I second Chris's statement - that as a whole, all of Congress was involved in the first decision to begin military operations in Iraq. They did have the intelligence reports. I want to emphasize that as a nation of people we share culpability here, too. We accepted lies, we accepted media spin, and we aren't doing enough to change the course of the nation. I am part of that - and it's weighed heavy. I marched in January 07 in DC for peace (right when the surge began), as an exercise to show that I acknowledge my past ignorance and apathy on the issues. Because we are democracy, not all the blame here can go on the government.

Chris, Anna, you have a point that the Democrats had a hand in getting us into Iraq. Heck, who didn't believe Colin Powell when he testified in front of the UN about the portable chemical weapons factories? We were duped and Congress as a whole, the media, and the American people failed to question the motives of the war.

Personally I don't think the majority of the executive breaches are Bush's fault. Dick Cheney has been behind the most egregious abuses of priviledge, and he's been the driving force towards war with Iran. The office of the President and Vice President have broken the law and that is a fact. Congress did not authorize torture and the country does not condone it. We never asked for a permanent presence in Iraq and if we knew that was part of the deal, much fewer people would have gone along with the invasion.

The President ultimately controls the military, not the people. So you can't put this on Senators or citizens.

If you put it to a popular vote today, I guarantee that both Iraqis and Americans would choose to end the occupation immediately.

Am I the only one who is going to question the validity of the source material, which is based on a vague reference to a "leak" to the independent?

I'm just sayin'...

...by golly, i just wrote a post on how investing in research and development of energy and climate would be better than billions spent getting to volatile sources of oil. I mean shit, Canada has tons of oil and we won't even try to kill you if you come and ask for it.

Andrea's post isn't necessarily about the article in the Independent, that just sparked her idea for the post. She's questioning government spending (your dollar), motives for war, and the fact that it just goes on and on and won't end because of nonchalant skeptics of 'liberals' like some of the commenters above. I think in some sort of sick way many people just like to think their country is out their kicking someone ass - just like in some sort of sick way millions of people thought, "score one for the 3rd World" on 9/11.

What if someone from out of your neighborhood started a 5 year - then never ending - war on your household? And for illegal kitchen appliances you never had in the first place...

Milena, I did mean tax dollars for R&D vs. war. I just think it's better spent away from the most volatile region in the world. And true, there is a lot of backing of energy R&D, privately.

Also, I meant no ACTUAL offence - especially to you or Michael. I just shudder to think that there ARE people who will come to back this war (and keep it going while starting another); and those people are the young leaders and decision makers of tomorrow.

I'm way out of my element here, discussing US politics of any sort.

**shivers in cold sweat.

I love have the majority of you have yet to comment on that actual point of this post. Does it go against what we stand for as a nation to negotiate and complete agreements that go overwhelmingly against what citizens of both nations want? Politicians are elected to serve their constituents or are you sharing Cheney's "so?" response to Americans being against staying in Iriaq and his assertion citizens only get a say once every four years?

Michael: so the GOP would have to say the administration had done wrong for you to find the accusation plausible? I've read a number of breakdowns of laws in regards to wire tapping immunity and the Yoos' torture memo to be be pretty comfortable with the notion of brazen law breaking by the Bush administration; that a left wing individual broke down the laws and court decisions that make WH actions wrong makes it irrelevant?

Milena:
If we're talking inefficient spending, we might want to take a look at the Department of Defense
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

In the 21st century, soft power is increasingly important to first world nations, our gov't seems to be a group of Michael Bay groupies that just want to blow sh*t up.

And the gov't should be investing in R&D for alternative energy; key patents that come about will be very lucrative and will boost gov't revenue, which could in turn pay for more research!

@zak - I'm not sure why you said no one has commented in relation to the point of the post - my last comment explicitly explained how I felt, but to paraphrase, "...now that we’re there, I think it would be equally irresponsible to leave..." I don't think the solution is simple. I agree it's a disaster, but I still don't think we can just up and leave.

Thanks for your link to the inefficient spending poster! That's great. It further proves the point I was making about tax spending. Here’s another good one: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/washington/09card.html

But I'm curious, if you think government war spending is inefficient, is there a compelling reason why would you think it would be successful for R&D in alternative energy versus giving constituents/businesses their money back? You are right about patents and lucrative revenues - but individuals and businesses are far more efficient w/ their money because they have accountability and repercussions if they screw up. As I'm sure you know, the government can either print money or take more from taxpayers if they screw up.

