From a colleague covering the conflict in Israel: “Almost everyone I talk to here is now saying the Iraq war has presented one of the most significant threats to Israel in its history.” Namely because it has so empowered Iran, and reduced US ability to deal with Iran now.

This is a self-refuting and delusional comment.
Hezbollah in Lebanon, aided by Iran, we now know was planning the attacks on Israel *since 2000*.
Iran has been trying to build nuclear weapons *for a decade*.
There was little to nothing done in the Clinton administration or prior to 9/11 to stop this.

The one thing that HAS helped was the breaking up the AQ Khan nuclear arms trade network in 2003, after the Iraq war. The Iraq invasion showed Libya's Gadafi we were serious enough about terrorist-sponsors and WMD pursuers that he 'came clean'... subsequently we found more about the rogue nations like Iran and RPNK that was benefitting from this network.

What makes the above comment so absurd? Apparently we are led to believe that letting a terrorist-sponsoring regime off the hook wrt suspected WMDs, ie, letting UN inspectors go through the motions, while Saddam denies WMDs but evinces a 'strategic ambiguity' about having them, everyone in the region and his own generals believe he *does* have them ... and we would then turn around and demand same from Iran? And we are to expect Iran would comply - at all?

It's folly. The only way to have stopped Iran from developing nukes is - war, regime change a la an "Operaion Ajax" support of democrat coup plotters. Diplomacy has failed, would have failed anyway, and would in ANY scenario fail, because Iran is immune from diplomatic pressure - they want a conflict and/or nukes badly enough that they will not negotiate them away. All the talk is just a delaying tactic.

Iraq gets in the picture only so far as Iraq is now a proxy battlefield for Iran against the US. Iraq's democracy poses a fundamental threat to Iran's regime should it show success, so Iran has a vested interest in destabilizing Iraq and keeping it violence. Hence the clear evidence of Iranian meddling and support of violent militias.

Just last week, 20 Al Qaeda terrorists were caught by Iraqi security forces; today, more Al Qaeda terrorists caught and killed: "Iraqi insurgents have killed eight civilians and a police captain in attacks around the country, as a joint Iraqi-US security operation arrested dozens of alleged Al-Qaeda suspects in Baghdad."

General Casey:
"Since January, we have seen an upsurge in their [Iran's] support, particularly to the Shia' extremist groups," he said. "Their Quds force, their covert special operations forces, are the ones that are directing this. Now, you would assume that they're not doing that independently, that there is some central direction from somebody in Tehran."

Sunni v Shia violence in Iraq is not the real story; the real story is that Al Qaeda, Iran and other malefactors have spent the last three years trying to *make* civil violence the story, in the process callously killing Iraqi policemen, foreign aid workers, civilian reconstruction workers, schoolchildren, professors, etc. Just about any form of civilization that is being built up, they attacked ; they particularly attacked Shia targets, like the Al Qaeda attack on Samarra's Golden Dome mosque in February (done by a Tunisian terrorist); hundreds of attacks on Shia by the Al Qaeda terrorist insurgents to the first attacks on Shia mosques - in August 2003 - determined to create divisions in Iraq. Yet for years most of the Shia leaders (like Sistani) have counseled peace. The notable exception is Iran-backed kook Mookia al-Sadr, who killed not only US forces, but now are engaged in the killing of other Iraqis. al-Sadr is getting funding and aid from Iran, and this war is a proxy war by Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda against us, conspiring with Baathist insurgents and paying criminals to create the violence.

The Sunni/Shia distinction, as noted by others, was known by Bush; it was in the calculations of CPA when they put together the initial governing council (and our assumptions of making such divisions between Sunni and Shia offended some Iraqis who felt their should not be such parochial quotas). So, when faced with evidence this claim is nonsense, anti-Bush liberals fall back on another lie, that Bush & Co. somehow "should have known" there was ethnic/religious tension between the groups. Only problem with this: It's also untrue. Ordinary Iraqis will tell you there was no such divide. Shia and Sunni lived side by side, families intermarried, neighborhoods were mixed. the current frightening acts of militias and terrorists to target one group vs another is profoundly disorienting and new to many Iraqis.
The claim that Saddam was killing only kurd and shia would be news to the many Sunnis who lost family members to Saddam's killers.

The rise in sectarian violence is not a natural act, it is a result of deliberate provocations by the insurgents and terrorists attempting to stoke such violence - Zarqawi's letter to Al Qaeda that was intercepted back in 2005 laid out the plan, and explained how in many ways it was failing.

What changed this year? The ramp-up from the Shiite side was from Iranian backed Shiite militias. The Iranians want Iraq unstable so we lose the war, bug out (like the Democrats advise), and thereby leave Iran to its own (nuclear) devices and ambitions.

"Now when was that? When was Saddam persecuting Sunnis?" Erik, go to IraqTheModel and be educated a little. The terror regime that was Saddam's Iraq terrorized all Iraqis except for a select few. Many of the dissidents to that regime are Sunni. Bush-bashers create their own myths as a way of 'proving' the ignorance of Bush - astounding.
Alas, these myths are convenient for our enemies, for they mask the real troublemakers behind a facade of ethnic grouping. It's not "Sunni v Shia" in Iraq, it's a specific Shia milita (Mahdi army) and a terrorist insurgency (Al Qaeda, Baathists, and other 'Salafists') on the side of creating violence, and the vast majority of Iraqis with the Iraqi Government and coalition on the side of creating a stable democracy.

There's a line from Powell (?) about why Bush didn't push on to Baghdad in the First Gulf War.
It mentioned losing the support of allies, ending up holding the capital in a hostile country, facing a guerrilla war, etc.

It was extremely relevant to the Second Gulf War, but there's no sign that Bush was aware of that, either.

Blacks in Brazil? Since the Democratic operative that made that claim was found out to be a fraud, being roughly a 1,000 miles away when the comment was supposedly made, and was forced to make a public apology shouldn't stop anyone from using it as an example of how Bush is dumb.

Oh and Reagan was stupid too. He won the Cold War and pulled the U.S. economy out of a death spiral. I sure wish we were on the Carter plan and had 10% unemployment like France and Germany. I have to admit I questioned Reagan's intelligence when he was in office, but given the history, I could only stay with that conclusion if I didn't have any intellectual curiosity.

Just because Bush said this in a speech does not mean that he understood the difference between Shiites and Sunnis; it just means that he was very vaguely aware, at one point, that there was something called Sunnis and something called Shi'a. Indeed, if you look at the context of this statement, it's quite likely that a total ignoramus reading it would assume that Sunnnis and Shiites were an ethnic group like the Kurds and Turkomans.

It is inconceivable to many of us that this guy could become president of the united states, or that anyone could support him.

And yet he is, and people do. Which seems to call into question the value of your subsequent asserton:

I do not find it inconceivable that he didnt know about Sunnis and Shiites.

Why stop at Eisenhower? ;)

But as I noted, neither JFK nor LBJ was a rocket scientist. Clinton *was* smart, and look where it got him.

Of course, like most people who use expressions like "the anti war left," Merv has little clue what he's talking about. (Like, how could anyone possibly be against *war*, unless they were fruitcake Sheehan-worshipping lefties?)

Sorry ole boy, It looks like Anderson is making a play for your job, He seems to be explaining everything for you and grabbing the spotlight.