The people who admire Chel are the same ones who supported, and demanding respect for, her mother, and they're similarly disinterested and incapable of explaining why she deserves it.

Also, Godfrey faked her out of her shoes yesterday.

She will probably never know; she will certainly never care.

American Airlines customer showdown today (Saturday)... Anyone wanna do a several-dozen-comment exchange about it?

(Again, no problems with the actual aviation. Imagine going back to 1880 and explaining to someone what kinds of problems we were going to have with these conveyances in 2017.)

@Crid: Re: AmAir: Having Customer Service Reps challenge customers to fights, and hitting mothers with their strollers, are poor marketing strategies. This observation isn't all that off- topic for the blog:

Chelsea and her Mommy Dearest resort to belittling and humiliating people who don't bow down to them. Ivanka markets using positive messages and links to common experiences. For instance, because of the Progressive Ass who decided to make an issue of it, we learned that the First Daughter and her children, when they travel by air, fly coach. So, like the mother who was hit by the stroller, these members of the First Family have experienced or seen the same humiliations and rude treatments by TSA and airline employees as have the rest of us. Does anyone believe that Chelsea or Her Magesty The Mum (who hasn't had a driver's license in 30 years because she's always chauffeured) ever lower themselves to such experiences, or, outside of well-controlled and antiseptic photo-ops, ever rub elbows with common folk? The lack of connection to common people is evident in every article about Chelsea, and, she is oblivious to that.

Love that Godfrey tweet.

If i were to describe Chelsea in one word, then it would be "bimbo".
She presents like one of those beauty pageant(just without whole beauty part) contestants, with all the right buzzwords(peace, prosperity, inclusiveness, etc), but with zero brain activity above most basic levels. A parrot, without even faintest understanding what she is saying.
This feeling goes deeper when one reads her "original" pieces, that are on the level of a really really really stupid doggie. Their logic and cohesiveness are non-existing. She manages to present even most basic truths like something extremely dumb and ridiculous.
Its a prime example of idiocy tuned to he level of talent.

The sense of privilege (or frustration) of airline passengers is getting worse. As is the authoritarianism exhibited by the flight crew, probably also due to frustration.

The woman on the American Airlines flight ignored orders to leave her stroller (a double-wide monstrosity) at the jetway and tried to get it up the narrow aisle of the plane. The flight crew responded immediately with Gestapo tactics, wresting it away from her and intimidating the rest of the passengers.

I've been on flights where passengers think the entire cabin is their personal space - letting their children run up and down the aisles or screech at the top of their lungs, taking up the storage space of others, spreading out in seats to the point of infringing upon the space of those next to them, kicking the seat in front of them out of boredom, etc.

I get why the passengers are frustrated and hostile - and I get why the flight crews are also hostile from having to deal with the passengers.

Re-regulating the airlines is not the answer. We don't need the government telling a corporation how much profit it is allowed to earn, nor do we need the government telling us where we're allowed to fly and how much it will cost us.

Perhaps high speed rail would be an alternative. But I don't see it. Customers would still prioritize low cost over comfort, driving the rail industry to the same lengths the airline industry has gone to squeeze as many passengers into a metal tube as they can fit at one time.

This is petty, but true: Chelsea can't be "arm candy" or a bimbo, because those roles require a woman to be good looking. Chelsea is just plain, even on the lower end of plain.

What she is: a spoiled rich kid; worse, an only child. She's never had to work for anything - it all came on the silver platter supported by her parents' political connections. She seems utterly unaware of this, and apparently thinks that she deserves attention and respect.

Once Bill and Hillary are gone, she'll be just another trust-fund git, and no one will pay her any attention

Chelsea wants glamour and sophistication. But, like random says, she's not arm candy; and she was raised by Arkansas white trash and a Chicago social climber. She'll need to get by on her intellect, but she wasn't encouraged to develop it, attending grade mills for the offspring of the politically connected (Sidwell Friends, Stanford, etc.). So, she's faux-intellectual trying to project an image of glamour and sophistication.

I find it very interesting that those who voice their objections to "political dynasties" had no problem whatsoever George W. Bush.

@Patrick: I had plenty of problems with the Shrub. And don't get me started on "it's my turn" Jeb...

Do any Clintons pilot planes?

You mean the lowly criminal G. W. Bush? Vince Bugliosi put it well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder

Or the ex-spook black ops drug running fire-bombing criminal G. H. W. Bush?

