read it again, GB. It says "not entirely clear that it has failed.''

At best, it's saying, albeit in a convoluted way, that the failure is not total. Contrast this with the right-wing media's coverage, which has been that the invasion is a spectacular success, and I think it's clear which side of the media is covering the story more objectively.

But good job of cherry picking. It shows that if you look hard enough, you'll find evidence for even the most dubious contentions.

Poole, you're giving your game away. Do you really want to flaunt your prejudice so ham handedly? It's nice demonstration of how your views precede fact, rather than vice versa. You're willing to lay a charge of bias on a double hypothetical. If the facts were there, you wouldn't be so desperate.

GWB, I edited one of your comments to remove an insulting, juvenile reference to Poole. I deleted the other entirely, since it was nothing more than a demeaning reference to him.

Pretending to be Bush is a joke that got old long ago, but if you want to keep it up, that's your call. However, using toilet humor and aiming insults at other commenters on my blog is not.

I assume you were just trying to parody Bush's habit of giving people goofy nicknames, but that doesn't matter. Play by the rules.

bunkerbusta: "Contrast this with the right-wing media's coverage, which has been that the invasion is a spectacular success"

I have often heard this supposed counter argument, along with the one that says the "right-wing" said Iraq would be easy, but have never seen what I feel to be a knock-out example of either. While I do think Iraq on a whole has been a success based upon the results both in Iraq (Saddam gone, elected government in place, genocide potential greatly reduced) and in the region (regional military threat gone, spoiler for potential further GWOT action gone, demonstration of US willingness to follow-through, confidence for pro-democracy efforts such as in Lebanon, incentive for government-sponsored democracy efforts such as in Egypt and KSA) and stands to be an even greater success (provided we maintain our commitment to Iraqi freedom and independence) I know it has not come free.

For those who repeatedly refer to Iraq as either a failure or the next best thing, I will repeat my request to be preovided a counter example of a historically similar effort that they would consider successful. Bosnia/Kosovo? We're still there and the government still can't be completely trusted not to kill its own people. Somalia? Oh, I forgot, we ran away from that one. Vietnem? Oops, we ran away there, too. OK, how about Korea? Nope, settled for a stalemate that has condemned the North Korean people to fifty years of repression, terror, subjugation and starvation, a situation whose effects will be felt at least two generations past their eventual liberation. Germany? We did a great job there, but we were a little late to save about 6 million, killed hundreds of thousands more, lost hundreds of thousands more and we're still there too. Is the answer that it just can't be done? I don't believe so. While I'm hesitant to quote the man out of concern for guilt by association, Richard Nixon did have a good point in his book "No More Vietnams":

The phrase "no more Vietnams" can mean we will not try again. It should mean we will not fail again.

And I might add, the desperation of war supporters is matched only by their gullibility.

Subdude: Germany and Japan are not and were not third-world countries. They were and are ethnically unified, highly industrialized societies that had NEVER been colonized.

The facts are clear: the U.S. has failed again and again to install democracy in the Third World at the point of a gun. Morevoer, the arguments being used to rationalize failure in Iraq are almost identical to those used to try and justify the failures in Vietnam and elsewhere. The fact that you would use these FAILURES in an argument in favor of invading Iraq is case-closing evidence of your desperation and gullibility.

BB: �gcase-closing evidence of your desperation�c�h

Desperate times, BB. The Hawks have just lost the real war�\the popularity contest at home, and many are in that second-to-last stage of defeat known as denial. GB pulls out the magnifying glass and forces everyone to look at his hidden Newsweek paragraph, Poole tries to get a cheer going because al-Zarqawi may be al-gone, and both rant about left wing-media-insurgent-celebrity-communist-Michael Moore-international community-CNN conspiracies because Joe Average has ceased to give a crud.

A tip to save grief: you can�ft argue this war back into favor because American Idol-loving JA doesn�ft come from arguments, he comes from a scientifically proven pavlovian formula�\satisfy me now. McDonalds understands this, Coca-Cola understands this, your wife when she wants a new coat understands this, and vis-a`-vis Iraq both Bush I and Clinton did too. But you Baby Bush Hawks catch on too late. See, you COULD HAVE limited the focus to five Iraqi villagers waving stars and stripes and a kid with a shovel building a better tomorrow IF YOU�fD HAVE FURNISHED THE HAPPY ENDING AND ROLLED CREDITS TEN MONTHS BACK. Unfortunately, you started without a script. Now JA�fs bored, hates you for boring him and wants to change the channel.

Shame SubDave didn�ft bring up GulfWar I because there�fs a war that did great box office. In and out then ticker tape parade and by the time critics booed it was just empty calories it was yesterday�fs news. Here�fs my analysis: Americans LIKE empty calories. The fact that Bush I didn�ft get re-elected doesn�ft mean his war didn�ft work, just that he catered too early and the country got hungry again. And here�fs the �gwitty�h analogy that I tried to come up with when I was too busy not reading what SubDave wrote (or at least skimming it to the middle so I could poo-poo it): Clinton drove Iraq like a guy who borrows your car, hears something going wrong with the engine, but doesn�ft want to stop and fix it. He gave it premium gas, didn�ft drop the hammer too hard, and returned it before it fell apart. Bush II wanted to play hero, but proceeded to rip out the cylinder block without reading the manual. Cocky because he�fd once watched his dad rebuild a tranny with a bunch of mechanics down the street, only he hadn�ft looked close enough to see that pops took a lot of trouble laying out tools before he went in and then pulled out before he�fd really fixed the problem.

Bottom line: now you Bush II Hawks have an engineless car in the driveway, grease all over the place, nobody wants to help fix it, and must see tv�fs getting ready to start. Your best option? Throw a tarp over it, roll it to the curb, and park it between Korea and Vietnam. It�fs over, guys. You can wash windows, empty the ashtray and buy a new cover for the license plate. But when someone finally throws down the cash to tow it for the overhaul it really needs, it�fll be their baby, not yours.