Ben, are you saying that some people haven't figured out yet that diplomacy doesn't work with fanatics?

I would really hope that those that have been lost extreme left would feel at least a little bit happy for the Iraqi people.

Ben, these guys just have no concept of reality. Fortunately, we have men in charge of our country who do.

Snapper, the left really doesn't give a shit about the plight of poor oppressed people. That is why they devise welfare schemes designed to keep subclasses of the poor and oppressed down and out.

It was a great war, and anyone who didn't like it can piss off.

Damn,

Why do the Democrats always try to spoil my fun?

CBS MARKET WATCH:

Reps. John Dingell, D-N.Y., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked the congressional General Accounting Office "to investigate allegations that Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration over the past two years in the awarding of Defense Department contracts," according to a letter they sent to GAO Comptroller General David M. Walker. Read the letter.



(Message edited by ben on April 11, 2003)

Porker,

How much sleep do you think the 3000 victims of 9/11 lost worrying about an attack by Islamic extremists? Probably about as much as I lost worrying about Saddam. My lack of worry, did not make him less a threat.

Truth is, I don't worry about much at all. I take it one day at a time.

Incidentally, I agree with you on one thing. I agree that Blair and Bush should have stated from day one that their intent was regime change for a variety of reasons. Why not just say out loud what has been policy since Clinton signed the executive order in 98. REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ.

Moving onto more agreeable topics. Am I to understand from your comments that you get 2 weeks off for Easter? Lucky Bastard.

batsterwhosleepswellatnight

Bat, I have little interest in getting into a flame war with you or rehashing old stuff, so I'll try not to pose you any more questions, but I do have a few comments.

There probably is no bridging the divide between those who have chosen sides regarding the "sucker punch" analogy. Those on side A are bewildered that those on side B can justify punching a different guy than the one that punched you. Those on side B are bewildered that the other side A can't see the relationships and intentions of punching the other guy.

I don't think you should include me in your assumption that those that disagree with your views of the war are left leaning hippie activist worshippers of BC. What BC thinks is irrelevant to the arguments some of us have presented about why the war is questionable. If you bias yourself with arguments of what you think people are saying and not what they actually said, then I think you are not really answering accurately.

I vaguely referred to Clinton as an aside to illustate that I never believed many people that said "it wasn't the cheating, it was the perjury". Anyways, that was just a tangential point. We seem to be in agreement on the more central point that Blair and Bush were likely deceptive at best in stating justifications for the war.

The doctor analogy...we'll probably never see eye to eye on these analogies because some of us consider them too simplistic. In my opinion you have to mention that the other doctors in the hospital are opposed to the procedure and that they believe your procedure is going to jeopardize other parts of the body.

I think you've missed that I've posted that I've leaned in favor of the war. When I'm unsure, I tend to give the benefit of doubt to order, whether it be our border patrol, our policemen, the US on domestic policy, or the US on international body.

But my support is not without significant reservations. It was a pre-emptive war that had no specific or clear event that can be stated as it's justification. It may have plenty of unintended consequences domestically and internationally. I believe most people (in the US) want what's best for the the US and for Iraq. I may agree with the "end", but I and many others question the "means" and some of the risks we think we are taking.

I do not propose to know enough inside information to provide the best way we could have done this. I will state that I do not believe the US was in clear and imminent danger from Iraq, especially while inspectors were in the country. (I'm assuming they do have them and they were hidden and incapacitated) Maybe the best solution would have been to have waited until Iraq threw out the inspectors again because they were getting too close, or when there was a significant standoff to which Iraq refused to allow access to certain areas. As it was, we had to demand that the inspectors leave while they were asking for more time and said they were making progress.

Anyways, screw Saddam, screw terrorists, screw citizens that want our soldiers dead, screw thought police, screw politicans that want to take our civil liberties, and most importantly...

...screw lots of beautiful girls while you still can.

Dart,

Good post. I do believe firmly in most of what I say. For example, I do believe that Saddam was a threat and that he supported terrorism and the war was the proper course of action.

But some of the stuff I say is just my crazy opinon that I toss out for the sake of argument. For example, I have no idea if you liked Clinton. But because he is idolized by so many on the board, and because he is loved by the left, and because he is on record saying Sadamm is a threat, I have to throw him out there.

