Great points.

The defective liberal mindset can also be observed when we come across an idiotic bumper-sticker that says, "war never solved anything".

Nothing but the end of slavery, defeat of Hitler...

War of choice.  It's meaningless unless you define the choice.  Is it go to war or face certain national destruction?  Is it go to war or see communism take over southeast Asia?  Is it go to war or see a toothless dictator keep power in a strategically important area of the globe?

America, heck any human being as an individual with free will, always has a choice whether to pick up a gun and fight.  We're making a choice right now not to invade Mexico.

This is one of the major problems with television as a source of news.  They just don't have the time to look at a topic in depth, and so important stuff, like definition of terms, gets left out.

  They cannot allow this war be cast in a positive light even though it's all but won.  So they want to convince people .. yeah we won but the cost was too high for a war that was unnecessary.  Of course they can't explain exactly what we'd be getting into about now if both Iran and Saddam's Iraq were arming themselves with nuclear weapons and ready for war.  

I thank the author for his excellent analysis and ask his indulgence for my own rejoinder to Maddow and Suskind, which follows along the same lines.  I watched the video and formulated my own response, and then read the Coleman article.  I find that my analysis independently echoes and overlaps with much of Coleman's, which encourages me that the analysis is sound.

First of all, in United States history Vietnam was de facto a war of choice. World War II in the European and African theaters was a war of choice. World War I was a war of choice.  All of them were based on the disastrous consequences for national security of letting threats go unchecked in geostrategic regions.  The Iraq War's raison d'etre is the exact same.  The only difference was that we did not allow an urgent crisis to develop before acting.  Diplomacy failed time and time again, no doubt due partially to the way that many of our lecturers such as France, China and Russia undermined its effectiveness by engaging in the oil-for-fraud scandal.

Americans, with the help of the likes of Maddow and Suskind, will apparently draw the wrong lessons from a war yet again and will bridle at the thought of prosecuting a similar "war of choice" against a burgeoning nuclear Iran.  They will wait until there is smoldering ashes until they are motivated to move against evil powers in the world.

Second of all, the idea that Americans and the Congress were misled and drug into the war says something about the responsibility, intelligence and competence of the Congress.  The statements of Democrats in the House and Senate resoundingly concurred with the motion to go to war against Iraq.  Not only that, but their statements are internally consistent going back to the days of Clinton in 1998, when there was unanimous bi-partisan support for the Iraq Liberation Act.  The Act had as a major premise that it is a goal of United States foreign policy to promote regime change in Iraq.

Furthermore, the Congress unconstitutionally abrogated  their authority to declare war as stipulated in Article I: Section 8 of the United States Constitution.  Now the media and the Democrats are revising history to deny their responsibility for the war by pinning all the "blame" onto Bush.  The Iraq War Authorization bill was unconstitutional and should have been struck down by the Supreme Court, which is loathe to intervene in such matters of national security.  The post hoc animus towards the war is thus thrust onto Bush, since the lack of media discussion of the actions of the Congress seemingly release the Democratic party, and by extension, the American people, of accountability for the "war of choice."

It should also be stated unequivocally that it is in no small part attributable to the Iraq War that this country, and much of the West, has been safe from many major terrorist attacks for the last five years.  If you examine the record of terrorist incidents from 2003-2008 you will find that the great majority of terrorist attacks trend to cluster in Iraq and the incidents outside of Iraq diminish in scope and intensity.  There are anomalies to be sure, but the majority of terrorist incidents outside of Iraq and Afghanistan are commited by Marxist organizations, such as in Nepal, Tibet, and by FARC in Columbia, with some Islamic radicalism notably in Palestine, Bangladesh and Indonesia.  The West was struck in London and Madrid, but there have been precious few attacks in North America, and the majority of these were carried out by eco-terrorist groups like ELF.  The period of Bush's presidency saw fewer major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 than during the presidency of Bill Clinton. 

In addition, the successful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the killing and capture of at least 75% of al Qaeda leadeship (Enders and Sandler 2006).  The organization has fractured and splintered, and its capacity for big attacks against the United States, in the style of 9/11, has been greatly diminished.

Lastly, the War in Iraq can verifiably be pointed to as a major blow against al Qaeda; it simultaneously removed a cruel, inhumane tyranny in the heart of a geostrategically important region.  For America to learn the lessons of the past we need responsibility and balance in the media to tell the whole story. Facts and impartiality are the aids to cogent analysis, not animus and selectivity bias aimed at one side of the political spectrum.  

Every single one....except the Balkans, and Somalia. none of those held any interest, be it oil, commerce, communism, or bald aggression towards us. Funny thing is, leftists like Maddow fully support those - precisely becuase they don't have our interest at the core. We should go in as altruists, then we will be respected around the world. Except of course, when we get our nose slapped, then it isn't worth it to stay after all. That we look like a paper tiger? No big deal - we're nice, so it's okay. They feel we should go into every region that has a humanitarian crisis, but stay out of areas that have a direct impact on us - it's imperialism and selfishness, don't you know? We're just supporting the evil capitalist and commercial interests.

Iraq wasn't specifically necessary - we had something going on in Afghanistan at the time. BUT, once we decided to go in, it was ours to see through, no matter the reason. If we would have only felt the same way about Somalia, maybe it would have a stable government and no piracy. We let ourselves leave in shame, having no real imperative to being there. Now, there is no rule of law, and no prospect of it coming about. Unlike Iraq. Basically, we broke it, we bought it. We have to see it through - those (historically few) 4300 Americans who have died in that conflict deserve no less. Not to be minimized, our standing in the world requires a stable outcome. Remeber Vietnam? It took the first Gulf War for the international community to leave a measure of respect.

Remember, we are not "liked" around the world, but we are respected. That respect is only as good as our last promise. If we would have left Iraq in ruins, we would still not be liked, AND the loss of respect would lead us to even more problems down the road with ambitious countries like Iran, Russia and China.think it's bad now? Imagine if they have even less respect for us and our military capability.

but yall should check Suskind's books out.  They are fantastic...and he is no libral (he was a journalist for the Wall Street Journal).  You will learn why the majority of americans have grown weary of the Bush administration.  Reading is Fun!!!