A couple notes of interest. This is just a rough draft but...

1) If they do run this "strategic blunder" platform, it be a mistake for Obama to pick a VP who voted for the war. His VP should have a history of being against the war from the start.

2) I think Napolitano's words were clumsy.

Strategic blunder? Try criminal act.

"1) If they do run this "strategic blunder" platform, it be a mistake for Obama to pick a VP who voted for the war. His VP should have a history of being against the war from the start."

It would be a, well, strategic blunder on Obama's part if he did that since if would remind the voters that many cowardly Democrats did vote for this "criminal act" (as Joama so eloquently puts it).

BTW, it was very funny today watching the Dem presidential nominee for 2004 and the Dem VP nominee for 2000 on oppsite sides.

If someone traveled in time from 2000 to 2008 they wuld definitely suffer future shock seeing this wierd picture.

Voting to give authority and deciding to go to war are two different things. Somehow I remember Bush promising to go through all diplomatic channels before invading.
Look at it this way, as a society we give police the authority to use force. Does that mean we want or expect them to use it as a first resort?

Presumptive nomine?

/funny

Anyone who doesn't know by now that invading Iraq was the dumbest thing we could have possibly done is not going to vote for Obama anyway. Such a person would deny that fire is hot and believe it if the GOP commanded them to do so. Running on "Bush is a fuckup" didn't work for Kerry. Obama isn't too bright if he's making this his main focus.

Is fire really hot?

In a developing story John McCain says the invasion was a strategic mistake which is completely different from a strategic blunder.

They're being too kind.

This will be a mistake for the democrats to embark on since almost all the active democrats in congress at the time voted for it.

What they really need to do is what they cannot do, and that's bring light to the fact that the whole country was mis-led by lies and corporate opportunism. They cannot do this either, for the same reason.

The strategic blunder was when the GOP chose G.W. Bush to bear its standard.

Now it's back to the wilderness for another 30 years!

blunder-a gross, stupid, or careless mistake

clearly blunder is a better description.

criminal act-subject to national and international law even better

"Now it's back to the wilderness for another 30 years!"

Posted by silver_ironist

Do you think the democrats will control congress for that long?

"the decision to go to war with Iraq"

The US did not go to war with Iraq.

The US invaded Iraq ostensibly to ferret out and destroy the forces of terrorism.

That the US blundered badly not during the initial incursion, but during the occupation is a given.

But, depending on whose game plan for the future of the US you are following (for example, PNAC), strategically, occupation and control of Iraqi energy resources as one of a set of goals to attain in order to maintain and increase US leadership and control worldwide was a sound move, just handled very, very poorly.

many cowardly Democrats did vote for this "criminal act"

Many in congress voted to authorize force, not necessarily so that force would be used, but as a tool for leverage against what they perceived as a stubborn Saddam Hussein. Their intent was not for war. Their intent was to force Saddam to be more forthcoming about discloser.

The republican talking points on this are becoming quite tiresome. Only the president may ORDER mobilization of the military. There for, this war is the presidents folly.

Actually, blunder may not the right word. It was only a blunder if you assume Bushco has the best interests of the USA as a whole in mind. If they were just trying to make more money for their friends in the defense and contracting industries - the recipients of no-bid contacts - without regards to who got hurt in the process then their actions were appropriate.

Their failure to properly research and plan before the war proves to me that they didn't care about the lives of our servicemen at all. So it isn't so much of stretch for me to believe their intent all along was the transfer of wealth. Five years ago there is no way I could have believed such a thing.

"the decision to go to war with Iraq"
The US did not go to war with Iraq.
The US invaded Iraq ostensibly to ferret out and destroy the forces of terrorism.

What utter sanctimonious bull.

Saddam Hussein was the sovereign ruler of Iraq. The strategic move was stated as removing him from power, and accomplished by going to war with Iraq.

Planting a democracy with a strong military able to defend itself in the very middle of the armpit of the world is worth it.

"Planting a democracy with a strong military able to defend itself in the very middle of the armpit of the world is worth it"

Why? What does the average American get?

And why were given other reasons for going in if "planting demcoracy" (whatever the fuck that means) is worth it?

Planting a democracy

What if they use their democracy to install a regime hostile to our ideals and need.

Woops?

We had a perfectly good reason to attack Iraq which was just as justified as our entry into WWII against Germany.

Iraq (Sadaam) was waging war against one of our allies (Israel) in that he was overtly paying rewards to families of suicide bombers to encourage more of them to attack and kill our allies.

What Sadaam was doing openly was an act of war.

"But, depending on whose game plan for the future of the US you are following (for example, PNAC), strategically, occupation and control of Iraqi energy resources as one of a set of goals to attain in order to maintain and increase US leadership and control worldwide was a sound move, just handled very, very poorly."

