wombat_socho

Let's all read a little more closely.

Hussein was told by the UN to get rid of the stuff. He didn't get rid of it,

In large part, he did. USCOM's pretty clear about that. He had a cache of chemical weapons, and dismantled his nuclear program, and the biologicals were also largely set aside (for more reasons than being told to, apparently). Even if he retained a small(er) quantity, it was nothing like *either* the amount he had had during the Iran-Iraq War *or* what was being asserted by the Administration as his capacity. Which, incidentally, is what UNSCOM reported.

and blaming the intelligence community for his efforts to hide it and string along the UN inspectors

I'm not blaming the intelligence community - heck, Hussein's efforts to string UNSCOM along were well-known, and not as successful as he would've liked. What the CIA was doing was propelled by an Administration set on removing Saddam before UNSCOM could report. So who I am pointing at is BushCo and their attempts to structure the result before the facts were in.

As for the argument that I'm conflating skepticism about WMD with an insistence on withdrawal, this is exactly the argument being made by people such as Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and others

...and...

I expect this to have zero impact on the people who have been whinging for the last five years that there aren't any WMD and therefore we should pull out now

I appreciate your clarity in noting that not all Lefties share this belief. I do object to the current Adminstration's rather blind approach to the entire issue - we don't seem to have much of a strategic or tactical approach, as has been noted by here, by British Army Brigadier Aylwin-Foster.

As for Shinseki being given the bum's rush - I realize this is a popular meme in the antiwar community, but it's not the case.

For someone who is ready to read between the lines, I'm surprised at your acceptance of the Army Public Affairs line on this issue. Shinseki's successor was named far further in advance than had been done in the past, and neither Rumsfeld not Wolfowitz were present at his retirement party, which was quite unusual in the military. It's pretty clear that Shinseki got sidelined for being right (which, regardless of whether or not he got badly treated, just happens to be true).

Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why you're taking this personally, because you seem to indicate that my cynical comment about the WMD and some on the anti-war left doesn't apply to you at all.

Thank you. I think I have a trip-wire set for what appears to be fuzzy thinking, which happens on the Left as much as it does on the Right. Some of the characterization of the Left you've made seems too dismissive of the real concerns that exist - what surprises me is the lack of criticism from the Right of Bush's management of the Iraq conflict - vast overbilling, lack of accountability, and an inability to maintain clarity of objectives - these are all things that ought to have Republicans and others enraged. I will admit that some on the Left have gotten tangled up in echoes of Vietnam-era anti-war fuzzy thinking, but not all of us.

I do however wonder how you can simultaneously think we didn't go in hard enough (with the quantity of troops Shinseki and others thought were needed) while maintaining that we have too many troops there and it's aggravating the Sunni/nationalist resistance.

It is not *just* about numbers, but also about deployment and intended result. I don't fault the military in uniform for the current state of affairs; I have too many friends in uniform who are doing their level best to make good on a bad situation. If there is anybody who I think is incompetant, it is Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and their ilk.

I'm willing to admit that mistakes were made due to political pressure, but overall this looks like a win. Especially if you're a Kurd or a Shiite Iraqi.

I think the jury is still out, and I don't like the look of the evidence so far.