"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war." -- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

Not having a capacity to wage effective war is not the same thing as not being on a war path. Capacity can be developed, especially if one has unlimited oil revenue (that Hussein would have had once the sanctions were lifted). As every other illiterate, Rachael Maddow, promotes the argument that the war was bad compared to status quo. But history never stands still. There is never a status quo. There is only a choice of possible futures. And anyone suggesting that they know what would have happened in the alternative is either a fool or a liar.

Because she is on TV, many assume that she must be given the benefit of the doubt and she must be assumed to be a liar. Having heard her speak though, I would disagree with all such assumptions. The shallowness of her analysis is so stark that she must be deemed a fool.

Thank you for disagreeing with me. I couldn't ask for a better critic to prove my point.

I saw a post last week by someone saying they wouldn't think that Putin was going overboard until Putin decided to invade the moon. Obviously the guy was trolling for Russia... little did he know.

I'll keep my own judgement and you can keep yours.

That's part of the faculty of judgement. If you accept that one cannot make a judgement, then you volunteer insanity.

Hate? I don't hate anyone. I hate what some people do. But hating strangers? Not my thing. And people who are leftist do often turn around and become decent human beings. I was a leftist myself when I was far less experience, less educated and more reactionary. Now that my faculties are more developed, I can discern rationally who's who. But that doesn't mean that certain postures that people take don't deserve denigration and derision. When the insane have taken the asylum, it's not a very good time to try to analyze them. First, they need to be stripped of power.

I was talking about the war. The monetary cost of the war was a side issue brought by someone else and I simply responded to it. Anyone who thinks the war was a mistake doesn't get to brush it off as "everyone thinks it was a mistake". Just Bush gets to own that policy, you get to own your position. You have to have a damn good reason to justify status quo as it before the war. Oh, and the original comment to which I responded called it a war crime to even start that war (not a mistake -- a crime). I would love to see anyone try to defend that position.

Not in Hawaii. no. But he was allied with Al Queda. He may have had nothing to do with attack on 9/11, but his allies did. Just like the allies of Germany attacked us. And Saddam Hussein was in a legal state of war with the United States, so the "Germany had declared war" comparison still holds.

Saddam Hussein had declared war on the United States. He even tried to assassinate a US President. Oh, and if "declared war" is a justification for invasion, does that mean that Hitler was justified in invading France? France did issue a formal declaration of war a year before Hitler's invasion. The truth is that our war on Iraq was just as if not more justified than our war on Germany. He was allied with our enemies, he took steps to harm us and our allies. He wasn't successful as much as we thought he was, but he was on a war path against us. And had he not been removed, no one knows where we would be today.

That's a lie. Plain a simple. The TARP was passed under Bush. The stimulus was passed in the 2nd month of the Obama administration. It was passed by Criminal Democrats in House and Senate and signed by the Criminal Democratic President. This theft was entirely guilt of the Criminal Democratic Party.

Different topic. A war gone badly is a mistake -- not a crime. But you simply don't know what the alternative would have been. Saddam was taking shots at US fighter planes all throughout the Clinton administration. You simply don't know that keeping him in power would not have proven more costly (in terms of lives) than what has happened. The was didn't turn a good situation into a bad one. It turned a bad situation into a different bad situation. But before calling it a mistake you'd have to show that the alternative would have been better.

Your ability to read my from internet comments is unsurprisingly bad. But I don't blame you for it. Mood is hard to read from text for everyone -- not just you. The war went badly, sure. Rumsfeld should have been fired much sooner. But it wasn't costly considering what it did. And it certainly was not a crime considering what it attempted and what it accomplished.

4.3 trillion. And he had to fight a war and deal with post-dot-com crash of the economy. And that 4.3 trillion included the 700+ billion of the bank bail out that both Obama and Hillary voted for (as senators).

Are you really taking everyone to be an idiot? Does this idiotic, factually wrong, argument ever work on anyone? Here, idiot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... This was a spending act over and above the budget. It was passed under Obama in his 2nd month in office. It was entirely financed through deficit. It was 831 billion dollars. That alone is twice the largest deficit that Bush had ever ran (400 billion dollars).

who is this "we"? You and the other leftists in your remedial reading class? Leftist dumb ass... oh, but I repeat myself.. don't worry it's for your benefit. You know... so that an idiot like you might have a chance at understanding.

No, actually the Iraq war was very economical in monetary terms. The entire cost of the war FOR ALL THE YEARS is less than the "stimulus" that Democrats stole under Obama in the 1st year of Obama administration.