Since Dan turned off HTML for the comments on his blog, I guess I’ll have to post it here. If you aren’t Dan, don’t bother reading the rest of it unless you really want to chime in.

I wasn’t insulting you. I was asking a legitimate question…

“Are you stupid? I’m astounded by the conclusions you are able to draw from thin air. Maybe you are a savant…”

Gee, thanks for the concerns for my health Dan. Shit, I’m glad you aren’t a doctor. Your bedside manner sucks.
WMD: They don’t seem to have existed, and certainly were not in a state sufficient to present a threat to us.
Don’t read this piece or this one, it might cause your world view to shift without a clutch.
We’ve destablized a nation, and made it easier for terrorist to operate within it.
Oh yes, I forgot that there were no terrorists in Iraq and that Saddam wasn’t sending money to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers. Oops…my mistake.
Mullahs will be running things.
And yet you’re wrong again Dan. Should we try four out of seven?
Combine that with the secondary results of the loss of good faith with the rest of the world, the tarnishing of our image as moral leader, the weaking of our military position/flexibility, and the crimes committed in its name, and I don’t really understand how you could say this was anything BUT a disaster.
Dan, I can’t claim to guarantee that things will be better in Iraq in ten, twenty, or even fifty years. But I do think we gave them a much better chance than what they had under Saddam Hussein. Or do you just ignore what is going right in Iraq?