You already know the numbers : $300 billion,
over 1,400 dead US soldiers and over 10,000
permanently wounded and countless thousands
of dead innocent Iraqi civilians -- and many,
many more to come.

And let us not forget the biggest disclaimer of all :
Not a single one of BushCo's alleged reasons for
dragging our fractured and bankrupt nation into one
of the most brutal wars since Vietnam has actually
proved valid or justifiable. The disgusting array
of WMD/nuclear/biotoxin lies and deceptions are
not suddenly erased because we set up some
polling places. (1)

How quickly we forget : A democratic Iraq was never
the reason Bush forced us into this war.

Iraq's fledgling democracy is a pleasant side effect,
a bonus PR move, a heartstring-tugging and patriotic
patina of bogus humanitarianism BushCo is now trying
to slather over one of the most disastrous and inept
military efforts in recent history.

It makes for terrific photo ops. It makes for miserable
and debilitating foreign policy.

Look. Democracy is good.
Treasonous BushCo dishonesty and misprision
and an outright ignorance regarding exit strategies
and the true costs of war are not.

Republicans and Bush apologists are quick to ignore,
in this momentary orgy of political spin and PR, how
not a single one of the problems Iraq faced before
the elections has been solved.

The brutal insurgent violence is only increasing.
US soldiers are dying in record numbers.
Iraq is a violent mess. And Bush just asked for
$80 billion more from the broke US economy
to fund the occupation, with no end in sight.

Let's just say it outright : The ends do not justify the means.

Let's put it another way : Here is your choice,
America: $300 billion and massive international
disrespect and a huge pile of dead American soldiers
in an effort to force a fragile democracy onto a torn
and fractured Iraq by ousting their useless dictator
who was, let us repeat, no threat to us, or to anyone,
and who was, in fact, our ally, until he dared
to threaten our oil.

More :
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/02/02/notes020205.DTL&nl=f
ix


(1) In 1992, a year after the first Gulf War, I heard
***** Cheney, then secretary of defense, say that
the US had been wise not to invade Baghdad and
get 'bogged down in the problems of trying to take
over and govern Iraq'. I heard him say :
'The question in my mind is how many additional
American casualties is Saddam worth ?
And the answer is : not that damned many'.
In February 2001, I heard Colin Powell say that
Saddam Hussein 'has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
He is unable to project conventional power against
his neighbours.'
That same month, I heard that a CIA report stated :
'We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used
the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons
of mass destruction programmes' .... More :
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/wein01_.html

The Baghdad Pact was created in 1955 by Britain,
Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan with the aim of
strengthening regional defence and preventing
the infiltration of the Soviet Union into the Middle East.
Then in 1958, the monarchy installed by Britain in Iraq
was overthrown in a violent and bloody coup.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2801487.stm