Depends on Your Definition of .....

So, the Bush War on Terror is a failure. Aren't we suppose to be "fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here?" England is close enough to "here" to be "here." It will be interesting to see what spin the President puts on the London bombings on Monday in his address at Quantico. I'm sure he will say we are winning, but it takes a lot of "hard" work. His job is to "lead" in the war to "stamp out" terrorists. I'm sure he will say he will not "cut and run" and those who gave their lives have not "died in vain." How many cliches do you think he will recycle in his speech? Maybe he will tell us the bombings are proof that the terrorists are in their last "throes."

Let's review why we are in Iraq.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction - Not!
2. Saddam attacked us on 9/11 - Well, Bush planted that seed.
3. Saddam was a miserable dictator - Agree, but so are a lot of other rulers who are in fact our allies. So was Saddam once. Remember Rumsfeld kissing up to him during the Iran thing?
4. The Iraqi people will be better off - Maybe we should ask them. They'll greet us with flowers and candy. Their oil will pay for the reconstruction.
5. The Iraqis want freedom and democracy - They are only free with our military being there. "We had to save the village from terrorists by destroying it."
6. We'll fight the war on terror "over there" instead of here - There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion. London and Madrid are not "over there."

In the meantime, Usama bin Laden is still running loose. Al Qaeda has morphed into a more difficult enemy. Americans now have less freedoms than they had before 9/11 and we are not any safer now than we were then.Remember, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, despite warnings from the CIA that he chose to ignore. He was already focused on taking out Saddam and invading Iraq. If we had killed or captued UBL in Afghanistan, the country would have had less of an appetite to preemptively invade Iraq. So, we backed off the hunt for bin Laden and went after a less formidable foe.

So, our President lied to us for the reasons we invaded Iraq. He has no exit strategy (sounds like a quagmire). He made the intelligence fit the policy (Downing Street Memos). Plus, he put off our allies (forget about the "Coalition of the Willing"). All in all, he seems rather inept.

Rumsfeld needs to resign and Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush. After all, if a Democratic President had made these lies and blunders, you can bet your ass that a Republican Congress would have already started the proceedings.