That's very surprising. After reading Bugliosi's work on the Kennedy assassination, I had such high regard for him. And the man is supposed to be lawyer.

I'm not the expert Isab is, but I truly doubt that even if Bush lured us into Iraq under false pretenses, that he could be tried for murder. The president has the right to order our troops into combat. And combat carries the risk of death. Presumably our troops knew that when they signed up.

That's very surprising. After reading Bugliosi's work on the Kennedy assassination, I had such high regard for him. And the man is supposed to be lawyer.

I'm not the expert Isab is, but I truly doubt that even if Bush lured us into Iraq under false pretenses, that he could be tried for murder. The president has the right to order our troops into combat. And combat carries the risk of death. Presumably our troops knew that when they signed up.

Patrick at April 23, 2017 5:01 PM

It has been my experience that even really smart people have blind spots where either their political affiliations or their emotions trump reason.

Crid had some good links on that topic yesterday.

There were chemical weapons in Iraq. Saddam used them on the Kurds. Now they are in Syria, and are being used there.

Even if? Oh fuck. There's a reason he's in Texas painting pictures of his dog instead of being lionized on the international speaking circuit. Though I did find this endorsement on the Washington Speakers Bureau website:

Everything was great! Our people said that George W. Bush was the best speaker we have had. There was a lot of positive feedback.
• Bowling Proprietors' Association of America

I wonder how many crippled vets have named their prosthetic leg 'George'? As in "C'mon George. Let's go out for a hop."

You'd think that the Clinton machine would try to get her into a position where she does actual work and can accomplish something substantial. Rather they've gotten her a bunch of ridiculous sinecures that just confirm the suspicion that she's an entitled political princess.

If she does run for office, people are going to ask questions like - when you were a Professor at Columbia why didn't you teach any classes or perform any research? What business acumen have you brought to Expedia now that you're on their board of directors. etc..

She can't answer these questions without embarrassing herself.

Another damaging factor is the sycophantic treatment she receives from the media, like the Lifetime Impact Award she received from Variety, along with Blake Lively(?). The Clinton allied media promoted this like it was a Nobel Prize, when it was really just a red carpet event.

All of the pretense and stage management makes her look like a fake, which is the same way people see her parents. You'd think that someone in her camp would recognize this and take a different tact in representing her.

"Even if? Oh fuck. There's a reason he's in Texas painting pictures of his dog instead of being lionized on the international speaking circuit. Though I did find this endorsement on the Washington Speakers Bureau website:"

If you think whoring yourself out for 250k a speech is defined as a sucessful former presidency, I think we have larger disagreements than just nit picking about the Iraq war.

> There's a reason he's in Texas
> painting pictures of his dog
> instead of being lionized on
> the international speaking circuit.

Oh that's fucking ludicrous.

"Canvasback," right? Canvasback... Okay. We will remember what you said. We will remember this about you:

  The highest aspiration Canvasback
  can imagine for a United States
  chief executive officer is that
  he or she might be "lionized
  on the international speaking
  circuit."

Aw c'mon, Muffin... Don't try to take it back. You said it. We were all here.



Y'know, I didn't have a good time in 7th grade. I wasn't tall. I wasn't gregarious. I wasn't athletic or brilliant, and the pretty girls I most wanted attention from (tits!) weren't impressed. So it was no fun. 1972, right? Sure.

But I got over it, and did so well before the summer before 8th grade was halfway over. Blog commentary (and adult life in general) have demonstrated time and time again that many people never get over the hurt they suffered in seventh grade. They haven't figured out that having the right enemies is one of the best achievements in a life well-lived.

They can't imagine that anything is more important than being popular.

Isab, concurrently. ☑

> he man is supposed to be lawyer.

Was. But yeah... Many of his works constituted righteous public service over the years, and Patrick is affirmed.

And we can forgive the Californian for one clumsy presumption and the end of such a distinguished career.

Oh. Not your guys' best work on a beatdown, but I still think you would have signed the John Woo torture memo.
The part about being lionized on the speakers circuit was an allegory about GWB's continued unpopularity. Maybe it was too subtle. Or maybe you were too eager.
Crid, I'm sorry about your unpopularity in junior high. Don't give up. The cheer-leading frat boy, Mr. Mission Accomplished never had that problem. Maybe there was something during his Presidency that changed him. 500,000 Iraqis are dying to know. Oh wait. They're already dead. Wasn't that a cheap trick?
If it's any comfort to Isab, we still have boots on the ground in Iraq.
Ok. Back to Chelsea.