It was handled badly but it was also a foolish idea in the first place as we can see by the Iraqi Parliament's reluctance to privatize the oil and grand PSAs to American oil companies. EVen if we had handled the invasion/occupation better we still would have faced nationalistic reluctance on the part of whoever was "elected" in Iraq to give away the financial future of Iraq. PNAC assumed Iraqis were ignorant third world peasants who would not fight back against occupiers determined to help themselves to Iraq's oil. The Neocons were, unfortunately, not well educated about Iraq and the various people who lived there. They operated on assumptions that many who knew the region much better tried to tell them were ridiculous.

"But, depending on whose game plan for the future of the US you are following (for example, PNAC), strategically, occupation and control of Iraqi energy resources as one of a set of goals to attain in order to maintain and increase US leadership and control worldwide was a sound move, just handled very, very poorly."

It was handled badly but it was also a foolish idea in the first place as we can see by the Iraqi Parliament's reluctance to privatize the oil and grand PSAs to American oil companies. EVen if we had handled the invasion/occupation better we still would have faced nationalistic reluctance on the part of whoever was "elected" in Iraq to give away the financial future of Iraq. PNAC assumed Iraqis were ignorant third world peasants who would not fight back against occupiers determined to help themselves to Iraq's oil. The Neocons were, unfortunately, not well educated about Iraq and the various people who lived there. They operated on assumptions that many who knew the region much better tried to tell them were ridiculous.

And, how is that going to change the US or the world. We are there, deal with it.

I wonder how this sits with the 40 + Democratic Senators who voted for this war! Just curious! Seems to have taken them a VERY long time to come up with this little piece of tripe!

When the Democratic party has access to the intelligence reports that the President AND members of the Intelligence committees saw, including Mrs Pelosi and Mr Reid, this probably would not happen. It's amazing what you can say and do, especially when the bull shit you're saying CAN NOT BE RESPONDED TO, because it involves ONGOING security issues!

Just like the New York Times printing whatever they feel like, the Democratic party has started down the same path. There are things we should know, and things we should NEVER know! Which one of us is to decide?

"We are there, deal with it."

I totally agree, we are there, we need to leave.
That is dealing with it.
But it still needs to be remembered as the strategic blunder that it was. Those who supported it need to finally accept the fact that they were sucked in by lies, distortion, misrepresentations and that over 4000 soldiers are now dead that shouldn't be and that we will end up owing several trillion dollars because of these lunatics.

"There are things we should know, and things we should NEVER know!"

Oh, we should NEVER know the reason that we went to war. Need I say baaaaaaah!! good sheep.

bush was authorized to confront the ongoing threat posed by Iraq

Iraq was no threat, proved and proven

Bush had no authority to invade Iraq.

War is illegal.

"What if they use their democracy to install a regime hostile to our ideals and need."

Given that Iraqis don't like us, this seems alot more likely to happen than anything else. When did the GOP become such a bunch of naive little Polly Annas?

"Iraq (Sadaam) was waging war against one of our allies (Israel) in that he was overtly paying rewards to families of suicide bombers to encourage more of them to attack and kill our allies."

That isn't the reason we were given. That you would retroactively apply a new reason in order to cover for people who lied us into a war kind of makes you a traitor - or at least more loyal to them than you are to the country.

"We are there, deal with it."

Something tells me you'll be crying bloody murder when someone has to raise taxes in order to pay for this mess. All the Bushies love this idiotic war but God forbid you suggest they pay for it.

I raped her. Deal with it and move on.

I murdered him. Deal with it and move on.

We had a perfectly good reason to attack Iraq which was just as justified as our entry into WWII against Germany.

Iraq (Sadaam) was waging war against one of our allies (Israel) in that he was overtly paying rewards to families of suicide bombers to encourage more of them to attack and kill our allies.

What Sadaam was doing openly was an act of war.

Posted by FreddyK

I agree.

So are you going to draft the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saudi Arabia?

"I raped her. Deal with it and move on."

Posted by Bill Clinton

he did? where is the police report? where is the indictment? where is the conviction?

Planting a democracy with a strong military able to defend itself in the very middle of the armpit of the world is worth it.

Posted by fwthom at 2008-08-04 12:58 PM |

Translation: i'm an asswipe that can't think for myself and i repeat right wing talking points even if a 5 y.o. can punch holes through my logic without breaking a sweat or skipping milk and cookies.

"So are you going to draft the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saudi Arabia?"

Posted by truthhurts
If they were proven to be doing the same thing, yes.

"he did? where is the police report? where is the indictment? where is the conviction?"

Posted by truthhurts

I'll take a positive lie detector test versus Bill's word.

Planting a democracy ....

Posted by fwthom

the seed of the democracy tree was placed in the fertile region between the tigris and euphrates, watered with the tears of millions, fertilized by the lies and bullshit of neo-cons and sunned by the glow of firebombs and IED's.

Bush-see even his name is Green

: The National Enquirer reports that Juanita Broaddrick has failed a lie detector test: Lie Detector Reveals ... Clinton Rape Charge is A LIE!

Meanwhile, however, the Saudis and the Gulf states funneled hundreds of millions of petrodollars some raised in government-sponsored telethons to reward Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas and Palestinian Jihad suicide bombers and fuel the anti-Israel Jihad. Indeed, Saudi Arabia remains a source of recruits and finances for...Levant-based militants,-- said National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on February 5, 2008.

