiner.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22640.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Signs of Progress:

» Bill's Bites linked with 2007.07.17 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup

Comments (64)

I sense goalposts about to ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I sense goalposts about to be moved.

Wow, Lee waited a whole 6 m... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Wow, Lee waited a whole 6 minutes to prove you right, jpm.

Nice jump from "signs of progress" and "still plenty of images of death and violence" to "I love that the right wing apologists invent a metric ('the green map") then claim it answers all of the questions." [emphasis mine]

If I can't question your patriotism, how about I question your reading comprehension?

I sense goalposts about ... (Below threshold)

I sense goalposts about to be moved.

You mean we found weapons of mass destruction?

There are two sides to this... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

There are two sides to this story, Lee, as Lorie clearly stated.

Those who want the US to win will focus on the positive (for the US) while recognizing the negatives also, as Lorie did.

Those who want the Islamofascists to win will focus solely on the negative (for the US) and completely ignore the postitives, and will post things like "check out the BBC report on violence after the surge. Very revealing..."

"You mean we found weapo... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"You mean we found weapons of mass destruction?"

Actually Blue, yes they did. Not massive stockpiles, but WMD were found.

Of course those who want the Islamofascists to win will continue to refuse to acknoledge that fact.

"For the truth, check out t... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"For the truth, check out the BBC report on violence after the surge. Very revealing -- but then the truth always is..."

Hey Lee , come down to LA, then tomorrow we can read of the violence in one of the many failed democrat cess pools. The truth is undeniable , Democrats are incompetant criminal frauds and everything they do turns to shit. Even when they don't do anything , things turn to shit. No surprise really , democrats are full of shit.

jpm100-yeah by you sorry as... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

jpm100-yeah by you sorry ass lefties-everytime something good happens you have to move it in your direction-faaaaaarther to the left.
Old wee wee lee lee wardie from bluie didn't wait long for his always negative response to something postive for the USA. Never let it looks as if their nemesis is making progress. But what do you expect from cowards such as he. Wardie is doing so good over at bluie that he has to ban commentors (such as me-tee hee) so he will have room for all the others ones (he and larkie-snicker snort). If he would just stop and figure that he would let me comment he would then have 3!!!. But it is hard to get a word in edge wise between he and larkie commenting backforth between themselves. snort snicker

Actually Blue, yes they ... (Below threshold)

Actually Blue, yes they did. Not massive stockpiles, but WMD were found.

You should let the President know. He seems to think Iraq did not have any WMD:

"Well, I strongly disagree with that, of course," Bush says. "So I strongly reject that this administration hasn't been straight with the American people. The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so."
For the umpteenth time, a l... (Below threshold)

For the umpteenth time, a leftie forgets that the entire world was convinced Hussein had WMDs; and forgets that the Clinton administration made a big deal of that belief during a very interesting time. Another dumb argument that won't die.

RE #9, When the convention... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

RE #9, When the conventional wisdom is a lie, many politicians choose to accept the lie rather than correcting the conventional wisdom.

It's wrong, but that's the way it is.

The forces of evil have had great success in their pro-terrorist disinformation campaign (a.k.a. the network news).

There is mounting evidence,... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

There is mounting evidence, including testimony from an Iraqi Air Force General, that WMD were moved out of Iraq, by plane and truck, before any US action.

Robert the Original:<... (Below threshold)

Robert the Original:

That's an interesting comment. The last info that I'd read, the implication that those trucks/airplanes were headed to Syria, but that there wasn't any hard evidence to back it up. Do you have any links on that? I think that would be interesting reading.

Re: WMDYes, we fou... (Below threshold)
Ted:

Re: WMD

Yes, we found them. Not a lot of them, but chemical weapons *are* WMD. And even though coalition forces didn't find "a lot", what they found was enough to kill several thousand people in short order.

Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran. He used them against the Kurds. He had them, and there is no doubt about that fact.

I'd like to see more discussion and rational debate from both sides and less anecdotal "evidence" and fact-free stupidity.

For the truth, check ou... (Below threshold)
Jo:

For the truth, check out the BBC report on violence after the surge. Very revealing -- but then the truth always is...

