[driftless]

I've got nothing against anyone opposing whatever policy decision that any admininistration makes, but it must do so honestly. The people in the Bush admin who engineered the war never said it would be easy. In fact they said the opposite. Why de Borchgrave would lie about that and make up other dishonest statements is beyond me because I have respected much of his past work. Now you can advance an argument that we should have continued the past containment policy towards Hussein. That's not my position (even when I was a Dem twelve years ago after the first gulf war, I knew Hussein would be a menace to us and the Mideast unless he was deposed. Even the Clinton admin figured that one out). But I can respect an honest difference of opinion .

But one should recognize our obvious achievements in Iraq instead of trying to justify one's mostly erroneous past position. I thought Clinton's campaign against Milosovic would fail miserably, but it succeeded. It turned out no one in Yugoslavia was sorry to see him go. I was wrong, and I hope people like de Borchgrave can admit it when they're wrong, but I doubt they or he will. He has too much pride and appears to be too bulllheaded and egotistical.

[churchillbuff]

"So the leitmotif for Operation Iraqi Freedom was not WMDs, but the freedom of Iraq in the larger context of long-range security for Israel. Mr. Bush is right to change the rationale for war to isn't-the-world-a-better-place-without-Saddam? Of course it is. Was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. homeland? Of course it wasn't. But hasn't the U.S. occupation of Iraq provided a force multiplier for al Qaeda? Of course it has. And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq. "