The National Enquirer reports that a man from mars ate all of the green cheese on the moon

posted by truthhurts

"Rewarding Suicide Bombers......."
Posted by truthhurts

IMHO, we should not allow tha to happen. We should put political pressure on them to stop it and then go to what ever level works.

Hey Pancho,

We kicked your ass at San Jacinto in about 18 minutes. If you sneak across the border or swim the Rio Grande, I'll give you a job cutting my grass.

IMHO, we should not allow tha to happen. We should put political pressure on them to stop it and then go to what ever level works

your grasp of detail is daunting.

you seem to be under the impression Saudi Arabia gives a flying fuck about what we want.

they have kicked our soldiers out, they have said FU to increasing production, we got rid of SH for them.

Same answer: IMHO we should not let that happen.

As far as Israel and Big Oil is concerned, we have a fabulous outcome.

Israel, because it cost them nothing, not because they are more secure.

we don't really need to say how big oil is doing do we.

All this is part of Cheney's plan, including chaos and the dollar devaluation. He was divested of dollars before anybody.

"Israel, because it cost them nothing, not because they are more secure."

How do you figure? Saddam didn't do shit to help Palestinians except pay a few families after the fact when their kids becamse "martyrs". Other than that, Saddam did nothing to support the Palestinians or "jihad" in general. There is no reason to believe the new Iraqi government won't be more radical. Religious parties seem to be doing very well.

An early post really says it all. Not blunder, but major felony.

Nobody buys "terrorism" any more. Saddam was no nice guy, but he did nothing to US.

The Mideast conquest was undertaken for oil, and to score billions for Cheney's companies at the mere cost of trillions of dollars and countless thousands of lives wasted. You can expect "mY" party to soft-pedal that - er - FACT. herm

"Saddam was no nice guy, but he did nothing to US."
Posted by herm

Neither did Hitler but we attacked him and bombed his country and killed thouands (close to a million) civilians.

FDR was a murderer!!!!!!!

Blah Blah Blah!

"Neither did Hitler but we attacked him and bombed his country and killed thouands (close to a million) civilians.

FDR was a murderer!!!!!!!

Blah Blah Blah!"

How fucking stupid does one have to be to compare Saddam to Hitler?

"How fucking stupid does one have to be to compare Saddam to Hitler?"

Posted by Sully

It's easier than comparing you to an intelligent person.

"Saddam was no nice guy, but he did nothing to US."

I heard that he threatened to stop accepting dollars in payment for oil and wanted Euros instead.
That is very naughty.

"Saddam was no nice guy, but he did nothing to US."
Posted by herm

Neither did Hitler but we attacked him....

FDR was a murderer!!!!!!!

Blah Blah Blah!

Posted by FreddyK

Has FreddyK read an accurate history book about WWII?

**** Presumptive nomine?
/funny
Posted by shirtsbyeric ******

......your spelling is worse than a third graders.....

....did you manage to get into any high school ?...cause I can't see you graduating from one.....

***** This will be a mistake for the democrats to embark on since almost all the active democrats in congress at the time voted for it.

What they really need to do is what they cannot do, and that's bring light to the fact that the whole country was mis-led by lies and corporate opportunism. They cannot do this either, for the same reason.

Posted by Lipzoidial *******

.....Obama had the good sense to vote against it....

.....just one more reason he deserves to be President......

DEMS -- Caution!!! Do not use the word "Blunder".

You might want to tell the emperor that he has no clothes, but you do so at your own peril. And in this case, the "emperor" is the blue-collar voters who trusted that the president was honestly doing what was best when we went into Iraq.

The best way to apporach Iraq is not to call the supporters of the invasion as supporters of a "blunder". Just paint the Bush administration as disingenuous and uncurious, and it's actions to disengage from the hunt for Bin Laden as over-reaching and ill-times. The average blue collar voter who will connect the dots will in their own mind associate that inference with blunderous decisionmaking. But that will be their own call. Being more overt in criticism would only aggravate the average Joe and Jane six-pack.

typo -- "over-reaching and ill-timed"

Another Democratic Softball Critique:Shows clearly again how the Democrats offer no real opposition (let alone justice) to the Bush Fascists!

A "Blunder" is simply a careless mistake! The Iraq War conversely was a massive and murderous "Catastrophe" that was well thought out and calculated,by the criminal conspirators of the Bush Govt.,in their successful attempt to defraud the American taxpayers by using their taxes and their tax funded US Military to steal Iraq's oil wealth!
The Democrats are not going to right this evil wrong because they're an integral part of it!

"It's easier than comparing you to an intelligent person."

Probably because you don't know any.

"Probably because you don't know any."

Posted by Sully

And that's all you got?

My point again is that Sadaam was a bad dude and I'm glad he's gone and the relatives of the tens of thousands that he murdered are glad too.

You can have an annual vigil for him if you want!