I understand that you frimly believe that the war was not the right course of action. And that is OK. I never got the idea that you or Jackson were crazy anti-american agitators. So I hope you dont take offense. I actually agree with a whole lot of what you both said. But not all of it. To have a good debate there has to be some disagreement. Dont take me to seriously.

If you go back and throw out most of the invective you will find that we all agree on a large volume of points. The disagreement comes over just a few. On this issue, I agree with the Unaflamer( Kendricks). On other issues I probably agree with you. So in the words of that great Negro spiritualist Rodney King " cant we all just get along? " LOL

I do want to say that your response to the "sucker punch" argument does not make alot of sense to me. I have said all along that Iraq did not sucker punch us. We all know it was Al Qaueda. And I have never heard anybody in the administration say "Lets take out Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11"

What I have heard is "The terrorist declared war on us. So we declare war on the terrorists. There are alot of people out there who support terrorists. Lets take them out before the terorists can hit again".

Saddams support of terrorists and his hate for the US is well documented. And it will become even more clear as more info comes out.

This from Mansoor Ijaz -Crescent Society

4. Al Qaeda links. In the north, Coalition troops found paperwork early in the campaign after bombing the Sargat camp that indisputably tied the terrorists of Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist outfit funded in part by Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence directorate and in part by Iran's SAVAK intelligence services, to al Qaeda. Sargat was operated by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a known close associate of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and was residence to over 700 terrorists, about a fourth of whom trained in bin Laden's Afghani terror camps. Zarqawi and his henchmen are now believed to be hiding in Ansar camps just on the Iranian side of the border.

5. Terror toxins. The paper trail may only be the tip of the iceberg. Mobile-lab tests conducted on boots and running shoes found in the bombed Sargat camp showed meaningful traces of Ricin and botulinum toxins. Similar trace amounts of chemical agents allegedly found in soil samples were used to justify the Clinton administration's August 1998 decision to launch cruise missile attacks on Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. Traces of Ricin, it might be recalled, were found in terrorist hideouts in London and Paris, and then later in Barcelona and Milan, where Algerian terrorists tied to al Qaeda and answering to Zarqawi were readying retaliation strikes against Europe's civilian populations. Ingesting miniscule amounts of Ricin, which induces respiratory failure, can kill within 72 hours. There is no known cure.

6. Salman Pak. Media outlets and U.S. officials who once had responsibility for America's national security have long ridiculed claims that Saddam had any ties to the hijackers of September 11, or that his secular identity could ever commingle with radical Islamists like bin Laden. The paperwork and presence of recipe books to mix Ricin and other toxic nerve agents, as well as traces of the agents themselves, at the Sargat camp in northern Iraq lay to rest the Saddam-bin Laden commingling issue. So did the capture of Sudanese, Egyptian, Yemeni, Syrian, and other Arabs with ties to al Qaeda fighting along Saddam's Fedayeen kamikaze forces. But the hijackers were another matter — until this weekend, when Coalition forces destroyed the Salman Pak terror camp on Sunday morning. They found an airplane shell at the Salman Pak terror camps, just like former CIA Director James Woolsey and ex-Clinton aide Laurie Mylroie had postulated repeatedly since the mid-1990s there was. Interviews conducted by PBS's Frontline in June 2002 of Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi army, indicate that he personally witnessed men of Arab descent, mainly Yemeni, with long beards training in the hull of the 707 aircraft, and on trains and buses in the same fields specifically for hijacking missions using knives and other common utensils.

What else is there? What else matters? The doubters no longer have a shred of evidence to support their case against forcefully removing Saddam Hussein from power

