...yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

Many more innocent have died in Iraq than the guility.

Noticeable then and noticeable now is how the justification for the invasion of Iraq is somehow connected to the war on terror, but the explicit justification is never actually made. I bet they thought they were being smart when they did this: now they just look stupid.

Also the talk about 'freedom' is just so much empty horseshit. Tyrants don't fear freedom, they fear justice. And justice is for everyone, not just criminals. Justice is fair treatment, and fair treatment is exactly how we haven't been treating the Iraqis. Liberty is nothing without justice.

Reading all that made me suddenly feel nausaeous.

Guess why there's an Iraq war?

CHECK THE BOTTOM LINE of corporate welfare queens.

And sellouts Bush/Cheney. WAR without end is their fondest desire. It's all about the money and control of Middle east oil fields.

Shoveling taxpayers' $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

to Halliburton and other WAR PROFITEERS and assuring Big Oil's takeover of oil fields is

what Iraq war's about. And what Bush/Cheney's all about.

That's no "miscalculation", it is DELIBERATE.

Bush/Cheney? Motto: "we can get away with anything--because WE CAN! hahaha!". They don't have to get along or go along with anybody.

Chronic transfer of unlimited taxpayer dollars to the rich corporations is THE BOTTOM LINE for Bush/Cheney.

And later, the Bush/Cheney SELLOUTS will have a Rove publicity REMAKE to paint themselves as "heros".

I remember so clearly the image of W all dressed up in military gear. In Munich the following September we saw that picture, put up by a group of protesters, along with many photographs of destruction and human suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan--under the heading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

Those words should be haunting him; more important, should be haunting us, as an example of American hubris at its worst

David Horsey, Seattle P-I cartoonist, aptly sums up this sad anniversary:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1583

A friend of mine made this film, "Justice Accomplished" just in time for the four year anniversary. Pretty powerful, pretty crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrSssTL_c5c

IMPEACH BUSH!!

"Major combat operations have ended."

Yeah, George. We've stopped the big air strikes and assaults. Now we clean up and leave. Clean up what? Clean up the splattered body of innocents on both sides. Leave what? Leave our treasured soldiers exploded bodies behind in the sand. Leave our name, no...let's hope YOUR name in the halls of international shame for generations to come.

If there was/is any meaning to this damned war, we need to know what it is. You have lost respect from the world and have lost respect of the average citizen who simply doesn't walk blindly behind the direction of a leader.

Tell us, please tell us: When will loss of life for an unclear war end? What the hell are we doing there...I mean really doing there? We need to know. I need to know. I am sick over this.

CODPIECE

Not that there is any thing wrong with that .

Codpiece Presidency

Where is your mind ?

CODPIECE

Not that there is anything wrong with that .

When in doubt

Go for the piece

Not that there is anything in that .

Pathetically sad. Why are we still in Iraq? Why hasn't Bush43 been impeached for waging an aggressive war based on known-false intel yet?

You remember Harry Reid; he's the majority leader in the United States Senate who, a couple of days ago, said, "the military mission in Iraq has been accomplished."

It was one of the more sensible things that Harry Reid has said. But even at that, the President was more accurate. It is truer, and more accurate, to have said that "Major combat operations have ended." The military mission continues. However, the mission of the USS Abraham Lincoln, representing a carrier group of thousands of military personnel, and many more thouseands of similarly-situated combat personnel in other branches, was "accomplished", with stunning effectiveness, four years ago. As Paul Bremer said at the time, never in the history of human affiars had so many people been liberated from a totalitarian state with such speed and with less loss of life than in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Good evening, my fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world the war in Vietnam.

I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.

Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.

How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

How has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration?

What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battle-front in Vietnam?

What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

What are the prospects for peace?

Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20.

-The war had been going on for 4 years.

-31,000 Americans had been killed in action.

-The training program for the South Vietnamese was behind schedule.

-540,000 Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number.

-No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.

-The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad.

In view of these circumstances there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.

From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson's war to become Nixon's war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.

Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war.

The great question is: How can we win America's peace?

Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue. Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place?

Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.

Now, many believe that President Johnson's decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. Any many others I among them have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.

But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?

In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.

For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before.

-They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.

-We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.

-With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.

For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but through-out the world.

Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.

In 1963, President Kennedy, with his characteristic eloquence and clarity, said: "... we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence. (See Part II next)