“It walks like a duck and talks like a duck it’s usually a duck.”

“It’s curious how you and fellow liberals in the press hate Bush more than you care about the truth on this topic.”

That is some kind of analysis.
Notice how Tim’s piece and the first few comments by Jed make no mention of Bush, yet criticism of the pretexts for the Iraq war is a sign of hatred for our dear leader Bush. Saddam’s regime was in fact a regime of terror–juts ask Iranians during the 80s or even Iraqis themselves the kind of terror that existed, and the western underwriters of that terror. But history does not characterize it as a regime of terror until Saddam
becomes an official enemy. THAT’S when history begins, where history becomes important, when it matters. The operation in Iraq needs justifications, to exhibit its true benevolence, and if it wasn’t al-qaeda, WMDs, gulf of tonkin, the maine, etc., the reasons for invading would have been something else. Leaving Iraq is not an option for US planners, which is a shame, because if we really wanted to “fight terrorism”, that would mean we would have to look at Iraqis as actual human beings and understand that people don’t like to be invaded, bombed, and occupied.

(Jed Clampett)

Not for Saddam, at the behest of their respective tribal and sect affiliations in order to deny the western powers the obvious prize without paying a heavy price at the very least. They didn’t start flooding in until it was obvious to Saddam he was going to be invaded. Unfortunately for us, they understood perfectly well the effects of america’s corrupt military industrial complex on it’s economy. Worked exactly as he planned, except he figured the battlefield would be the mountainous regions of afghanistan, not the flat oilfields of iraq. Looks to me like his declarations have proven almost prophetic, we played right into his hands and did him one better by taking out a great enemy in Saddam. He has now probably gained great favor from the Iranians who are also very happy to not only make oil prices go up, but also to make us go further into hock and waste our expensive equipment on a few criminals leaving us open for the real threats.

(Jed Clampett)

the key there being ’since 2002′

no one disputes that al-qaida is NOW in Iraq after we invited them in and started funding them by giving away billions of dollars. Then they armed them by ignoring the loading of trucks at an ammo dump by non-american personnel during the war. Then allowed them to destroy Iraqs culture by letting them loot places with cultural and historical value. Then they realized we didn’t have enough people to control the passive population, much less a violent sector. The stage was set for a war that could last 27 years and involve the entire planet before it’s over.

Links existed. Aid and comfort was given. Hillary was correct.

You need to understand the difference between a “direct operational link” and aid and comfort.

Perhaps she acted as a spokesperson…

Perhaps she acted as a spokesperson…

I have no idea why the Obama campaign isn’t making this the central counterpoint of Hillary’s “extensive foreign policy” experience claims.

We’re supposed to look to you in a crisis situation when you can’t even take the time to read the NIE and get all of the necessary intelligence to make a more informed decision?

THAT, my friends, is the fairy tale.

Why? Because she was afraid to lose out on the political windfall in case the invasion/occupation turned out to be a success. Sorry, rhetorical questions don’t register with me.

I think this question could be expanded to include many more people than just the Senator from New York…