You claim that it’s too much for some people to wait 20 years to see if invading Iraq was a good idea or not. You are so right. It is way too much.

I don’t believe in gambling with other people’s lives for a potential benefit that may come in 20 years, and more importantly, there are ways to accurately predict outcomes that diminish the openness of the question. Both you and the author believe that relieving Iraqis from “the boot” is the right thing to do.
I submit that both of you, and a great number of other people as well, are seriously deluded. Im sorry if that is vituperative, but I have to call a spade a spade. This is no tea party, and you should face reality:

(1) Your premise is based on the concept that democracy and liberty can and will flourish in Iraq. Here is the truth: elections are good. Iran has elections. The only way your vision can be made real is have an Iraqi government that develops, in short order, a value on human rights, the rule of law, and minority rights. I submit that the evidence, repeat evidence, is manifestly contrary to your wishes and desires:
(a) We are seeing a serious and rising level of extra-judicial killings and kidnappings by the Iraqi government against Sunnis. The stories and accounts abound, and they are increasing. Review the news on this. This is only the beginning. One must ask: how is the new Iraqi government going to curtail the insurgency? We will not leave until they are “capable” of doing so. That capability is clearly coming into being, and it is manifested as the replacement of one boot for another. The Iraqi government, through their emerging police and military powers, are going to raid Sunni neighborhoods, case a wide net, imprison a bunch at Abu Ghraib, and make the frat boy antics of what happened there under our control look like Disney land. The insurgency will increase, and the cycle will gather its own life. The rule of law and human rights will likely not flourish in Iraq – just the opposite. That is the evidence today, and when you talk about waiting 20 years. . . man, I want to cry, laugh, and slap you into reality all at once. Moreover, consider southern Iraq. I inquire: how does the transformation of southern Iraq from an oppressed region under Sadaam to an Iranian Islamist client state equate with freedom and liberty? Explain if you can.

(b) The other likely alternative is all out civil war. Dont deny it, please, I beg you. Just yesterday, one of the main US military leaders stated clearly that the insurgency is gaining steam, they are treading water, and that more replace every insurgent that is captured or killed. That assessment comes from the US military. Iraq may develop a nice little regime that has tools to stamp out the insurgents (see above), but will they be successful? The evidence does not look good.

(c) And what about the training ground Iraq is becoming for Islamic terrorists? Lets talk about 20 years, guys. Where will these trainees be then? Seriously f*(*(*ing with us, thats where.

So, I tell you, people who talk about waiting 20 years make me laugh. Predictions can be made today. I and others who oppose this sick debacle present evidence: you present a requirement of waiting 2 decades for some result that may or may not come.

Once again: if you demand that kind of gamble, that kind of uncertainty, please go to Iraq yourself and die or get your limbs blown off yourself.

I am so sick of people’s delusions. People’s hopes. People who are faced with evidence and then push back the time line to a time when all the current evidence becomes irrelevant. People who cant understand that Iraq cannot create a functioning state that values rule of law, human rights, and minority rights out of a vacuum.

Or maybe its 30 years. Or 40. Or 50. Or, here is your best argument: its no use debating the issue, it will only be settled when we are dead from old age.

Thats a good one.

It is FAR too early to judge the results of Iraq; but of course this totally contradicts your criticism of Bush:
“an astonishingly inept and high-handed presidential administration,”.

On the economy, with low inflation, low unemployment — but high GDP growth, high home ownership: amazing success. After the Clinton dot.com bubble pop (NOT Clinton’s fault). Great Tax Cuts to save America from a depression after such a burst — look at Japan still struggling 15 years after their property bust in 1989. Look at wimpy EU growth.

On terrorism; yep, jury out. Only an Unreal Perfection criteria could say inept — no big terror attacks in the US since 9/11.

On Iraq, still far less than 2500 Americans killed in creating an Iraq democracy. Which has to be done mostly by the Iraqis.

On Press relations and Media, Bush is maybe weak — but if the Leftist Bush-hating press will take every opportunity to twist any Rep statement to fit their pre-conceived notion that all Reps are evil, how could it be otherwise?

I’ve elsewhere stated LOTS of mistakes I think Bush is doing. But “inept” most correctly describes Bush critics. What’s the standard, what’s the performance? That’s what a good criticism should have.

E.g.: no more than 200 Americans should have been killed in the US invasion, since Saddam was such a wimp. Therefore, almost 2000 killed is inept.

This is the form of a good criticism — and clearly requires one to agree with the 200 max death standard. Which I don’t. Bush critics are incredibly incoherent about any standard of comparison — but are all unanimous about Bush being bah, bah, bahhhh, bad.

OK, on overturning Roe, privatizing Social Security, getting school vouchers (so Christian schools are equal in funding to anti-Christian gov’t schools), on reducing gov’t spending — Bush has been lousy for any real conservative. Maybe inept? Somehow I don’t think this is what you meant.

Once it’s begun, it has got to succeed. The U.S. is trying to do this almost alone, with a highly capable military, an astonishingly inept and high-handed presidential administration, a vituperative opposition at home, and a wobbly hand-wringing media with a recurring case of the vapors.

It’s too late to bring the boys (and girls) home and pretend it never happened. Like an unwanted baby, Iraq is here, it’s ours, we better adjust. What happens in Iraq now will determine the future of the world for the next century. I’ve always said that it will be 20 years before we can even begin to say whether toppling Saddam and trying to set up a democratic Iraq was a good idea.

Agreed.

And that’s what is toughest for people like me. I’ll free admit that guessing on something 20 years out is simply too much for many liberals to handle. Personally, that’s why I think a majority of them opposed the war. I also think a lot of liberals think violence begats violence and this would only incite the Islamic world further. So, at least for me, my objections weren’t simply a knee-jerk reaction against Bush’s idea. It was more along the lines of “Why now? Why Iraq? Won’t this end up hurting us?”

But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s hard to argue with a free Iraq. It’s definitely something that occupies my mind and keeps me thinking about why it’s okay in Bosnia when Clinton did it, but not Iraq when Bush has done it. I’ve always viewed the two situations as different, but I still ask myself how much different is genocide if it’s quick and public or sustained and hidden?

A side note, I certainly liked the ending of this one a lot more. Can’t wait for part 3!