Hello Joan:

Why? Across all departments and choices/selections

I felt the content to be very RELEVANT.

I cant do a proper analysis now. (Unfair), but I

will catch up, in referring to the 04 12 08 edition

as a great issue. Maybe Salon's greatest strength

is that it continuously Evolves. More!

Great work. Thank you. ARGONNE

Groenhagen: " think Bush deserves the bulk of the credit for removing a murderous dictator and state sponsor of terrorism from power."

That's a joke. You conveniently ignore who PUT him in power. You also conveniently ignore the failure of the occupation planning, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the manipulation of the media, the lies to the public, the corrupt process of contract rigging, etc.

So Hussein isn't in power anymore. Big whoop. He was a relative small-timer anyway. He was just playing shell games to hold on to his local power. It's not like he'd ever go near Kuwait again. It's equally doubtful he would touch Israel. What was the U.S.'s benefit in removing him? What was gained? The occupation of Iraq wasn't a humanitarian mission.

You really don't have answers, do you? Just a blind belief.

Groenhagen: "Let's see, when Clinton became president in 1993, there were, according to the State Department, seven state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan). Those same seven nations were still on the list in 2001. Since 2001, three of those nations have been removed from the list."

Wait -- since when is any of this a pissing match between Clinton and Bush? The jist of this article is that Bush blew it, not that Clinton was better. You've created a pretty narrow method of finding a way to give Bush an advantage, but so what? Is North Korea really under control? Um, no. How about Iran? Syria? Hardly. Sudan? Nope. Cuba? Still pallin' around with Russia...

Libya = granted. Wow, we got Libya! Gold star!

The president is indeed delusional. He said many times, in many different fora, that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do even without the WMD, and he never regretted do so (until now, anyway, when his legacy is catching up with him).

As important, several years ago Foreign Policy journal researched the public statements made by senior administration officials and its senatorial supporters (ie, McCain, Lieberman, etc) during the spring, summer, and early fall of 2002. This study found that these people had given 21(!!!!) separate justifications for going to war, many of which had nothing to do with terrorism or WMD. For example, spreading democracy, enduing the rule of a despot, stabilizing the region, and protecting Israel were among them. Which reasons were given depended on the audience to which they were given. But then and later, Bush and his people frequently said that the absence of WMD didn't matter, that getting rid of Saddam was worth the war.

Only several days before the 2004 election two more justifications arose. Bush said (in Statesboro, Ga) that keeping Iraqi oil from terrorists validated the war. And Dick Cheney said that simply showing the terrorists after 9/11 that the US could strike back was important for our national credibility.

Only three times since 2002 has the Iraq war met with the approval of over 50% of the population, and approval for the war never rose above 60%. If a democracy is going to prosecute a war of choice, then public should be much higher than 40-50% (or even 70%) and the reasons for going to war should be few (ie, two, possibly three), clear to all, and consistent over time. This was never the case with the war in Iraq.

"As for Joan Walsh's column, if you can find something dishonest in it, please be sure to give an actual reason instead of the diversionary tactics you've used thus far. You might start by explaining how Bush's actions were right and warranted, especially in light of the revelations that his administration forged documents, cherry-picked evidence, and ignored anything that didn't fit with their WMD cover story." -- Xrandadu Hutman

I provided sources that show Horseface lied. And now, he you add additional lies. The case against Iraq was not based on forged documents.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

"Cherry-picked" evidence? As I showed above, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards admitted that the evidence was consistent from Clinton to Bush. Therefore, are you saying that Clinton also cherry-picked the evidence? If so, I assume that you disagree with Horseface's contention that Hillary was an excellent choice for SoS.

By claiming that support for the war never went above 60%.

A Pew/CFR poll had support at 62% in October 2002.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051

In any case, presidents do not decide to go to war based on polls. As similar percentage (61%) of Americans supported Clinton's illegal war of choice on Kosovo. Should he have called it off since he did not have, say, 80% support?

One is "Do you agree with the decision to go to war?". I'd ask that you really be honest with yourself about what the real thoughts at the time were regarding Iraqi WMD. As I recall, everyone was extremely concerned about the possibility of war BECAUSE of the threat of chemical and bio weapons. But, aside from that even, read this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/20/sbm.bosnia.holbrooke/index.html And when they talk about these people, replace them with Iraqi's and Kurds in your mind.

Now, that then brings up the second point "Did we bungle this operation in a criminally negligent way?" I'd say yes, and Rumsfeld should pay dearly for this. He was the one who spearheaded the tactical direction of the war.

I think it's very fair to argue that we screwed this war up in ways that we'll be paying for for a long time. And I think our poor execution has done more to negatively impact our overall objectives in going to war. However, should we have gone in to begin with?

I think yes.

Nice job, Joan -- it's good to look back at times even as most of us are rather desperately looking forward.

Bush seems to think that history will vindicate him. I won't be around to see that, I'm sure. I'm also sure that in the short-term future, at least, his presidency will keep looking worse. Never in my 60+ year memory has one president left the next with such a horrible mess, and the details keep coming out.

Examples abound, and are well documented. The Iraq war was probably the worst, with his reckless debt-financed economic policies a close second. But fundamentally it was all about him: wilfully ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous -- the list goes on. He is fundamentally incompetent and it was a punishment of us all that he ever achieved the presidency in the first place.

Personally, after 1/20/09 I'd be glad never to hear from him or of him for the rest of my life.