The BBC? The people that have gotten nailed to the wall several times in the past couple of years for lying and bias??!!

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha......Lee you're a hoot. Thanks for making us laugh.

Intelligence offic... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity

So we're hedging our arguments on anonymous sources that shant be named again?

If you can find the same thing said, except from a verifiable source, it'd be best to post that instead.

David Kay. I see.I... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

David Kay. I see.

Ignore my previous post. Fingers moved faster than the eyes.

It doesn't matter if the we... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

It doesn't matter if the weapons were viable or not, since the treaty signed by Hussein depended on verifiably destroying ALL WMD programs and old munitions. Since we found stockpiles of these weapons he claimed to have destroyed, we were ultimately justified in not believing that he had stopped new programs, either.

Not to mention finding banned missiles and unmanned drones, etc.

Of course, in the real worl... (Below threshold)
Ben:

Of course, in the real world, 60 year old Japanese mustard gas KILLED the Chinese construction worker who dug it up (and didn't, as moron Lee might think, eat it) but the Left doesn't recognize the deaths of Asians as having any consequence unless caused by Americans.

Okay, or by Israelis too. Otherwise, let a billion die, as long it serves the Left agenda, who cares?

The wicked irony is, the very same people who will tell you that old mustard gas is harmless will then picket to close down a factory or power station producing a much less dangerous substance.

Because, you see, on the Left, a one in a zillion chance of getting cancer, and having your pool-side catered trust fund life cut short, that matters, but if some yellow skinned bulldozer operator dies, well, there are a lot more where he came from, right?

Ben

What would you Lee, call a ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

What would you Lee, call a 155mm projectile filled with mustard agent? Is that viable enough for you? What is the shelf life of mustard agent? Some from WWI is still dangerous. You are just a fool Ward. You would not know the truth if it bit you on the ass. There is probably no more usless human being on the planet then what you are.

Don't you even bother to re... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Don't you even bother to read your OWN crap, retard?

"Intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed." [emphasis mine]

You're right in one regard, though: "lol - you can't write stuff like this..."

LOL, Retard! YOU just said ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

LOL, Retard! YOU just said they didn't count as "weapons" since they were old, then immediately referred to them as "weapons." It was MY POINT that it didn't matter weather they were viable or not, they were still in violation of the treaty.

To pharaphrase the SECDEF in Transformers: You better get a filter on that head-fingers thing.

Brainy, good catch. Lee, y... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Brainy, good catch. Lee, you lose again.

I've got an idea. Let's ge... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I've got an idea. Let's get one of those shells and detonate it in small room with Lee and the rest of the Wiz-blue authors locked in it. Since they are convinced that the weapons are not viable they should all happily volunteer to prove us wrong.

If they live I'll admit I was wrong and if they don't there will be slightly less evil in the world.

Tom Blogical,I rea... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Tom Blogical,

I read this in the Weekly Standard about a year ago, I don't pay for the history so I can't send that exact link. It was a series though, and a good one.

I Googled: "Iraq WMD Air Force General" and all sorts of things came up - you should be able to find it fairly quickly.

The #2 man in the Iraq Air Force says that Russia took stuff in yellow barrels out.

Sorry about the delay, many work today.

Robert the Original:<... (Below threshold)

Robert the Original:

Thanks for the response, and don't worry about the delay, because I'm not. :)

I've been doing some reading from the hits I got, and I'll use your search as well to see if there are any mine missed.

Borrowing from "Brave New W... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Borrowing from "Brave New World", I believe people should receive "a mild electric shock" when veering off topic in threads. IMHO.

Tom,Here is anothe... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Tom,

Here is another I forgot about, it is from a Syrian defector and journalist. He confirms and provides a map to where they are now.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Wow Robert (#34),I... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Wow Robert (#34),

If that story is true it will cause many devout leftist's heads to explode. "There were no WMD" is sacred dogma to them.

It would be the equivalent of a Christian confronted with incontrovertable evidence that Jesus was just human.

Lee,What percentag... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Lee,

What percentage of "officials speaking on condition of anonymity" do you think actually exist?

