Time Lapse Incompentence

Sorry to be a little late on the post today--I was out exercising last night (tennis match), and I'm finding that age catches up with you. Then there's the question of where Hurricane Ivan will vent its fury...

Still, I managed to catch up with my normal sources, and came across this post and link from Your Right Hand Thief, who I hope will be spared the wrath of 'Cane--along with Jeffrey, Daisers, and everyone else down in the Crescent City.

Check out Oyster's post, and, if you have the time, link to the longer article in the Atlantic Monthly. Oyster concludes with "You'd have to be f-ckin crazy to want four more years of these incompetents." Indeed.

Yet, there is surprisingly little reaction from the public. Perhaps this is because the media has managed to hide the loss in Iraq under the rubrick of "terrorism happens," without providing the relatively simple explanation that our loss there is the result of stunning incompentence on the part of those in power.

Unfortunately, the Kerry campaign seems to have straightjacketed itself for the most part when it comes to pointing out the obvious flaws in Team Bush's reasoning. One, Iraq was not a threat. I don't care how many doomsday scenarios the crazies (link also via YRHT) put out, the fact is that Saddam Hussein was a defanged thug hanging on to power through a combination of legacy/inertia and a relatively effective program of targeted thuggery on the part of his security team. His control ranged more or less over about two thirds of Iraq--the northern Kurdish territories were essentially autonomous, for instance.

Hussein was not going to attack us--he was far weaker than he was when he invaded Kuwait. The idea that he'd be in cahoots with fundamentalist Islamic jihadists is ridiculous. Hussein's goal was to hold onto power long enough to pass it along to one of his sons, most likely Qusay. And there's no guarantee that he was in position for this to happen.

Besides, the price thus far--one thousand plus US soldiers killed, roughly seven thousand wounded, more than ten thousand Iraqi civilians--all for one pathetic creep, two of his sons, and his grandson--is hardly a price I'd find acceptable.

Were there alternatives to immediate invasion? Probably. The alternatives would have required more than the intelligence provided by a confirmed liar like Ahmad Chalabi--never forget that conservatives who supported the invasion were basically tools of this asshole. Hell, the invasion itself could have (and, in retrospect, SHOULD HAVE) followed some of the dictates of the so-called Powell Doctrine, at least those parts regarding overwhelming force being used against the enemy. But, remember, the Bush Team wasn't fighting for strategic reasons--this was supposed to be the icing on the reelection cake.

In the end, we didn't even have a single Arabic-speaking country truly sign on with the invasion. Not Saudi Arabia--and even Kuwait, Saddam's target, only provided an entry to Iraq.

Why don't the wingnuts ever mention that?