And from James Robbins a National Security analyst

Manila also took action against Iraqi diplomats. The Philippines is an important node in the global terror network and not coincidentally has seen some of the most blatant and significant misbehavior by the Iraqi embassy. It has long been suspected that one important link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda is through the Abu Sayyaf terror group, which is part of Osama bin Laden's network of affiliates. One subtle clue in support of the link was a statement by Hamsiraji Sali, an Abu Sayyaf leader on the U.S. most-wanted terrorist list, that his gang received about one million pesos (around $20,000) each year from Iraq, "so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making." The link was substantiated immediately after a bombing in Zamboanga City last October (in which three people were killed including an American Green Beret), when Abu Sayyaf leaders called up the deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Husham Hussain. Six days later, the cell phone used to call Hussain was employed as the timer on a bomb set to go off near the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters. Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the phone yielded various contact numbers, including Hussain's and Sali's. This evidence, coupled with other intelligence the Philippine government would not release, led to Hussain's expulsion in February 2003. In March, ten Iraqi nationals, some with direct links to al Qaeda, were rounded up in the Philippines and deported as undesirable aliens. In addition, two more consulate officials were expelled for spying. One can only conjecture what a thorough examination of the files of the Manila embassy would reveal, assuming there is anything more than ashes left to examine

In the end, Saddam deserved to go. I dont need any more reason to feel good about the decision than seeing the elation of the Iraqis to have his ass out of there. Its easy for us to argue whatever point we want. We were not starving and dying under his tyrannical rule.

Anyway I am with you. Fuck everbody. LOL

Basterwhoisreadyfortheweekend

The "terrorist" camps in the North were in a part of Iraq that Saddam did not control - we protecting from those camps from his army for years.

Oops, you did it again...
Britney Spears

I stated I did support the war. LJ supported it too. Iraq and the US are better off (at the very least short term) without Saddam in power. However, I can see why many in the world were against the war and/or think the war was sloppy and overly risky in its implementation. One of my main points is that the legitimacy and implementation of the war was not simple and clear. The idea that you can have doubts about the war and be considered a traitor drew me into this dialogue. I know you didn't explicitly state that, but then you didn't disagree with someone who did (and considers me a traitor). This is far from the rational and intelligent Bat I'm used to, hence my specific questions to you.

Fuck the females and leave the rest for Milk.

Since Batster is quoting him perhaps some info about Mansoor Ijaz is in order. Taken from the Fox news site

Ijaz is founder and chairman of The Crescent Partnerships, a series of New York-based private equity partnerships focused exclusively on the development of national security technologies. The firm’s partners include retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, former director of President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and Turkey’s Global Group. Former CIA Director James Woolsey serves as vice chairman of Crescent’s Board of Governors.

Mansoor Ijaz is a FOX News Channel foreign affairs and terrorism analyst.

Reytj

OK, fuckers. Read the latest from Hunter S. Thompson.

Click here:
HST's Latest

Thanks ReyTJ. I did not know he was that well qualified. I have only seen his columns. Terrorism analyst eh? Maybe he knows more about the topic than Explorer.

D'art you stinking traitor. LOL. Just kidding. You and I both qualify as Fanatics. Let me tell you why.

Churchill said " a fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject"

Sounds like us.

But I am about ready to move on. I need to get back to the Zona so I have something to talk about. Erips and Snappers comments about Doris's ass brought back sweet memories. I think I need to go see it again.

Anytime anyone is in TJ and wants to get together for a brew and a freindly screaming match about Iraq, just drop me an inbox.

Every body play safe this weekend. I wish every one a lot of luck. Leave the Kinkles boys for Milkman.

batsterthefanatic

Thanks ReyTJ. I did not know he was that well qualified. I have only seen his columns. Terrorism analyst eh? Maybe he knows more about the topic than Explorer.

D'art you stinking traitor. LOL. Just kidding. You and I both qualify as Fanatics. Let me tell you why.

Churchill said " a fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject"

Sounds like us.

But I am about ready to move on. I need to get back to the Zona so I have something to talk about. Erips and Snappers comments about Doris's ass brought back sweet memories. I think I need to go see it again.

Anytime anyone is in TJ and wants to get together for a brew and a freindly screaming match about Iraq, just drop me an inbox.

Every body play safe this weekend. I wish every one a lot of luck. Leave the Kinkles boys for Milkman.

batsterthefanatic

Looks like we've instituted anarchy and chaos in Iraq.

Good job! I've always admired anarchy. and chaos is a natural state.

Wish I was there to participate in the "wealth redistribution".

ho-hum, a blip on the radar screen.

soon to be forgotten.

Geez, I sure hope that there weren't really terrorists operating in Iraq, because it would be very easy for them to snatch Iraq's nuclear materials or other WPM under the current conditions. Bin Laden would be gleeful how we helped him get nasty stuff that Saddam wouldn't give him.