Couldn't be that a reporter with an agenda would make something up and attribute it to someone it couldn't be verified by...

I just spoke to a expert intelligence official. He also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

He said you're an asshat.

The idea that nerve gas tha... (Below threshold)

The idea that nerve gas that is two decades old is not toxic would amuse the Belgians. During my recent trip there, I was shown the location of a chemical weapons depot. They are currently guarding a dump filled with tons of nerve gas and mustard gas from WWI. The dump there had a fatal accident among workers last decade.

90 yr old mustard gas.

P. Bunyan,Yeah, I ... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

P. Bunyan,

Yeah, I know. It is crazy how little coverage this got. I don't know of anything outside of FNC and the Weekly Standard.

There is no definitive proof however, until we can go into Syria and dig it up. Also, the US has some classified stuff on this also, but so far no luck on getting it released.

I started as a skeptic, but there just so many accounts of this I'm now a believer. We know Saddam had WMD and we know they had to go somewhere...

I agree Robert. The overwh... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I agree Robert. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence that is currently available leaves no question in my mind that Saddam had a lot more WMD's than what was found after the invasion.

Still there must be incontrovertable proof before most of the public will acecpt it as because the left has done so well getting the false propaganda to be accepted as "truth".

What the left forgets is th... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

What the left forgets is that their hero, William Jefferson Clinton firmly believed Saddam had WMD. He believed it enough to send about 100 million dollars worth of tomahawks into Iraq. To believe that caused Saddam to get rid of something he depended on is idiotic. But then we are talking about those who hate Bush. If they had found WMD in the quantities sufficent to appease the left, they would have found something else to hitch their lying asses to. They really care little about Iraq, on in regaining control of our government, by any means necessary.

Lee, neocon nazis? No sens... (Below threshold)

Lee, neocon nazis? No sense of irony for your own offensive rhetoric I see.

The looniness of the BDS sufferers is amazing.

(Looks around wondering wha... (Below threshold)

(Looks around wondering what "into the ground" is supposed to look like...)

The WMD thing is very simple. We found weapons that are classified as WMD. We did not find a (then) current WMD program.

Duh.

I don't know why you are all fighting about this except that some people like to claim we found *none* which is simply not true at all. Why not just say "We didn't find a current WMD program?"

Because it would be too nuanced?

Or is it just about changing the subject to ignore signs of progress?

Sort of like looking around America and seeing a country driven "into the ground" instead of a vibrant and growing economy and a whole lot of looking up.

Can't look at anything good in America, sort of silly to expect anyone to look at anything good in Iraq.

This is why I firmly believe that liberals are natural pessimists. They can't be optimistic even about the things that are objectively going well.

Synova, we found no weapons... (Below threshold)
jim:

Synova, we found no weapons that the Pentagon classified as WMD either.

Prove me wrong, and show some weapons that were found in Iraq since we invaded, that the Pentagon has classified as WMD.

What the right forgets alwa... (Below threshold)
jim:

What the right forgets always is that Clinton didn't think whatever WMD Saddam may have had, wasn't worth invading Iraq for.

And Bush Sr. agreed with this, when Bush Sr. was president.

What the right usually loves to forget afterwards is that we ***knew*** there were no WMD's in Iraq in 2003, and Bush Jr. invaded ***anyway***.

I've lost count of how many tiems I've demonstrated that with proof on this very blog. Ready to do it again, if needed.

P. Bunyan, I'm surpr... (Below threshold)
jim:


P. Bunyan, I'm surprised you can actually say this:

The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence that is currently available leaves no question in my mind that Saddam had a lot more WMD's than what was found after the invasion.

What evidence is this?

Still there must be incontrovertable proof before most of the public will acecpt it as because the left has done so well getting the false propaganda to be accepted as "truth".

How is demanding proof, a propaganda model?

???

