They can't both be right, can they?
From the ever-entertaining Ann Coulter:
The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations -- certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions -- hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences -- have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.
And from the ever-informative Lew Rockwell:
Whatever else you want to call this, don't call it a success. Of course, the Bush administration will forever put its spin on events (freedom = occupation; democracy = martial law; liberation = war), but the prevailing attitudes in Iraq and around the world render a more decisive verdict of decisive failure.
If this war were a dictionary entry it would read:
Iraq War, 2003-2004: An ill-fated military conflict launched by the Bush administration and justified by the false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The US and allies overthrew the Iraqi government, instituted martial law, and attempted to install a puppet state. Oppressive rule, the killing of some 10,000 civilians, and the torture of prisoners provoked a guerilla backlash that drove the US out of the country as US credibility evaporated and casualties became intolerably high.
For some reason, one of these sounds just a little more convincing than the other. I leave it to the reader to decide which.
And before anyone thinks that Mr. Rockwell is some kind of left-wing, commie-pinko Democrat, perhaps you should read a few of his articles, or articles from some of the other writers at LewRockwell.com.