John Fund writes about the Democrats' dilemma in their continuing attempts to rewrite history.

Most people, including me, are willing to discuss and debate the wisdom of both past and current policy in Iraq. But it's not possible to debate seriously people who continue to insist that Bush lied, and that it was about oil, or avenging his daddy, or because he's a bloodthirsty warmonger. And people who continue to spout such nonsense are (thankfully) going to continue to lose at the polls, regardless of how unhappy the American people are with the Iraq situation. Which is better news for the Republicans than they deserve.

[Update a few minutes later]

I should add that I actually agree with the Democrats that the administration has been incompetent in the war. The problem is that in this (as on almost all issues), the Dems would be even worse (in many cases, not even being willing to actually wage it). As I've said on numerous occasions, I wish that we'd had better choices in 2004.

As Lewis Black so succinctly put it, "we had a choice between two bowls of s***. The only difference was the smell."

Your position on the administration's handling of the war is disappointing. Sure, you might have done some things differently, but you of all people should acknowledge that decisions made in the urgency of the moment are often not the best choice.

Still, you must admit that the outcome has been largely successful in that:

1. Saddam is on trial (no more nuclear ambitions here)
2. A democratic government, new schools, and other institutions are in place that are helping to move past religious fanaticism

How much more do you want?

you know what would put to rest (or it would help at least) the meme of "bush lied us into iraq"?

if the senate would go forward with phase two of the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence, as was promised. so far republicans have stonewalled it for about two years. phase one looked into whether intelligence was forged, phase two was to look into whether intelligence was misused by the administration. of course it'd be awkward for congress to actually investigate the executive branch, maybe friends would be lost, especially when its over an impeachable offense.

and rand -"the Dems would be even worse (in many cases, not even being willing to actually wage it). As I've said on numerous occasions, I wish that we'd had better choices in 2004."

kerry was for the iraq war. he agreed with bush about most things. pretty much his argument was just that he wouldnt screw up as much as bush did.

i wont try and argue iraq was a bad idea that hasnt made us (or the iraqis) any safer. you all are too far gone down that path.

Put it to rest? That's nonsense. First of all, there is more than enough studies and reports that should put the issue to rest. Yet, we then have the "stuck on stupid" crowd, who demand a "phase 2"? How about a phase 1 study on the UN Oil for Food scandal?

What is misuse of intelligence? Is this like Bush or Cheney illegally outting an undercover agent (something that cannot possibly happen, as it is their choice as to what is or is not classified)?

Kerry wants the troops out by Christmas, and his grandeous proposal was only agreed to by 2 of his colleages. He's not a better choice. Forget about building a coalition of the willing, Kerry can't even get 5 blue state Senators to agree with him.

Well Mr Coward (since you will not give your name I will assume you are a coward) the US and Iraq are better off without Saddam in power, no doubt about it. But I wouldn't expect a coward to understand that fact.

leland, misuse of intelligence would include misleading or lying about the intelligence (for example, leaving out opposing views about those nuclear tubes, etc). i dont think it includes illegally outing an undercover cia operative.

why is it unreasonable to "demand" an investigation that the senate has already agreed to do? even the semblence of accountability is too much?

oil for food has been investigated, and, since you bring it up, i'd like to remind you that the united states (both our government and american companies) was deeply involved in that scandal too. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_food#Alleged_US_and_UK_complicity

cecil, you got me, im a coward (x3 apperantly). iraq is currently a war zone, sometime in the future it may get better than it was under saddam, but its not currently. the iraq war has made us many enemies, created new threats. i wouldnt expect a conservative to recognize war is a bad thing (just like i cant apperantly expect you all to recognize torture, massacres, and etc are bad things). ill give you that it can occasionally be the lesser of two evils.

Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

It's apparent that you get your information on Iraq from CNN and Wikipedia, or you wouldn't be so mis-informed.

For instance, "iraq is a war zone". Hardly. A sitting government, a standing army that we work closely with, improving infrastructure, and the elimination of criminals and terrorists are NOT the definition of a "war zone".

You imply that Iraq is not currently better than it was under Saddam. Foolishness. Discuss that topic with a resident, and with the exception of a few Baathists, I think you'll find that the situation is much improved.

The Iraq war has not created any more enemies than those that were already out there. In fact, it has REDUCED their numbers, by bringing them into an area where we could effectively kill them.

There are many bad things in life. The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that the conservative sees your "bad things" as a struggle necessary to achieve a greater good, while the liberal would rather cower, consumed in their own self-loathing.

So now misuse of intelligence is lying? But we already had a Senate hearing that said Bush didn't lie, didn't we? That didn't put anything to rest.

Why is it unreasonable to demand the Senate be held accountable for their vote authorizing the use of force? The first hearing proved they were privey to the same intellingence Bush had on Iraq, and they drew the same conclusions. As the anonymous coward said, "Kerry was the for war in Iraq".

So lets look at the wisdom of Wikipedia:
Staff from the Senate investigations committee presented documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but could do nothing to stop them.

Apparently the Senate staff was wrong. Bush could stop them, and he did. But short of removing Saddam Hussein from power, I doubt there was anything the President could have done, and apparently the US Senate agrees.