> The part about being lionized
> on the speakers circuit was

Why do you have to explain?

> an allegory about

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

> GWB's continued unpopularity.

We covered that.

> 500,000 Iraqis are dying to know.
> Oh wait. They're already dead.

1. You ought not attempt sarcasm.

2. I know; they were belligerents, so we killed them. It was kinda the whole point.

Of course, a similar number were killed over the 1990's by our sanctions, and they tended to be the most powerless members of that society... But for some reason, they figure don't figure in your calculation.

How old are you?

"Canvasback."

Again, you sound fine with a million dead at the hands of the Christian warmongers. Here's a pic of a Christian prayer circle before they call in their gunships, kick in doors, and humiliate Muslim women.

http://gocomics.typepad.com/the_sandbox

Of course a Canvasback is a large North American duck - the males are especially striking. But sometimes I am the Canvasback because I get knocked on my ass so much.

"Oh. Not your guys' best work on a beatdown, but I still think you would have signed the John Woo torture memo."

Probably, but if I had my choice, I would have preferred to personally chain you to the fence of an Iraqi chemical weapons plant.

I remember those fences. They had to be built extra tall to keep the unicorns in.

How old?

To complain about one man per Iraq is to ignore the erratic but vocal support of numerous Democrats and the presence of the War Powers Resolution, under which all Presidential actions were to be examined. Didn't make it right. DID make it more than one guy responsible.

But everybody apparently has to have something to hate, so... enjoy yourself.

...but I still think you would have signed the John Woo torture memo. ~ Canvasback at April 23, 2017 10:29 PM

John Woo is a movie director. You're thinking of the John Yoo memo.

And that wasn't your only mistake. Your base assumptions in your GWB rants are flawed.

First, you assume the status quo would have been rosy for Iraqis without the deposition of Saddam and his Baathist Party. Wrong. His sons Qusay and Uday would have continued to feed their victims into industrial plastics shredders, the lucky ones head first. The rape rooms would have continued in operation. And Saddam's efforts to further destabilize the Middle East would have eventually paid dividends, although it's hard to see how it could have been worse than the mess Obama's unenforced red lines left us with.

Second, you assume that veterans of the fighting in Iraq hate GWB. Most of them respect him. According to the Washington Post in 2014, GWB had a 65% approval rating among them, compared to a 42% approval rating for Barrack Obama.

Third, you forget that GWB ran on domestic reforms. He did not set out to be a foreign policy president. His election platform was welfare reform, education reform, and Social Security reform. 9/11 forced him to pivot to foreign policy.

Fourth, you assume (as Isab has pointed out) that the mark of a successful post-presidency is a lucrative career on the public speaking circuit. Clinton was a disgraceful spectacle prostituting himself on the lecture circuit. Is this conduct you think dignified for a former president?

And, fifth, you assume Bush's lack of a prolific speaking tour is a mark of his unpopularity, rather than a choice to enjoy his privacy. According to Politico, GWB has made tens of millions on the post-presidency speaking circuit, giving hundreds of speeches but making few waves. Not bad for a guy who's stuck "in Texas painting pictures of his dog instead of being lionized on the international speaking circuit."

500,000 Iraqis are dying to know. Oh wait. They're already dead. ~ Canvasback at April 23, 2017 10:29 PM

We know. 500,000 Iraqis died in Saddam Hussein's failed eight-year Invasion of Iran.

But you go on telling us how rosy Iraq would have been under the continued benevolent rule of Saddam Hussein.

1,000,000 Iranians also died in that invasion. That Saddam, whatta guy!

> John Woo is a movie director.

Boom!

But Raddy's comment is tremendously deft as well: In short words, we're reminded of all the gasbag arguments from children that were had when the invasion itself was happening, and in the years that followed. Cback obviously doesn't give a fuck about "deaths" at all, or he'd be accurately conversant about their numbers and their politics more generally. No... for him, point it to sustain an infantile, self-flattering posture of moral virginity no matter what's actually happening to people. Nobody was buying his perspective fifteen years ago, and it's not the sort of view that's going to age well.

Bleating about what a bad man Saddam was exposes you for what you are. Bobby Mugabe is still rolling merrily along, but he doesn't have anything we want. Money makes liars out of all of us.
Conan, I make no assumptions, except your fifth one. You'll never convince me that GWB isn't a criminal. And that's how this conversation got started.

> but he doesn't have anything
> we want.

What did Saddam have that "we want"?