As I post this...Republican... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

As I post this...Republicans continue a filibuster. I will not stoop to posting how hypocritical this is based on Republican comments considering a filibuster on Supreme Court appointments ....that did not take place...
The Republicans are now saying we don't need no stickin' up and down vote...
"Listen to the military" that's what Bush and so many here say...What happened to the military who were replaced last fall? What happened to Rumsfield?
You all continue to believe the same administration that after 2003 When Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and then said "Bring'em on".....
....However,; in November 2008 the real America will send a message that we are not as stupid or insensitive to our troops and their families..as those of you continue to support a commander in Chief that was in charge on 9/11...who decided an invasion of his choice...who stayed on vacation after Katrina...
So continue to cry out...let our brave troops die over there so you don't have to die over here...let these troops serve 15 months so Al-Q does not come over here and blow up your home or your neighbors home///After all we are a nation of cowards...we are afraid to face terrorist actions here...let others die for us...over there...

P. Bunyan, I... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan, I'm surprised you can actually say this:

Jim
I'm surprised you would actually show up here.

Uh jimmie boy then what did... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Uh jimmie boy then what did all the democraps vote to go to war then? Hmmmm
Wee wee I question you on Iraq also and I rode in on a jackass that goes by the name of "old bluie".

Leeneocon na... (Below threshold)

Lee

neocon nazis who are running this great country into the ground.

What is it with the liberal's obsession with Hitler? The other night we got hansel2, now you? Many of these neo cons are JEWS! Ever read Commentary, Lee?

Nogo, what has gotten you s... (Below threshold)

Nogo, what has gotten you so morally confused?

There is no relation between filibusters on legislation, and using them to prevent a vote on a Presidential appointment. There is no hypocrisy, there is no irony, there isn't any basis for a comment at all. Nonetheless you try to make that fluffy comment.

The idea that it is better to face terrorists in Iraq, with a deployed army and more open rules of engagement than in the United States itself would seem obvious. To call it cowardice not to invite or allow terrorists to reach the United States is literally the stupidest thing I've seen you write - and that's a tough competition.

Hey nogo then get your brav... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey nogo then get your brave ass over there and help then. Naw you are all talk and no ass.

nogo war:So co... (Below threshold)
marc:

nogo war:

So continue to cry out...let our brave troops die over there so you don't have to die over here...let these troops serve 15 months so Al-Q does not come over here and blow up your home or your neighbors home///After all we are a nation of cowards...we are afraid to face terrorist actions here...let others die for us...over there...

OK.... lets say we pull ALL troops out of Iraq and move ALL of them into Afghanistan and some into the sovereign nation of Pakistan where OBL allegedly is?

Are you "down" with that?

First, I want to point out ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

First, I want to point out that all the leftists posting in this tread have decided to totally ignore the signs of progress in Iraq and instead fall back to their tired old dogma's and talking points which pretty much proves what I wrote in comment #5.

Second, Jim, what can I say? Arguing with you about this is like arguing with the devout penetcostal girl I once dated years ago.

You simply believe things for which there is no proof. In those cases you have to look at the big picture, you know, all the evidence. Then you can decide what you believe. Even so, it will not become "fact" simply because you believe it.

You dispute our opinions, but then offer opinions of your own as rebuttals because you think your opinions are facts. You see, a weblink does not a fact make. You have to be able to grasp this to be one with whom it is worth it to argue.

Just look at Justrand's excellent post from yesterday to get an idea of the type (or "subset" maybe would be a better term) of information upon which you seem to form your opinions; opinions that you think are facts.

P. Bunyan Se... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan

Second, Jim, what can I say? Arguing with you about this is like arguing with the devout penetcostal girl I once dated years ago.

Don't waste your time on Jim. I would say better of him, but he is a fraud in all respects. And has been told so.
He is not to be treated seriously here.

Frankly, I'm still stunned ... (Below threshold)

Frankly, I'm still stunned by the fact that anyone would write something as silly as this:

So continue to cry out...let our brave troops die over there so you don't have to die over here...let these troops serve 15 months so Al-Q does not come over here and blow up your home or your neighbors home///After all we are a nation of cowards...we are afraid to face terrorist actions here...let others die for us...over there...

This is Ted Rall level outrageousness. Just stunned.