BTW, the whole section of the Wiki post dealing with "alleged US and UK complicity" is sourced to an article by "The Nation". Here is the opening sentence of that article: The CIA's Duelfer report may have confirmed the gross falsity of the WMD claims invoked by the Bush Administration to justify its war against Iraq, but it has also triggered a feeding frenzy in the growing attacks against the United Nations. The ABB crowd is bringing up pre-election stuff. I remember the report was brought about the same time CBS provided ""unquestionable evidence" that Bush was AWOL. The latter story was so manipulative, that most missed the media manipulation of the Duelfer Report to appear negative to Bush. Not everyone missed the true story.

dave g, suffice it to say, i disagree. on your last point, i agree most liberals would rather not engage in "bad things" (would "rather cower"), but that doesnt mean they wont (see afghan war). if they do support those "bad things" they probably wont enjoy it (are "consumed with self-loathing"). most sane people seem to have similar values.

leland, im willing to be convinced otherwise, but i dont believe any senate hearing has found bush didnt misuse intelligence. people often point to phase one of the investigation i cited above, but that isnt the question that was considered there.

its not unreasonable for the senate to be held accountable for their votes. is it unreasonable for congress to investigate the executive branch?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408
that touches on a few points in our conversation (including investigations into mis/use of intelligence, and whether or not the senate had the same intelligence) unfortunately npr is reduced to merely giving the administration's side and the critic's with little attempt at finding the truth.

i believe only the last sentence in the "uk/us complicity in oil for food" section is sourced to the nation. and that sentence is fairly uncontroversial.

Anyone can follow you advice and read the Wiki post. If they do, they'll find no sourcing for that section other than "The Nation".

It is pretty pathetic that the liberal choice for facts is reading editorials. To a liberal, wikipedia is factual, because it finds facts from opinions. How about linking to the United Nations to discover who held influence over the Security Council during that period.

Is it unreasonable for congress to investigate the executive branch? Apparently, Congress believes it is unreasonable for the Executive branch to investigate Congress, but I digress. The fact is, once again, that Congress has already investigated the Executive Branch. The result of the investigation proved that Bush never lied. It would be a "monumental waste of time" (where have I heard that before... oh yeah, from Senator Roberts) to conduct another investigation. Don't come back here with Roberts flip flopping after you used "Kerry was for the war" in a previous comment.

Every post you right proves Rand's title for the post was accurate.

should be "post you write"...

what are you talking about? jesus christ. go to the wikipedia page again, click on the nation link. search the nation page for "bay" as in bayoil or bay chalmers, search it for carl levin, search it for any goddamn thing in that section. its obviously not about those things, and that wikipedia section mentions other sources (but doesnt link to them, except at the bottom "external sources").

once again, what was the investigation that found bush never lied?

and once again, is it unreasonable for congress to investigate the executive branch?

all you have are assertions, with nothing specific to back them up. in that link above, npr states no investigation has been done. probably i'd need to get fox news to say it for you to believe it i guess.

yes, roberts has flip-flopped on this point:
"March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts wrote, "I don’t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

On April 10, 2005, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press program. In response to a question about the completion of phase two of the investigation, Roberts said, "I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open."
"
which quote is more recent? it seems hes agreed to do it, he just has contempt for his duty.

and i dunno where you get the notion that i care about john kerry. im not a supporter, but you seem to be a supporter of pat roberts.

Dude, you brought up flip-flopping... So lets see, Dems demand an investigation, they get an investigation, it proves Bush didn't lie and that they had the same intelligence in which they voted for a war in Iraq. Later, Dems are no longer for the war, they are losing elections, and now want a "phase II" investigation to waste more money. I'm glad the Republicans are not giving in to Democrat stupidity. If the Dems are stuck on stupid, let them lose another election.

Two months ago, Bush was on the ropes for being stupid on immigration. Apparently the Democrats can't handle that, so they have to remind the voters how they mishandled Iraq.

You keep pointing out wikipedia. Let me give you a hint: NOBODY HERE TRUSTS WIKIPEDIA. Well except gullable libs like yourself. We don't trust wikipedia for the reasons I stated before, like getting facts about who is on the Security Council from "The Nation". Once again, if wikipedia felt they needed to source that, why not get it from the United Nations? I found it there, and provided a link.

You say the sentence is uncontroversial, and I say your a fool if you believe that. Wikipedia brings up a fact that the US and UK were influential on the Security Council, yet ignore the same influence that China, France, and Russia had on the Security Council. Maybe you should re-read the early parts of the wiki entry to learn France's and Russia's role.

As Rand said, Democrats (like you apparently) deride, and the truth dies. It's becoming a national pasttime watching Democrats blow any chance at regaining control. I'll tell you it is a shame too. The only thing beneficial is that as Democrat fall so far to the left, they might create a vacuum for a third party and allow the rest of a choice.

Still, you must admit that the outcome has been largely successful in that:

1. Saddam is on trial (no more nuclear ambitions here)
2. A democratic government, new schools, and other institutions are in place that are helping to move past religious fanaticism

How much more do you want?

Ramping up on that cheap oil would be nice. We still haven't gotten production to pre-war levels.

leland, in all your last comment you didnt really say anything (or nothing new at least). this post might be dead, so ill keep it short.

what investigation found bush didnt lie?

Anonymous Coward:
Instead of asking others to prove a negative... How about you prove Bush lied?

thats why theres supposed to be an investigation. whats so hard about that for you? (i would offer evidence of bush's lies/untruths, but i know it wouldnt help at all, and the point im trying to make is how the republican congress is unwilling to hold the administration accountable, which is a fundamental danger to our system of government)

i didnt ask you to prove a negative. you claimed investigations have proven bush didnt lie, im merely asking for the name of that investigation.