As for WMDs, I've always wondered - If Bush really made it all up, why didn't he seal the deal on the "ruse" he played on the nation and plant some himself? I'm sure it would have been easy to do, and would have avoided a lot of nasty spats over the last couple of years...personally, I think you're giving him too much credit!

Milena- Bush could have easily planted WMD's, but he didn't because he didn't care. It was only a pretext. The reason for staying in Iraq has changed every year. First it was WMD, then it was freeing them from Saddam, then it was not surrendering to Al Queda, then it was to prevent a civil war, and now it's to contain Iran.

Of course Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Bush senior sold them to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. But they were never concerned about WMD, dictators, or terrorists in the first place. It's all war profiteering. In THEORY, yes we went to liberate Iraq. Just like in THEORY the President makes the decisions. But the reality is something else entirely.

There's nothing vague about it. If you've been watching the news for the last 6 years, you clearly see that each time the Administration changes the rationale for war, the main stream media has picked up the trumpet, until only very recently. There are no pie charts or bar graphs that show this, so I'm sorry, but if you need a research paper to prove that the administration has changed its story at least 4 times already, then there's not much statistics can do to help you.

I don't care how many reasons a war criminal gives for an invasion, I'm going to call him out on it. And yes, WMD is not reason enough to go to war, in Iraq or anywhere else. I feel far more threatened by the thousands of nukes we have than by the one or two that Iran and Iraq might.

It seems like your argument is that you have a vague feeling that Bush is telling the truth, and that's far more naive than any "fantasies" I can come up with.

Well it would seem that there is enough debating going on here as it is. I would however like to point out a few key issues that were raised and not debated though.

The goals that have changed in Iraq are not due primarily to the republicans. If you look at the original goals laid out by the administration we have hit and achieved them. The reason for the changing goals is due to the democrats. Every time we achieved a goal they would say that "that" is the not the goal that was supposed to be achieved. When the dems got to do their General "BetrayUS" Petreus bashing, we got a close look at how the dems view achievement in Iraq, that is to say that they are completely invested in defeat to have something to run on in the inevitable upcoming election season against the republicans. The biggest goal change was from stability (as much as possible) to Iraqi government progress, when the "Surge" report came.

Tim, I am sorry but your "one nuke" theory grates me the wrong way. I always remember a quote from the movie The Sum of All Fears "Let's see, who else has 27,000 nukes for us to worry about? -It's the guy with one that I'm worried about." Countries with a ton of nukes are basically have a close eye kept on them, it is those who secretly work on the technology that we need to worry about, and it only takes one.

Tim, as far fetched as this may sound, one of my friends was part of the unit that made that mistake. Those were not Nukes but the detonators that control the nukes. These pieces could have caused any harm unless they were attached and programmed to go.

Basically any part of a nuke that is mistakenly mishandled will get a lot of attention because the military SHOULD BE very precise BUT to the rest of us it is like driving a phone battery across state lines without the phone itself, basically a useless piece without the rest of it (pale comparison but give me a break here i'm stretching for a military/civilian contrast!)

@Tim - I second the above comment - where is your evidence? You're replies are high on creativity, low on substance. No one asked for a pie chart, though it sure sounds cute.

If you are so sure the reasons changed each year, I'm equally sure you would have amassed some legitimate source from which you culled this information. Let's see it.

Furthermore - What is the evidence for "war profiteering"? Again, it sure sounds fancy, but where are these "profits?"

If you are going to spew invective, there has to be something backing it up. It's not that I even like Bush's policies, it's just that what I dislike more is unsubstantiated sensationalism.

Here's a pretty lengthy article on Iraq and war profiteering, as well as a lack of gov't oversight on contracts distributed
. . .
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE30Ak03.html

Testudo,
here are two years of bush lies documented
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Timeline/Default.aspx

Lots of leaders have ties to terrorism -- we're not invading every nation with ties to terrorism, just the ones that serve our interests. In fact, we gave Iraq their weapons in the late 1980s and early 1990, when it served our interest to do so. I guess friendship blinded us to Saddam's true nature back then because we kept selling him after he gassed Halabja and killed 5000+ people.

