Am trying to get some late night writing in--busy enough day at work, then exercise, then chores. Wanted to catch up on several websites, but I was distracted by Nightline. Once the link is up, I'll edit this post. Here are some items in from the broadcast:

Apparently, Regis Philbin is doing some serious hedging on the War--he won't tell you exactly what he thinks, but he's damn angry about something he read in the paper. God, I feel sick just linking to their site, but..ahh, they're with the ABC Family Network...I was looking for them under the general banner. So, as I thought, it was also cross promotion of the network on a news show. Interesting...ok, just a second. They're not listed at ABC Family after all. Still, they link to all things Disney--and both the, uh, stars, I guess, have shows on the network. But I digress.

Chris Bury makes mention of Bush's position on war itself--the we won't run away spin, but notes with a question mark his stance on those who've been killed or wounded. Bush is mostly silent on this topic, although he did visit Walter Reed hospital once, and the report tonight says he spoke privately with some families after a speech. His advisors do most of his talking on this, as they do on just about anything more controversial than coming out in favor of freedom.

Richard Hobbs uses a normal spin point regarding the Iraqi opposition, the Sunni Triangle canard. Look at a population density map, and you'll see that the triangle is the major urban center. He then all but admitted that our problem is a lack of intelligence on the ground. Under these circumstances, more soldiers would only increase the number of chances for casualties. And the new Iraqi army? Roughly 1200 men--I believe this is about a battalion or two in size-- have been trained. 39,000 to go, and we still have no real idea who is friendly and who isn't.

A final point regarding Hobbs is something else he said--I can't put it in quotes because this is not exact--but he stated the United States entered into this war not by necessity, but by choice.

That means Iraq was never a threat. WMD? I thought a few rusting barrels of chlorine or a vial or two of anthrax would be found. But no, nothing. The botulinum bacteria was a species found in dirt the world over. It doesn't even produce the severe toxin found in the "A" strain of botulinum. It's the toxin, by the way, that causes botulism poisoning--just like the toxins yeast produce cause the poisoning we call a nice alcohol buzz.

No nuclear weapons or precursors. No record of support for terrorism (I don't think worldnetdaily is a credible news source). Hell, if you think about it for a few minutes, you'd realize instantly that Hussein's Iraq was about the weakest of all states in the region. They couldn't even mount an effective offensive against Iraqi Kurdistan--we certainly would have gone to the aid of the Kurds had he tried--and we would have allies to help-- but I actually think the Kurds could have done the lion's share of the defense. Iraq controlled its Kurdish region in name only--mostly because the Turks don't like the idea of independent Kurdistan. None of the border states, with the exception of Kuwait, considered Iraq a military threat. Sure, Kuwait had a reason to fear Hussein, but he got his ass kicked the first time. Any move against Kuwait would have brought the weight of the world against him.

So Iraq became the test case for the agenda of the PNAC. Easy to invade, weak militarily, with a despot for head of state/head of government, a ready source of stable currency to keep the costs of occupation down, and a weary population. They got the last part right--sure, most folks are happy about Saddam being out of power. But that doesn't mean they want us in his place.

The aircraft carrier landing is officially a mistake now, given the seriousness of the situation.

The hawks tried to spin about the positive things going on in Iraq, but that didn't work. Now, they're asserting that the deaths and injuries, tragic though they are, do not hinder operations. But that isn't the point. The public did not buy into a "long, hard slog," so the question of casualties is NOT just a military concern. I believe the public went along with this war under the mistaken assumption that it would be like the first Gulf War, and the Bush Administration encouraged this giddy feeling. Now that the war is seen for what it is--an invasion and occupation of a country with enough folks who don't want us there to make it miserable for those who are assigned to occupy the place. Sounds a little like what the Israeli Army is experiencing in the Occupied Territories, except the Iraqis are far better armed and have far greater knowledge of the local terrain. This isn't good.