About three years ago, a friend of mine started a blog. I read it and felt a reaction, a strong reaction. She was pro-Bush, pro-invasion, and very articulate in her writing. I was incensed and decided to start this blog as a rebuttal.

She believed (or "fell for") the arguments put out by Bush that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S.. She even blogged that she had definitive proof that Hussein had WMDs and was hiding them in Iraq. I argued that WMDs weren't the reason for Bush actions but I suspected oil.

She claimed also that Hussein had to go because he was treating his people like crap. No argument there - Hussein is a bastard - but it is not the duty of the U.S. to go in and depose every bastard despot. If so, Cuba would've been toppled. North Korea would be toppled. Iraq is, arguably, not as bad as those places so why Hussein?

It had to be oil I said.

You know the rest. Invasion. No WMDs. Lies and distortions by the Bush Admnistration ever since and too much of our money disappearing into "friendly" pockets. Iraq no longer has Hussein but a civil "conflict", an increase in terrorists, no infra-structure, and, instead of welcoming us with open arms, they want us to leave.

When Bush says the U.S. will stay in Iraq for a few more years he is saying that we will have a U.S. military presence - period - in Iraq until we decide to leave. Think Germany.

So the oil may have been only part of it. Bush wants a U.S. presence in the Mid-East but if that's expansionism then what is? And expansionism is precisely what ticks off the terrorists. So, essentially, what Bush has done is made the World an unsafer place by expanding U.S. influence.

Worse, he has revealed the weaknesses of our military and foreign policy. By not finishing up the chase of bin Laden, Bush has shown that the personal bin Laden family connection may have had some meaning. For all his talk about terrorists, Bush has failed to get the big one.

Remember: Hussein was NOT a part of 9/11 or Al Qaeda, despite the numerous attempts by Bush to tie the two together.

By invading Iraq, Bush weakened our forces by splitting them between Afghanistan and Iraq. (He criticized Clinton for doing the same strategy.) He overthrew Hussein in 100 days ("Mission accomplished!!!") but failed to consider the next step to secure the country. He didn't secure the borders.

And in came terrorists and other people who dislike us. But more importantly without Hussein keeping a cruel thumb on people the tribal warfare started up again.

Now, instead of Iraq being a happy place, we have insurgents versus us, Shiites against Sunis against Kurds against us. Really, we could have had the same mess for a fraction of the cost by simply having Hussein and Sons assassinated.

But, again, Iraq isn't about Hussein. It's about presence and probably oil. Think the fighting will die down? Not bloddy likely, not unless the Iraqi Government cracks down severely, much the same way Hussein ruled. Ironic.

And as for my friend who started me on this blog business, she still blogs but you won't find her earlier stuff any more. Like a member of the Ruling Republicans that she is, her earlier works have been removed. Like Bush, she has mutated her view on the War and she hates to be reminded of the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in Washinton D.C..