The Iraqi people are the only ones oppressed in the world ? Darfur is Dying; we're not jumping to their aid. Pick an Islamic Nation -- by our standard, pathetic though it is, given our nation's own sexism issues -- women are denied basic freedoms. The Tibetans are oppressed, maybe we should attack China too. Why should Iraqis be singled out for emancipation?

You're the naive one if you think anything other the self-interest got us involved in Iraq.

Andrea - I appreciate the links to showing where the profits are.

Halliburton being awarded a cost-plus contract is not a big deal. Every company has to make a profit, but that doesn't mean profiteering. If you are upset that there is a war period, I understand that. But given the war as a variable we cannot change in this equation, the profit "motive" is not "unethical" because the war is going on - someone has to provide for its operations, whether we like the impetus or not.

We're definitely wading into territory that would require a research report, to be honest. But at first perusal, your article on Halliburton and Custer Battles does highlight some interesting evidence, and certainly if fraud exists, it needs to be stopped.

One other thing I did notice is that your link to the current contractors doesn't list the above-referenced companies. Do you know why that is? I thought was interesting to note.

Again, thanks for the links and dialogue.

Yes, the audacity of wanting to keep a strong military presence near to Iran and the source of prospective Nuclear terror. Iran currently is shipping units of Hizbolla to fight in Iraq against the US in addition to their development of Nuclear arms (yes they do count as WMD's) and their diatribes about wiping Israel and the US off the map with them.
President Bush seems to be the only Western leader with the common sense to take at face value someone who says, 'hey lets make a bunch of big bombs and use them' ... kudos to the President for doing the tough thing just because its right.

I have no problem with our nation's military negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq. Everyone balks at anything we do over there because the media has beat the war to death to the extent that anything we do over there now is viewed as wrong now.

I am glad Bush and the executive branch have the courage to step up and do what needs to be done.

Also, in regards to the government funding RnD, why is this even entering the conversation in a market based society? Other than Defense RnD which is a special case (there is not much legitimate demand in the market for multi-million dollar fight jets besides from the government), I don't think the government should fund RnD. If ideas are feasible, businesses will fund them. Look at the ethanol mess we got ourselves in.

In the end, a smaller government is a better one but, Barack Obama and the Democrats don't see that. Who wants to manage a smaller government? I will take a market-based solution over a bureaucratic one any day.

Johnny, the Americans made Iran stronger because we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq both border Iran and have less than cordial relationships with the country.) Maybe we could find a reason to attack Syria next . . . that would blow the Middle East wide open for Iran?

Beth,
Dennis Kucinich entered 35 articles of impeachment against George Bush a few nights ago. It remains to be seen if the Democrats actually do something.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/breakingkucinich-introduces-articles...

Chris,
We can't pre-emptively attack every country that calls us names. We'd all be drafted.

For those of you who don't believe Iraq was about war profiteering, I recommend you read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, parts 5 & 6 deal directly with the idea of profiteering, (I haven't made it to part 7 yet).

It's a heavy, long read, but worth it.

Beth, Chris and others ..

I am not American but I am married to a wonderful New Yorker from the Bronx;
I believe in America's role in the world. I admire the constitution and America's take on democracy. I am English born and moved to Israel and I am a proud member of the Reserves in the IDF in an infantry unit as a combat medic.

I have seen the enemy up close and personal and they are not us. I have seen the aftereffects of war and its not pretty, I would always rather see a negotiated peace than one decided by force but sometimes we have no options other than the ones our enemies present us with.

Everything you said about power vacuums might be true or might not; perhaps the ultimate goal was Iran all along and an ultimately democratic Iraq will fill that void; however, isolationism and taking the easy path to conciliation never saved American citizens from Iranian terror.

The war on terror is unlike any other war ever waged; no two forces facing each other in chariots or tanks on a giant plain. This style of war is more fearsome, shadowy and pernicious in its nature for the absence of a clear enemy in a distinct uniform under one flag.

As to attacking Syria, they do not provide a counterbalance or obstacle to Iranian intentions; the air raid on Syrian nuclear weapons development facilities in the last year should indicate that clearly.

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Thankfully there are those who see this evil for what it is.

I guess I will just accept that there is no answer for my question and move on....

zak-not mad buddy, I think I know where I stand on your lists for response being your debating buddy for such issues at all times...it's all good, but I look forward to it