I'm still laughing at how L... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I'm still laughing at how Lee Ward asked for a "credible source" for something....right after he himself quoted the BBC to try and reinforce his point. bwahahahahahahahaha....

You can't make this stuff up.

You can't make this s... (Below threshold)

You can't make this stuff up.

Why not, Jim does.

Ward, you idiot, if Nazis r... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Ward, you idiot, if Nazis ran this government you would be long dead. The fact you are semi alive makes you a liar. Actually, everthing you post or say makes you a liar. I wonder if you have the balls to talk to me like that face to face. I doubt a coward like you even has balls.

Nogo... So cont... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Nogo...

So continue to cry out...let our brave troops die over there so you don't have to die over here...let these troops serve 15 months so Al-Q does not come over here and blow up your home or your neighbors home///After all we are a nation of cowards...we are afraid to face terrorist actions here...let others die for us...over there...
As a 'brave troop' who spent 9 years active duty at US missile bases, and 13 years at a Reserve base in a major US city where we figured we'd get glassed over good and hard if the USSR and US went nuclear, can I interject something here?

Any military historian would tell you that what we've paid so far in lives and percentage of GDP to fight THIS war is pretty damn small. We have spend billions and billions in R&D over the decades so we could do without a massive standing army. We concentrated on technology, instead of the traditional style of warfare of WW2 and Korea, and it's paid off with a casualty and death rate that would have been incredibly LOW by WW2 and Korean standards, and a friggin' MIRACLE by WW1 and Civil War standards.

And it's supposedly too high a cost?

If you were to poll the soldiers in Iraq, who are ALL volunteers, if they'd rather fight Al Quaeda in a desert/semi-urban environment in Iraq, with much less restrictive rules of engagement than we'd have in the US, with much less infrastructure to get in the way and provide hiding places, with a smaller population to hide among than in the US, with a much less well-developed road network for the terrorists to travel across - I'd bet the majority would say that if the WoT has to be fought that Iraq would be a hell of a better place to fight it than the US.

Afraid to face terrorist actions here? Hell, yeah! Are you nuts? Do you think this is some sort of damn game, where each quarter has to start out level, and by some ghastly calculus the US now has to be hit a number of times by car bombs and suicide bombers in malls in order to somehow gain the ball and have the right to go on the offense AGAIN?

If you think the WoT is too expensive NOW, how much would losing, say, the Sears Tower cost? Or a good-sized truck bomb on Wall Street at lunch hour? What impact would a successful hit on our financial structure have? And WHY in hell would anyone want it?

And where, pray tell, are the brave troops supposed to fight? Here in the US, fighting an enemy that should have been kept far from our shores? Or perhaps they shouldn't fight at all, and we should simply accept civilian casualties as the price of doing business? Is a 9/11 level event every three or four years acceptable? Or a mall bombing a month, perhaps?

We can beat Al Quaeda. We can beat radical Islam. We can beat them by killing them, we can beat them by dismantling their support structures, by interdicting the countries providing their support, by letting them 'win' in some areas so the people who supposedly support them can see just what sort of homicidal maniacs they're supporting, we can beat them with a multi-pronged approach... but it isn't going to be a fast win.

We have to keep the pressure on, we have to grind them down, we have to give them no sanctuary to hide in, no respite from the fight, expose their hateful ideology wherever it takes root. We can do this - but it's going to require dedication and perseverance. We outspent the USSR and won, though it took decades. And the Politbureau was composed of rational actors - THEY didn't have a societal death wish, or cultural conditioning that saw death as being preferable to life.

However, with our country already half-conditioned by TV to a quick resolution of the most serious problems in an hour, or maybe one season's worth of programs, I wonder whether we've got the perseverance any more.

Certainly the Democrats in Congress don't. They can't see beyond the '08 election, and they don't care WHAT damage they do as long as they can pull off what they consider a 'win'.

Well done JLawson.... (Below threshold)

Well done JLawson.

Excellent comment JLawson!<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Excellent comment JLawson!

Very well done, JLawson.</p... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Very well done, JLawson.

What happened to Lee's comments? I don't see them, and my threshold is still set at -9999. . . which I presume even Lee at his most deranged is unable to stack up so quickly.