I'm surprised that Rumsfield isn't worried about this. Unless, of course, he knows that there aren't any WPM to snatch. Or, any terrorists in Iraq.

Ldvee,

Something we agree upon. While I supported military action against Iraq and thought the prosecution of the action was very well done, It is a crying shame whats going on now. I understand that the military are not supposed to be policemen, but it would not be very hard to stop the looting. I cant believe they are just letting it happen. What the fuck the purpose of being very careful not to destroy the countries infrastructure if we just turn around and let a few crazy muthas destroy it anyway. Big disapointment.

batsterthedisapointed

Well actually it's only been a few days. I think how quick Baghdad fell was a surprise to everyone. Especially considering the problems the Brits encountered in Basra.

A friend and I were wondering what would happen in San Diego if there were no police. Same thing??
I decided the only advantage I might take would be illegal parking and speeding. Parking is tough where I live and my hot rod easily cruises at 100+ mph. I'd might also open Adelita's Norte ;-).

Baghdad will calm down.

Tommy Franks will go down in history as a great General. Truly impressive.

This war is really fucking me up. Now I find myself agreeing with Rumsfeld???? Did any of you hear him lambasting the media yesterday over their choice to focus on the looting to the point where they disregard the larger context? He sounded unscripted, and for the first time....almost... dare I say it...persuasive.

I haven't bothered to look up the quote, but in a nutshell he was telling the media

"to take a fuckin pill and get off the American military's back. They just finished conquering a well-armed nation of 23 million people in 3 weeks with (relatively) insignificant civilian casualties, almost no damage to the infrastructure, (oil), of the country - and everybody's wiggin out over 2 days of looting that have mainly targeted the palaces and indentifiable government buildings. People were pissed at Saddam, poor, and suddenly found themselves free of the formerly corrupt police with the American army still mopping up resistance or otherwise occupied. WTF did they expect? People are people, transition to democracy can be messy, and when you give people freedom you have to expect that sometimes they'll abuse it."

I'd say that's Commonsense. But from Rumsfeld? Miracles will never cease. ;)

Even I've stole'n office suplies

I think the looting is cool. After eating shit for decades, the Iraqi people deserve the chance to enjoy a little smash and grab action.

Rumsfeld is right, people need to lighten up and stop getting all bent out of shape about nothing.

Right now, the choices are, 1, allow some looting basically as a relief valve for the Iraqis or 2, start busting skulls and acting like the Baath Party. I vote for allowing some looting and slowly restoring order.

This is how every war always ends. The problem with modern war is with TV, everyone sees this and starts shitting the bed.

Wish they had airplanes for the civilians to go to Baghdad. I really, really dig those chairs they were pulling out of Saddam's palace. Wonder if we'll ever see looting goods being sold on ebay?

-Jarocho

I'm not sure I heard this report from CNN correctly: did they capture Saddam's half brother, or was it that they captured half of Saddam's brother?

lol- considering CCN's coverage so far on this war either is possible.

I understand that CNN had a firefight in Tikrit, and that Tikrit surrendered to CNN.

http://www.middleeastnews.com/Syria.html

Why spend money sending all the troops home?

We might also consider a trip to Lybia while visiting Syria.

Damn these guys are good.

Now that all the Iraqi fun and games is about to gracelessly depart the front pages, I was wondering - Why Syria next? instead of Iran that is... Whassup with that? Syria doesn't have oil.

Then it hit me - PIPELINE! Doh! Iraq's oil transhipment terminals are way too exposed and way to far up the Persian Gulf, it's always been a royal pain to get oil tankers in and out of there, but a pipeline to Syria... These Bushies are such slick mo-f-ers. ;-)

BS

When are we going to start loot'n this oil anyway?
Paying over $2.00 per gallon to feed my conversion van is getting quite expensive.

Snapper,

Por Favor, it will take many months for the reduction in oil prices to trickle down to the gas pump.

Exxon need to make a small profit this quarter(2.6 billion last quarter) in order for ben to receive his dividend.

Don't ask, because I don't understand why gas prices go up the next day when oil prices go up????I do know it is called "the trickle up your ass theory".

