The FCDs of the world are the reason it has endless imperialist wars. If only we could make sure they were the only casualties, but all of them at once, we’d have a far more peaceful world.

@FCD
On the Al Quaeda thing…I guess that’s a good idea in theory, but I don’t see it’s application. Things now are too chaotic now to focus on it and unless we build eternal check points Iraq, it won’t be any different than it was before since Iraq did not support Al Quaeda. And I don’t see a stable secular democracy thriving in Iraq that would change things either in the area. That’s just my opinion though.

Parallelsidewalk: As I stated in my original post, I was in Iraq for over 2 years. I returned to the US from my last stint on July 6, 2007. And, my younger brother is currently there in his own capacity. So, I find your suggestion a little insulting because I’m betting you have never been there and probably know very few people who were. In addition, you have not contributed anything meaningful to this discussion; instead you chose to attempt to slander me.

“Oneiroi:
#2 Couldn’t have been accomplished before the Bush administration….because Al Quaeda didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded. So that leaves 1 as being a reason to invade.”

I didn’t claim Al Qaeda existed in Iraq prior to the invasion. I said the administration was trying to force Al Qaeda into a defensive posture. At the time, the area from Northern Africa, through the Middle East, and extending up into the Russian satellite nations was referred to as the Islamic Crescent. Iraq was located directly in the middle of that area. It made strategic sense to open up another front, to divide resources and attention, and to split the entire crescent in half. Iraq’s central location was a great spot to disrupt the movement of money, fighters, and weapons through the entire Middle Eastern region.

“Ames:
but as Radioactive indicates, they weren’t reasons to invade Iraq any more than any other country in the Mideast. Further, they weren’t the reasons presented to the United States’ citizens. If you recall the Congressional hearings – and especially the UN speeches by Powell – the causus belli was the WMD lie, not any of your points.”

Ames, I agree with that. But, I never said these were the reasons used to justify it to the public. I stated “There were 3 major factors used to justify to the Bush administration that it was a good idea to invade Iraq”. These were the internal reasons. It wouldn’t do us any good to publicly announce that one of our chief goals for invading Iraq was to spy on her neighbors. And to address you other point, if you want to know why Iraq was such a good choice, simply look at the map. While other Middle Eastern countries might do, none are as strategically located to keep tabs on the primary antagonists in the region.

Sheez, do I have to do all the work here? 350 top fundraisers taken to Crawford, Texas and given barbecue for Bush’s 2004 campaign:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/13_starve.html

Is that “official” enough for you?

If you “didn’t think twice about it,” then congratulations. Real Clear Politics thought it was newsworthy and I thought it related to Ames’ interests.

“most people who pays [sic] thousands for a meal/donation don’t want a hamburger”

Regardless of whether a hamburger is properly considered barbecue, if you think the donors’ decision to pay has anything to do with the food, then we should just stop right now because this isn’t going to get anywhere.

I assume that they just were holding the typical fundraiser and didn’t think twice about it.

So I saw the article and brought it up because Ames has been interested in the “elitist” label as it’s been discussed in the popular press. He’s discussed it as it affects Obama’s education and his tastes and his upbringing and his campaign. The article’s title was “At Least It’s Not Arugula!” So the press connected the selection of food to other “elitist” news items in Obama’s past.

Obama’s campaign has been attentive and careful in crafting his image and if murmurs about elitism continue to get louder, they’re going to have to take steps to present him in an egalitarian light in months to come.

Sorry it’s not related to Iraq, but I figured a comment on a month-old on-topic post wouldn’t have been read.

But the longer we’re there…the less we can do. We need to focus on our country, we need Iraq to learn to govern itself, and I’m beginning to think we’ve done all we can for them. They are growing tired of us over there, and we don’t have a right to stick around forever telling them how to do things and keeping the peace. They have to be a sovereign government at some point.

And I agree with Ames. There are people on all sides of this issue in the military, in every branch, at every level. Picking one guy and saying he’s the representative of everything “right” seems simplistic to me. Also while everything you’ve read may want to finish, there’s always the interesting caveat that the candidates with the most military donors were Obama and Ron Paul…both want to leave Iraq. I’m not saying that’s representative of the whole, just that I don’t think there’s a strong consensus.

@Collin I’m fairly certain all fundraisers are like that. They’re paying what…$5,000 dollars or more a plate? Something outrageous like that? They’re all elites going to those things, whichever candidate it’s for. By the way, what brought this comment up anyway?

“Donors sipped wine and bottled water. Waiters wearing black vests, white shirts and black ties served hors d’oeuvres: endive spears of brie, toasted almonds and truffle oil; tuna tartare with passion fruit ponzu and macadamia nut on wonton crisp; beef short rib skewers with Asian flavors.”