Here is <a href="http://pat... (Below threshold)
marc:

Here is another rebuttal for Lee and his ilk. It's directed at Richard Clark but you will note Clark's flawed reasoning is mimicked by so many here.

The most salient question asked is this: (it assumes Saddam was still in power)

Do we really think Saddam Hussein would just be sitting around and watching as Iran developed a bomb? Or would we instead be facing twice the nuclear threat in the region than we are now? An Iraq-Iran nuclear arms race?
Lee "The Thief" Ward, got an answer for that?

How about you "Mr. "Fair Use" Hamilton?

Oh and the press! The tact... (Below threshold)

Oh and the press! The tactics they use to mislead people are so obvious sometimes and people who are already of a mind don't catch on.

There was a piece done by, I think it was Reuters, on the discovery of the shells buried in Iraq in which they did everything they could to downgrade the discovery. Even to the point of accompanying the story with a photo of an IAEA inspector in shirt-sleeves cataloging old and rusty metal containers. At first glance one might think the containers were what had just been uncovered when in fact it was containers of nothing more than water from a few years previous as the small printed caption claimed.

A story downgrading a discovery of poison gas shells with such a photo was a slimy tactic by whoever chose that photo. Anyone who hadn't read the caption might make the connection that it was a picture of the shells discovered and they were nothing more than harmless ordnance as the guy had on no protective gear at all.

One guy I talked to called the shells "paperweights" and claimed the only danger they represented was that someone might trip over them. I asked him point blank that if they were so benign, would he be willing to store them, say, under his child's bed?

The press enables these intellectually retarded people with contrivances like the one above. They never have to really think because someone's doing the thinking for them, however flawed it is. When I asked that guy my question, it was obvious his thoughts had never gone that far on the issue. He had nothing to say.

And such is the way it goes. Anything, anything at all, that might show the slightest justification for going to war with Iraq must be shot down by any means possible. Exaggeration is a favorite. If you report good news, you're delusional and ignorant of the facts. If you say anything about the terror training camps, they trot out the "aspirin factory" story. If you bring up the poison gas shells, they're harmless, they're old, they're whatever. If you bring up any number of things you're a right-wing, neo-nazi, Bush-loving lockstepper of some degree.

"Do we really think Sadd... (Below threshold)

"Do we really think Saddam Hussein would just be sitting around and watching as Iran developed a bomb? Or would we instead be facing twice the nuclear threat in the region than we are now? An Iraq-Iran nuclear arms race?"

Iran would not have the incentive to move forward to develop the bomb if we had diplomatically removed Saddam from power or otherwise neutralized him - and not shown our propensity to invade middle-eastern countries under false pretenses.

THAT's what makes Iran nervous. We'll invade Iran for no good reason, because if we need reasons -- we just make them up - like this argument from marc is made up.

It's one thing to lie and say Saddam had WMDs, but to lie again and say he would have them now (or be working towards them now) if we'd not invaded Iraq is just as dishonest.

Wow! Lee The Liar Tsar, see... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Wow! Lee The Liar Tsar, seek help. You have no idea what your talking about. I believe your BDS has gone terminal.

JLawson, excellent comment. ww

Would anyone have expected ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Would anyone have expected Lee to say anything other than "It's all the U.S.'s (and George Bush's) fault"? The left is of a singular mind and it is the mind of Ward Churchill.

It's a myopic and moronic opinion, but then, has Lee ever had an opinion that wasn't myopic and moronic?

has Lee ever had an opin... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

has Lee ever had an opinion that wasn't myopic and moronic?

Once or twice, which makes his current run of frothing lunacy all the more sad.

Well, glad to see we're mak... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well, glad to see we're making such good progress.

Diplomatically removed Sadd... (Below threshold)

Diplomatically removed Saddam Hussein, Lee? That had already failed - once again you suggest a course of action already tried and failed and pretend that the past history never happened.

This is not the behavior of adult consideration of the issues.

Read Robert Kagan in Policy... (Below threshold)
kim:

Read Robert Kagan in Policy Review.
======================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy