That Saddam Hussein was brutally executed after a kangaroo-court trial demonstrated to the world that the Bush crime family are little more than Mafia capos with a government imprimatur.

Now the Great White [liberal] Hope, Barack Obama, has adopted a typical lefty fallback position: Iraq was a bad war, but Afghanistan is a good war. So he's willing to amp up the troop commitment by another 10,000 warm bodies, even as their bases and outposts (the only actual territory NATO controls in Afghanistan) are opportunistically picked off by the Afghan resistance.

Yes, Bush in Blackface wants to continue the lost war — but on the east side of Iran, instead of the west. Makes no difference, as long as the young bodies keep getting fed into the meat grinder.

Obama is manifestly unfit to serve. Whack him, Hillary, as you hinted at doing. Then off yourself in penitential despair. We'll all be better off.

I disagree with Charles and Hostettler as to the weight of emphasis. I believe that there was some weight from the neo-cons, but the majority of their thesis and motivation was patriotic.

I'm surprised that he attributes such a high percentage of the weight to Bush's personal revenge. I put it lower.

I believe that the Bush administration client relationship to the oil lobby was primary. I don't know if they wanted free-flowing oil or constrained. But, I do know they wanted to control it, and could only gain control over it by the US military.

They alone couldn't have convinced it. It took a coalition. But oil and the military itself led it.

Duh, yeah. But the wealthy drunk Shrub should care?

Oil access is nothing, despite Witty's BS–google it, and how the oil interests would've been on easy street regardless of any attack on Iran,

The key is Israel First.

Witty just won't admit it.
Actually he could resolve this problem by going to live in Israel.
But he likes Goy soldirs and taxpayers to support his easy living.

Doppler

I don't think that it is a secret than many of the neocons in the administration have ties to Israel, and supported the Clean Break/Defense of the Realm nonsense.

Just as most progressives aren't going to admit to being Marxists, I don't expect many neocons to admit to being Israel-onliers. I would guess that most criminals also plead innocent in court, even against the strongest evidence. What's new?

Since we aren't going to get tearful confessions, we can, at least, take Bush at his word when he stated in one of his early state of the union addresses after 9-11 that an attack on Iran would serve to protect protect our allies in the region-he may have even used Israel instead of allies.

I know I heard plenty of talk about protecting our allies, and only Israel wanted the attack on Iraq. We're just left to put two and two together.

How quickly that running sore dried up. Almost as clean as the Rosen/Weissman case. Or the Israeli art students and the high-fiving 'removalists'. Stanch the flow, then STFU about it.

I read early about Abramoff connections to Sharon family illegal gambling interests, to rabid settler groups and their need for arms, to ripping off the Indians of course, to the Rove/Norquist nexus, even to Mohammed Atta and his cronies on one of Abramoff's floating brothel/casinos, not long before 911.

With both Abramoff and the spy case, there's far more there than meets the eye, but we may wait years to find out, if we ever do. The sudden death of both issues, the utter lack of interest in teasing out the connections, is suspicious.