Benwholikesoilcompaniesandbanks

Did you hear that Dick Cheney authorized the contract for Halliburton to build a secret pipeline from Southern Iraq to Bush's Ranch in Texas, They are going to pump all the Iraqi Oil over there and one day Bush is going to "discover" oil on his land. Pretty slick eh?

Batstertheconspiracyguy

That is old news Batster.

Jamesbr1961 told me about that pipeline weeks ago.

Considering that the whole world knows that Saddam has no links with Islamic terrorists, it sure is ineteresting how many terrorist masterminds turn up there. First it was Abba Nidal and now its the Abba Abbas guy thats been hiding out there for 17 years.

Maybe justice will finally catch up with him and other such scumbags.

"Maybe justice will finally catch up with him and other such scumbags."

Oh man, it's catching up, Bekaa Valley here we come!

The Bekaa Valley is in Lebanon. Been there, done that.

yep, you know your geography, this is a war on terrorism right? and where are the most terrorists?

In the US, where they can hide easier.

Naw, Hezbollah is next, and I think, although I'm not sure, their HQ is in the Bekaa Valley which is largely controlled by Syria.

Thoughts on this and that by Ben

Syria next?

Damn, I was hoping France would be next!!!

Seriously, we had better watch our ass in the Middle East. We have a chance to help Iraq regroup and have an ally in the area. I think we need to back down a little bit and start showing we want peace.

By the way I believe that Syria, Iran and other countries are going to hide out these fleeing Iraqi generals and politicians and we need to go to the U.N. and try to get, oh never mind.

It looks like Halliburton is going to be aced out on rebuilding Iraq. Congress Waxman from CA wants to investigate HAL and thinks other big construction companies should get the work to avoid conflict of interest. Lets see, who are the other big companies that are capable of doing the work? Damn only two other companies Bechtel and Flour and by pure coincidence domiciled in California

Just read where the last time Syria got into a real war was 1992 against the Israeli’s. They were a perfect 0-90 against Israel in the air.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2081578/

Once more, for the record:

a) The issue isn't whether Saddam Hussein is evil. He is (was). So are plenty of other 3rd world dictators.

b) The issue isn't/wasn't the degree of difficulty in invading another country. To the extent that it is easy to knock someone off makes it all the more distasteful.

c) The issue whether the USA (or any other country) has the right to invade another country because we don't like them. Hitler said he had that right, and he had the might, for a while. Since Hitler, no one else has claimed that right until now.

Remember, power corrupts.

Explorer,

Keep trying issues until you get the right one.

Go tell the Iraqis that you dont think they should have been liberated. They may hate us, but they hated Saddam more.

Power does corrupt. Look at Clinton.

Ben,

Not only is Halliburton going to have to compete for the contract but the size of the contract has been scaled down to 656 million rather than the 7 billion from the prewar estimate. The difference is that they dont have oil well fires and massive infrastructure damage to repair. The original estimate was based on worst case scenario.

I am really disapointed because I thought the plan was for Halliburton( Cheney and Conspirators) to make Billions and Billions off rebuilding Iraq. And that the defense department( Rumsfeld and Conspirators) was going to make it possible by really fucking up Iraq. I guess someone did not play their part in the conspiracy. Gee.

I also see where The Iraqi ambulance drivers in Baghdad are estimating around 400 civilians killed in the bombing. I wonder what happened to the 500,000 that the UN predicted.

So far it looks like the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Bogeyman crew are better at playing the prediction game than all the naysayers.

Explorer, you're joking right?

Please explain how the reasoning behind Bush's and Hitler's invasions are on a moral parallel since you're trying to compare the two.

I am not putting Bush and Hitler on the same moral plane, I am only noting that these are the last 2 major figures who endorse the "let's go invade someone else because we can.

I guess if I noted that Hitler and Eisenhower the last 2 major figures who support national freeways, some freeway opponent would suggest that I was putting Hitler and Eisenhower on the same moral plane. I guess you can't make a point in the same paragraph that you use the word "Hitler".

Just in case you miss the humor of this dudes press briefings.
Also, there's a ad at the bottom to buy the "Most wanted" playing cards.
I should mention,,it can take forever to access the site. Bad case of server overload.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

(Message edited by rb1 on April 16, 2003)

Exploder,

Didn't Saddam Hussein invade Kuiwat because he could?

