The Independent: In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

I just can't pass this up...

Note: I never read Goldberg because he is really abrasive, cocky, and often completely in the dark as to what he is talking about (most notably things having to do with the Middle East and North Africa). His words are the party line and are useful only to those who can ignore reality and walk the party line. But Atrios picked out this Friday gem (h/t Kos).

Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc. [link]

Ha! You can only get that from an alumni of the American Enterprise Institute.

BTW, Cole didn't take the bait, and it's a good thing because he clearly won this bet. Had he taken Goldberg's cash it would have -- according to Jonnah -- ended up in the coffers of "the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade." Cole, instead, called the bet the most recent step -- at the time -- in "Goldberg's descent into pathetic lack of humanity."

Silly neocon's you should know by now that you've let your ridiculous ideologies ellipse reality when it comes to dealing with the MENA.

The media yesterday reported that Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota "underwent surgery late Wednesday, weeks before his party is to take control of the Senate by a one-vote margin". Those close to the Senator have indicated that things are "definitely not good." This morning the AP reported that the Senator was in "critical condition Thursday after late-night brain surgery."

Now we all know that the media is sensationalist. So about as much credibility should be given to these early reports as were given to Senator Frist when he diagnosed Terri Schiavo via home movies. Skeptical doctors are already weighing in on the diagnosis as it is being presented by the media.

But put all that aside. Can anyone come up with a more fitting scenario for; one, the Republicans to balance the majority in the Senate; and two, Vice President Richard Cheney becoming even more of a political force. All this power may be handed to Dick Cheney and the Republicans, not because he or they deserve it or because he or they were given an electoral mandate. No, they may get it because a fellow American has become too ill or otherwise incapacitated to finish his democratically granted term. Add this to Dick Cheney's legacy should the Senator's condition prevent him from serving his term and allow the Republican establishment in SD to replace him with a Republican.

Get better Senator, for your family and friends.

[UPDATE] Watch Fox News discuss just how they can declare Senator Johnson "Incapacitated." From ThinkProgress.

Transcript:

KILMEADE: Steve, remember we were down this road before? If something happens that Johnson can’t continue, 50-50 with Dick Cheney breaking the tie.

DOOCY: That’s right, and you know, in the state of South Dakota, I understand there is the issue of incapacitation. It’s not spelled out in the state law, at the state level. However, the secretary of state of South Dakota says there would be a precedent at the federal level. Is that how you understand it as well Megan?

FOX ANCHOR: Yeah, indeed, there’s a big laundry list that they would have to go through in order to determine that he is incapacitated. It’s something that, ironically enough, might be weighed in on by his advisers. In other words, Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming majority leader, and Chuck Schumer, may advise him on whether he should declare his incapacity, if in fact he’s in a position where he can declare it or not. And so, we’ll have to see what happens in terms of, you know, what exactly his condition is and who’s going to weigh in on whether it should be declared an incapacitation or whether that’s just clear from the facts.

Disgusting and -- shockingly -- partisan.

Greetings! It is once again time for our weekly Drinking Liberally party so join us Thursday on the back patio of Juanita Greenberg's on King Street at about 5:30 p.m., or whenever you can get there. This will be your last opportunity to attend Drinking Liberally in Charleston before the start of Hanukkah. We will sing Adam Sandler's Hanukkah Song. (We told you to beware the earworms!)

Our generous leaders at National Headquarters have agreed to extend the deadline for orders to be delivered before Christmas until December 14. That happens to be Thursday; so come on out to Drinking Liberally for your last opportunity to get your orders in for Drinking Liberally swag.

As this year draws to a close, we here at Charleston Drinking Liberally are reflecting on this past year and dreaming of the coming year. We invite you to let us know how we need to improve. We want your thoughts on how to improve Drinking Liberally for the New Year. Nothing is off of the table. We are wide open to your suggestions. A different meeting day? A different location? Maybe have a meeting or two on the weekend? Whatever y'all can come up with, we will consider.

Please take note that a fifth Drinking Liberally chapter has opened in South Carolina. Our compatriots in Rock Hill will begin meeting next week. We now have chapters in Greenville, Columbia, Rock Hill, Charleston, and Pawley's Island. Pretty soon, you will be able to drink liberally all over the State of South Carolina.

A Drinking Liberally member in Washington, DC is working on a master's thesis and is conducting research on Drinking Liberally as a part of that. You can help out a fellow Liberal Drinker by clicking on this link and completing the survey. The survey is not long but it closes tomorrow so no dallying.

I know it seems like the presidential primaries are heating up already, but it just seems that way. The Media, sadly, is ratings dependent and will hop on the story of any politician traveling to New Hampshire or South Carolina. With the first two presidential primaries in the country, there is really no other reason for politicians to travel to either state; but, seriously, you have plenty of time to rest before you have to get all worked up about elections. For now, just rest and join us for more Drinking Liberally. Have a happy, happy, happy, happy Hanukkah!

That is Drinking Liberally for this, the 1,320th day since the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. From Charleston, we are your city leaders, goodnight and good luck.

Liberally yours,
Leslie, Mike, & Sadie

Juanita Greenberg's
439 King Street - Downtown
5:30pm until someone in the White House tells the truth publicly. (And not by accident)
This and every Thursday
843.723.NACHO (6224)
On King, just a couple of blocks above Calhoun. Look for the blinking lights.
http://www.juanitagreenbergs.com/index.php

Cal Thomas: With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?

Donald Rumsfeld: I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a 'war on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So 'war on terror' is a problem for me. [link; h/t ThinkProgress]

Well, a pretty large consensus agreed with you before the neocon pipe-dreamers sold their unverified ideological plan and the war on Iraq to the President as a way of fighting the War on Terror. Now, few disagree that the war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror, more will disagree that it is the main front of that war. Include me there, Iraq is but a part of the whole dynamic. Recent destabilization in North Africa and the Horn of Africa point to an emerging front of a level comparable to today's Iraq (think: failed states in Somalia and Sudan and then the failed state of Afghanistan in 2001). Additionally fighting the battle of hearts and minds (limiting anti-Americanism) should be given more thought and effort. It is a shame that the level of anti-Americanism hasn't budged do in large part to our governments arrogant, misinformed, and misguided policies in the region.

This statement from this discredited Sec. of Defense is "remarkable." But would, as the question asked, this remarkable revelation have changed the course to war one bit had it occurred to Rummy or whomever prior to March 2003? I doubt it. These people were sitting on top of cherry picked Intel and a nation of traumatized citizens who had let world events cause them to set aside facts and reason in order to monger a war of perceived retaliation. It is a bit of dark historical irony that this action actually made the problem worse and that the War on Terror has become more difficult to win due to this administrations policy and the support they received from large parts of their traumatized constituency.