On an equally relevant note: There is no bacon in my freezer.

To repeat: There is no bacon in my freezer.

Worth repeating: there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

ROFLMAO!

You're a one-man riot, Tubino.

No evidence that we "could have caught him" in Afghanistan. Much more evidence that we "could have caught him" if Bill Clinton had simply accepted the offer to hand him over.

"b) terrorism has steadily increased every year since we’ve invaded Iraq,"

More BS. There are no comparable statistics between periods.

"c) the US is allies with dictators who boil people alive, and does nothing while hundreds of thousands die in Darfur,"

In fact, the Bush Administration is virtually the only Western country that has said or done anything at all about Darfur.

"e) [sic] Bush decides to talk all kinds of crap about Iran’s elections – ham-handedly influencing the Iranian voters to vote even more heavily for the hard-line Islamofascists we don’t want in power."

Bush told the truth about Iran's "election" - it was rigged. As is immediately obvious - most of all to the Iranians themselves.

Go back to sticking up for Castro and Chavez and Mugabe and whatever other dictators you lefties fawn over.

Right. So that's why a) Osama is still free, when we could have caught him in Afghanistan, but outsourced the job, b) terrorism has steadily increased every year since we've invaded Iraq, c) the US is allies with dictators who boil people alive, and does nothing while hundreds of thousands die in Darfur, e) Bush decides to talk all kinds of crap about Iran's elections - ham-handedly influencing the Iranian voters to vote *even more heavily* for the hard-line Islamofascists we *don't* want in power.

Oh, well. At least it cost 1700+ soldiers, 300 billion dollars, and the prestige and respect and integrity of our nation.

But, hey, you think it's worth fighting for. Are you in Iraq right now? If not, then why aren't you over there? Our troops are under-equipped and undermanned, while Halliburton 'loses' 8 BILLION dollars - why aren't you over there, fighting, helping 'em out?

Uh-huh. Especially if your idea of children playing is to hand them automatic weapons, and targets with the images of Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al.

The children are getting fed up with the deadly lies. And there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

Worth repeating: there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

IRAQ AND WMD....Responding to my post last night about Iraq and al-Qaeda, James Joyner asks a question: If Britain believed that Saddam Hussein's regime had no significant ties to al-Qaeda, why did Tony Blair support war against Iraq? Blair (and...

But watch for Halliburton's hostile takeover of the UK, after which things should pick up for the UK firms.

Maybe. The leaked memos do suggest that Blair thought Saddam was a threat. But they also make clear that there was precious little evidence, so you have to take Blair's concern with a grain of salt.

More likely Blair recognized that the US was going to go and was determined to secure an interest for the UK in the results. If that was his thinking he certainly got bamboozled; did the UK get any post-invasion contracts in Iraq?

Since 9-11, the number of terrorist incidents around the world has GREATLY increased. I believe it has tripled or quadrupled. The Bush administration's response was swift and bold: they stopped publishing the annual report, for the first time since publication began.

Implementation of genuine post-9-11 programs has been slow and spotty at best, and has resulted in little more than a boondoggle bureacracy at worst.

Previous republican administrations created the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Republican Congress prevented Clinton from fully destroying them.

Bush is turning Iraq into the new Afghanistan. But while Afghanistan had the cold-war rationale of training Islamic fundamentalists to oppose the Soviets, Iraq is simply a direct training ground for anti-US terrorists.

At least that's what a recent Pentagon spokesman said.

Besides, Saddam was a bad guy, and when you're the sidekick power anyway, it's easier to say "let's knock down all the bad guys! You go get 'em, Captain America!"

Presumably, however, the WMD was a necessary condition of the war. The DSM strongly suggests that, even if there were good evidence that this condition were unsatisfied, the war still would've gone on.

What the DSM's show is that the Bush administration was perfectly happy to lie to get folks on board with their actions. The DSM's show that you are a fool if you trust what the Bush Admin SAYS publicly.

Despite what the Bush Admin says publicly, it is spineless about confronting genocide (Darfur), it supports tyranny where politically expedient (need help with the list?), and has greatly worsened the situation in IRAQ by actively opposing democratic control of Iraq by Iraqis.

Read how and why here.