For more good reasons for having taken out Saddam, Check todays LA times.

In any case, there's good reason for all the talk about Syria. The Los Angeles Times reports from Milan that an Italian investigation shows that "Syria has functioned as a hub for an Al Qaeda network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from Italy to NORTHEASTERN IRAQ, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group."

Explorer will say "oh but Ansar al Islam was in an area not controlled by Hussein.

Not entirely correct, itt was inside the Northern No Fly Zone but within a zone controlled on the ground by Hussein along the fringes of Kurdish controlled territory. They had an Iraqi intelligence Laison with them and were waging a proxy war on the Kurds for Saddam Hussein.

And even if Al Qaueda had nothing to to with Saddam, his supposed lack of involvment does not make his connections to other Islamic extremists any less dangerous. As ppointed out in the column below.

Pacifists hide behind a wall of illogic: Since Saddam Hussein did not authorize the September 11 massacre, it was wrong for President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and at least 47 other world leaders to target Iraq within the war on terror. This is like saying that since Adolf Hitler did not order the attack on Pearl Harbor, America should have ignored the Axis collaboration of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan and steered clear of Normandy Beach.

Whether or not Hussein was as shocked as the rest of us when the late Twin Towers were ablaze, he certainly played hosts to other Islamic extremists, all of whom are allied in their homicidal hatred of Jews, America, and the West.

As President Bush observed last October, "Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans." Nidal also lived for years in Baghdad. He was found dead of gunshot wounds in his apartment there last August.

Also, indicted 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq shortly after that blast killed six and injured some 1,000 New Yorkers. Yasin walked freely on Baghdad's streets for at least a year, although Baathist officials claim they had him in custody from 1994 until, presumably, last week.

American intelligence officers are now interrogating Iraqi detainees and sifting through seized archives. As evidence grows of Saddam Hussein's hospitality towards anti-American murderers, those who opposed the Coalition's swift and moral victory will find themselves standing on an ever-shrinking ledge, laboring more mightily each day to justify their vanquished position.

— Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service

Soon the only argument left for not taking action will be "its not nice to be a bully"

Batster

Do you happen to recall where you read or heard that the UN was predicting 500,000 civilian deaths? You've been pretty good about naming your sources for other information like the LA Times etc.

Reytj

Ben:

I think you are making my point for me.

I would imagine that Saddam's stock was pretty high in Iraq after his stunning and overwhelming victory in Kuwait back in 1990.

Might does not make right.

I think Explorer is right in his assessment of Bush, but I haven't changed my mind about supporting the decision to remove Saddam.

Though I can't prove it, I think he's right in suggesting that a large part of the reason Bush decided to go to Iraq was because it was an easy picking. It demonstrated several things, among the more important being the American military's effectiveness, and that when the American government says it's coming with guns blazing, you'd be wise to believe it.

Bush seems to be a "might is right" type of guy. In last month's Harpers Lewis Lapham quotes Bush's answer to the question, "What do you like about being President". His answer is revealing. What he likes about the job is that everyone feels they have to explain themselves to him, but he doesn't feel he has to explain himself to anyone. Talk about not getting it.

The liberation of Iraq, (and I do believe those people were liberated, at least for now), was my first reason for supporting the war. Do I believe that freeing Iraqis was of any serious importance to Bush and company? Of course not. A second reason for supporting the war was the removal of a dangerous crackpot who had the considerable resources of a state to command. The world's better off without him. So what if America doesn't behave consistently in this regard towards every other crackpot? You pick the low hanging fruit, you do what you can.

Since Bush completely muffed the attempt to win over world opinion, (and stupidly may not care very much about it today), why the hell did he put all his chips on the 'weapons of mass destruction' argument? It would've been politically more difficult, but he should have made regime change the central argument from the beginning. That would've been more of a headache in the short term, but it would've had the benefit of being closer to the truth, and ultimately people respect that.

If conditions are good and they can get Syria too, I'd say why the hell not? If people over there can get enough freedom to build themselves some schools, maybe they'll understand why their own governments are far more deserving of their hatred than the U.S. ever was.

"Why the hell not?"

Because you reap what you sow. These aren't countries we are bombing, these are people.