(Alright, let's go ahead and skip a round of this exchange...)

Do you, CBack have any idea what percentage of America's oil consumption was fulfilled by Iraq, or even the Middle East, in the years under discussion?

You do not.

> Money makes liars out of
> all of us.

A glib, mystical, and preternaturally goofy thing to say. By no perspective are our moral boundaries contiguous.

> You'll never convince me that
> GWB isn't a criminal.

Many Americans theretofore disinclined to political sophistication and attention to global events realized, in the hours after 9/11, that they could flatter themselves by having positions on issues. But they didn't want to actually read up on the news (and certainly not on history), so they often took this one belief ('Boosh taught the children how to hate!'), and they believe the fuck out it. It further flatters them to imagine that more thoughtful people are trying to "convince" them of something, and that stubbornness can be substituted for principal by saying things like "never."

Conan, I make no assumptions, except your fifth one. You'll never convince me that GWB isn't a criminal. And that's how this conversation got started. ~ Canvasback at April 24, 2017 10:17 AM

Canvas, you made all of those assumptions.

Bobby Mugabe is still rolling merrily along, but he doesn't have anything we want. ~ Canvasback at April 24, 2017 10:17 AM

Robert Mugabe is not actively trying to destabilize other nations or paying people to attack other nations. Saddam was promising $25,000 (originally $10,000) to the families of martyrs who engaged in attacks attacks against the West. Saddam had already invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait, and launched chemical attacks against people within his own borders.

And yes, countries sometimes accept one evil while admonishing another. Simple-minded idealism has no place in international affairs. The US allied with the USSR and Joseph Stalin against Hitler and the Nazis in World War II. Stalin arguably killed more people than Hitler did, but he was judged to be the lesser evil. The US played both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, trying to use Iraq to hem in the Iranian Revolution and Khomeini's vow to export it.

You are expressing a simplistic and one-dimensional view of world affairs that does you no credit - and does nothing to convince anyone of your argument.

Crid, I'm sure you meant principle.

Here's Dick Cheney in June 2009:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he does not believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks."

Here we are helping Hussein with chemical weapons attacks against Iran:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/amp

Here's a note from the Sunday Herald newspaper, 6 October, 2002:
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]

How old are you?

Old enough to wonder why those links excite you so.

Don't forget to hate Boosh, m'kay?

"The Middle East can never be stable until wipe out Saddam Hussein." -- VP Candidate Joseph Lieberman debating Cheney, October 2000

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal” - Bill Clinton, Meet the Press, February 17, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"Bobby Mugabe is still rolling merrily along, but he doesn't have anything we want. Money makes liars out of all of us."

That we are NOT involved there seems to deny your implication that we wage war for money. There are resources in the region to stupefy, mismanaged by criminals so obvious rank stupidity must be endemic.

In addition to Crid's (thank you, Crid) illustration of widespread support for US action in Iraq, I suggest that Canvasback has overlooked the fact that the Israelis actually bombed the Iraqi nuclear program...

In addition to Crid's (thank you, Crid) illustration of widespread support for US action in Iraq, I suggest that Canvasback has overlooked the fact that the Israelis actually bombed the Iraqi nuclear program...

Radwaste at April 24, 2017 4:49 PM

Too bad that didnt happen with Canvasback chained to the gate. Although he was probably four at the time.

Some idiot opinions just scream out for time travel.

Someone says: Japan was justified attacking Pearl Harbor because the U.S was a bunch of racists with racist immigration policies and anyway they would have surrendered without those really meeen scientists dropping an atom bomb on them.

Zap. Time machine engaged. Landing him in Manila , February 3, 1945. Instant perspective.....if you live long enough to appreciate it.

> Bobby Mugabe is still rolling
> merrily along...

'Whataboutism,' this is called.

Yeah, you've solved the problem of overdue library books at the Brooklyn Square and Penholm Creek branches, but what about the truancy at our inner-city schools? Sure, you've reduced the incidence of drunk driving accidents on Dixie Bee Highway by almost 94%, but what about the continuing problem of pollution from agricultural runoff into the Coronet River?

(Years long since passed.)

Stranger and stranger. Crid is quoting Nancy Pelosi and our resident Colonel Jessup is having bondage fantasies about me. Isab, if you ever get to the Puget Sound area I can hook you up. Or vice versa.
Back on topic we can agree Saddam was a bad person. No more convincing needed. Crid, I can see you think that solves it. The topic is the crimes of GWB. That dovetails with your mention of "whataboutism." What made Iraq special enough for us to send in the warrior tradesmen, and women? As soon as GWB was seated in the Oval Office we could see he had a hard-on for Saddam. Rad's post about Israel bombing Iraq may be a clue. But concerns about Iraq's nuclear program were exaggerated, and lied about, to make the case to Congress and the U. N..

