Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Note that it is Congress calling on its Public Law to create the policy for a democratic government to replace the one in Iraq. As the 1998 law pre-dates President Bush, that was the pre-existing policy of the US with regards to Iraq.

Things are moving along much quicker than I expected, and the next President may, indeed, take out the CAUF and go through the checklist and say: “Its over, all done.” For prudence let us hope that goes through at least a couple of election cycles there, to ensure the process of democracy is in-place… the rest is just inter-governmental agreements, some Iraqi law and Iraq signing on to existing treaties. With a bit of nuance, that should go swimmingly.

President Bush applying this policy to non-state actors, on the other hand, I have a hard time liking as it gives legitimacy to killing your way to power, which is anti-democratic at its base. Unfortunately I have problems finding anyone in either party willing to talk about rule of law, the law of nations, and just what that means for us as a nation. That is ‘Progressive’ in a negative direction, and we are near the end of the line on where that can get us…. and there is no light at the end of this tunnel.

Fact #1: TRUE

Fact #2: TRUE

If the Palis had put their effort into building a tourism industry instead of killing Israelis, they’d all be fat and happy and as peaceful as lambs. TRUE

Kafir on November 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM

If it had been left to people like Obama, Iraq would still be run by Saddam and his psycho offspring. That is an uncomfortable reality they must avoid dealing with. Better to bash Bush.

There was no “reversal”
The Washington Post
continues a rather dishonest meme regarding the status of forces
agreement (SOFA) with Iraq in today’s edition. They claim that an
agreement on withdrawal contradicts “years of……

FactsofLife on November 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Why doesn’t anyone want to examine the underlying facts anymore? Is it just more fun to believe the headlines and kneejerk reactions?

Fact #1: The Palis had not held an election for ten years. When you go that long between elections, you have no idea how people are going to vote.

Fact #2: In many of the races, Fatah ran two candidates while Hamas ran one. The two Fatah candidates split the vote, awarding the seat to Hamas. That was just plain boneheaded on the part of Fatah and probably based on ten year old data.

Also, democracies are not in and of themselves peaceful. You need to combine democracy with a good economy. The Gaza strip sits right on the Mediterranean sea. If the Palis had put their effort into building a tourism industry instead of killing Israelis, they’d all be fat and happy and as peaceful as lambs.

Secondly for people who claim that the invasion of Iraq was illegal I beg to differ. At the time Saddam was still subject to the terms of the cease fire agreement from the first war and the UN mandate to allow weapon inspections and supervision and verification that his WMD’s had been destroyed. As Iraq did not comply with the terms of those agreements any use of force to ensure that Iraq and Saddam complied was authorised by the UN. Hell even Clinton bombed Baghdad for failing to comply with the terms of the agreement in mid nineties to try and distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal (Now that’s immoral). Also Saddam was actively supporting Terrorists at the time in Palestine with money and weapons.

Thirdly if the Coalition hadn’t invaded Iraq when it did it would have happened eventually anyway, especially if one of Saddam’s sons had taken over.

@ FactsofLife at 12:16 PM

We have yet to see the results of our involvement in Iraq.

–
So why do you claim it’s a failure? You appear unable to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the policy of the state.

Your post is nonsense, including your inability to undersand that if Saddam had not been removed he would today be developing nuclear weapons,and still training, harboring and financing terrorists. This is The Real Intelligence Failure.

Basilsbest on November 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM

The killing of Christians is not being inhibited by the government in any way. The boycott of Israel is official government policy
.
It is clear that they are just going to be another Islamic radical enemy of ours by all their current leanings.
.
After defeating Saddam we could have struck a deal with him to keep him in control. We could have monitored his nuclear efforts against his will. You shouldn’t let your wishful thinking mislead you.

His blind belief in democracy led to the rise of Hamas.

FactsofLife on November 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM

I’m sure GW believed in democracy in the 1980′s when Hamas “arose”, but I doubt he influenced their rise.

we would have left.

Sure we would.

Noting that Iraq had received assurances that President-elect Barack Obama would honor the agreement, al-Dabbagh said each side would have the right to repeal it after giving a year’s notice.

This kinda contradicts his statement on 60 Minutes

Obama – who yesterday stepped down from the Senate to prepare to take office on Jan. 20 – said he intends to “stick to [the] commitment” he made to begin removing US troops from Iraq.

“As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national-security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops,” Obama said.

The Post has supported the war…. – Ed
Ed,

Please provide the faintest shred of evidence to support this statement. Methinks you are mistaken, if not completely and utterly wrong on this point.
Subsunk Subsunk on November 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I think he might mean being officially in favor of the war- at some point – while doing everything in their power to ensure defeat.

There is a word that applies to the conduct of the MSM as it relates to Iraq. It begins with T and ends with R but no one has the courage to use it.

We have yet to see the results of our involvement in Iraq.

–
So why do you claim it’s a failure? You appear unable to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the policy of the state.

Your post is nonsense, including your inability to undersand that if Saddam had not been removed he would today be developing nuclear weapons,and still training, harboring and financing terrorists. This is The Real Intelligence Failure.

To make such an admission would be a vindication for the Bush administration and if Iraq ends up becoming a stable democracy it would end up being the Bush administrations greatest achievement.

This is something that the left and their stooges in the media are determined to prevent from happening and I quite expect that once Obama takes office the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq will change to.

Basically they wont give any credit for a victory in Iraq to Bush but instead they will try and spin it so that it appears the only reason why we prevailed is because of the leadership and wisdom of Barack Obama.

The Post has supported the war…. – Ed

Ed,

Please provide the faintest shred of evidence to support this statement. Methinks you are mistaken, if not completely and utterly wrong on this point.

Subsunk