Oil is the answer. See here: Pre-war no multinationals. Post war they're all in there. If you can use Dianne Feinstein and Ted Godawful Kennedy as sources, I get to use CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

". . . doesn't want to be effectively served by government."
I rest peacefully not being effectively served by government.

Kitten, you're linking to picturebooks.

And squealing Ooooyyyyyiilllll!

At the time, you couldn't read current events.

> What made Iraq special enough
> for us to send in the warrior
> tradesmen, and women?

And now you can't read history.

Stay home, do your nails. We'll handle everything.

Canvas, you offer no arguments in favor of your position. You just keep repeating the mantra, "George W. Bush is a criminal. George W. Bush is a criminal."

You cite the presence of multinationals and US contractors. Of course things are different in Iraq now than under Saddam Hussein. Different government, different way of doing things.

You say Bush lied about the intelligence leading up to the war.

Why didn't anyone on the Senate or House Intelligence Committees call him on that? They had the same the intelligence reports he had (even the ones he supposedly discarded). Instead, Congress gave him authority to use military force when he asked. A criminal asking permission to commit his crime.

Why didn't any other intelligence agency call him on it at the UN - FSB, MI-5, DGSE, Mossad, BND, anyone? Those agencies all agreed with the assessment. In fact, most of them informed the assessment.

Why did 30-some-odd countries commit blood and/or treasure to the endeavor?

But Bush alone is to blame?

You've adopted a mantra ("Bush is a criminal") and you're not going to let it go at any cost, even the truth ("You'll never convince me that GWB isn't a criminal."). Never? That's not a sophisticated analysis of history, that's a temper tantrum.

Give us a cohesive, well structured argument that Bush bears criminal culpability in deceiving the country (nay, the world) into going to war. Not CNN slide shows or big oil conspiracy theories, but a real argument. Explain why, if we went to war for oil, we didn't take Iraqi oil, or at least insist on a discount after the war. Explain why, if we went to war for oil, we chose Iraq, when the entire Middle East was only 12% of our oil supply then.

Problem is, you can't. You only have the mantra, which you hang onto with the ferocity of a drowning man grabbing a floating log. Study the subject. Read things you disagree with. Then come back and tell us why Bush is a criminal. Don't tell us that we'll never convince you otherwise, but tell us why you came to that conclusion after exhaustive study on the subject; or even brief study, any study at all.

This was debated endlessly on this blog while it was going on and afterward during the 2008 election cycle, so the long-time commenters here have heard the arguments, pro and con. We can recite them in our sleep. Bring something new to the table.

Good luck. We look forward to hearing what you come up with.

Conan, you don't ask for much, do you? You've been arguing this topic since 2008 and you'd like me to solve it to your satisfaction today. I'm afraid that won't be possible. Though I'm flattered.
You seem more confrontational than curious. And you're about a chapter behind in logic. Just a couple examples of this: 1) A suggestion that some ex-soldiers might resent GWB is not the same as saying he is unpopular with the military. (And the stats you used were probably cribbed from the same sources that brought us the HRC Presidential victory prediction) 2) Of course things have changed in the Iraqi oil fields since the war began . . . especially likely if that was the plan. No?
You made a few points about various intelligence assessments in the run-up to the war. The main one to ask about is the one General Powell has since apologized for. It was a very public part of the sales pitch. He calls it an intelligence failure (great sobriquet for the Bush administration) and a blot on his record. The bigger question is who fed it to the Sec. of State?

If you won't accept the arguments of someone with the intelligence and resources of Vince Bugliosi;

If you won't accept that the Iraq war was for oil, as stated publicly by people near the top of government who had four years to reflect on it:

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007.

Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

I don't know if this humble blog poster can help you.

It was about oil? You mean a war against an oil-rich country using its oil revenue to fund terrorism is about oil? Well, I guess, in the abstract, it is. But it wasn't about getting more or cheaper oil for the US, or we'd have gotten that out of it.

I am delighted to read the names: Gen. John Abizaid, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Obviously, they are the reason oil (and gas!) are so {expensive, inexpensive, pick one}, and are the best America has to offer!

Pro tip: confirmation bias