the people they really blame for the problems in Iraq are the Iraqis themselves, not Bush and the Republicans. It's not Bush's fault, it's the Iraqis. Remeber the Krauthammer quote, we midwifed their freedom, they threw it back in our faces or something like that.

War? What war?

Yep. I told you all how this was going to go down.

1. GWB fucks up the war. (Why would anyone assume he wouldn't? He fucked up everything else he ever touched. Plus, the whole idea was lunacy.)
2. Right wing lunatics blame liberals for their boy's failings.
3. Repeat as necessary.

This war is fairly described as the Great Waste. It laid waste to the Middle East, wasted lives, wasted America's good image, and has wasted a heretofore unimagineable amount of money. More than a Trillion dollars already. Wow. How that such a landscape could exist out of a Bosch painting was unthinkable. But that is Baghdad and most of Iraq. The most visible level of Hell. And Republicans crafted it out of greed, fake piety, and deceit on a biblical scale. If there were no devil, it would be necessary for Republicans to invent one.

Agree with your three points. But it's clear the 101st has now been reassigned. Iraq is no longer their focus. They are now preoccupied with the gathering storm now widening to take on the evil mullahs of Teheran. It's a whole new "mushroom cloud" moment.
They don't want so much to talk about Iraq anymore. Just look at the pre-fabricated talking points recited by Republican representatives during the House Iraq escalation debate this past week.

You forgot #4:

It's the military's fault. If the Generals had only followed Rumsfeld's plan more faithfully, there would be flowers in the streets.

As the Lord's anointed, chosen as a special dispensation, from before the beginning of time, to rescue America in its hour of greatest need from the spectres of high marginal tax rates, Wahabi fundamentalism, and oral sex, Bush cannot fail, he can only be failed.

The alternative -- that the Lord has chosen the wrong man -- is ipso facto impossible.

Clap harder -- Tinkerbell is flatlining, and if Tink cacks, Baby Jesus backed the wrong horse..

Liberals are pussy in that they don't go for impeachment.

Gotta be tough, especially in a criminal neighbourhood.

Off topic, but about energy, CO2, and sustainability:

The February 9, 2007 issue of the journal Science has 20+ pages devoted to current research and development. It's what you might call "urgent and optimisitic". Solar, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear, wind -- just about all topics are addressed.

It's the liberals' fault on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. It's the Iraqis' fault on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.* Just ask Krauthammer.

* Except the third Saturday of each month, when it's the Iranians' fault for arming the Shia militias.

I think jared bailey and shystr hit the two points that should be added to Kevin's list: It is the Iraqis and the Iranians fault... and, as always seems to be the call from conservocons (sorry, I don't normally go for name calling, but it just poured out of my fingers), more aggressiveness on the US's part will be needed to rectify the situation.

Bush's supporters blaming the liberals is kind of like a football coach saying his team lost because the fans booed.

Our national security situation is a problem created by both Parties and ideologies. Bush proposed the War in Iraq, and many Democratic leaders eagerly voted for it, only to turn against it later.

Bush has proposed to stay the neoconservative course, which won't make America any safer, and the Democrats have looked to oppose Bush purely in word but not in deed, which will not make America any safer. The Democrats don't want to make any proposal that will actually force withdraw from Iraq nor any other measure, such as escalation in Afghanistan, that could make us safer. If they did that, they'd have to be held responsible for their proposal, something the Democrats fear more than anything. Bush arrogantly ignores the Democratic Congress, and the Democratic Congress deserves this because they consistently refuse to assert their authority.

Everyone is only acting for political gain. Bush will undoubtedly pass the Iraq quagmire on to the next President so he can blame the next President for not winning the war. The Democrats will make speeches opposing Bush before 2008, but will refuse to take legislative action; they would rather ride the corpses of dead American heroes to the White House than stop those deaths from happening. The truth is that there is no leadership in Washington, D.C., that will secure America.

Of course they know that Bush has fucked up the war. But they'll never admit it. Never. Why?

1) Blaming Bush is the equivalent of blaming themselves - them being Bush supports and all.

2) They would rather pluck their eyelashes before admitting liberals were right about anything let alone the Iraq war.

Wow. It sure is strange to see Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall curse on their blogs. It doesn't happen often, but you sure do notice it when it does!

That said, Kevin's analysis is spot on. Bush is the Keyboard Kommando's god, and to have anything short of blind faith is blasphemy.

But as near as I can tell there are real answers:

This is a question about the cognitions/emotions of Bush supporters, suggested by upset by the fact that George Bush has fucked up their pet war. .

How can you tell what the real answers about those cognitions and emotions are? Have you read any of the writings of the supporters of Bush? Has even one of them written something like the Iraq war is a "pet war"?

For an example of a Bush supporter (pretty much) who is not more upset, read the essays of Victor Davis Hansen. Now you might decide that VDH is wrong, but your question was not a question about whether Bush supporters are wrong or right, it's about their cognitions and emotions. So for a hint of what the cognitions and emotions of Bush supporters are like, you might read and absorb his essays. One of his common themes is that the Iraq war has not been more "fucked up" than previous wars. You already know that the acronym FUBAR, which some apply to the Iraq war, was actually invented in WWII, and you know the character of Milo Minderbender was an exaggeration of the widely loathed supply system in WWII. You may even know that when the 101st Airborn Division was trucked to Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, they went in such a hurry that they had no time to stock up on ammunition, but had to scrounge it en route.

So, one of the reasons that Bush supporters are not more upset is that the actual "fuck ups" are not as bad as previous wars: Independence, 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWII, Korean War, and your favorite, the Viet Nam War.

Your answers are absurd because you only read about Bush supporters from their opponents, not anything the Bush supporters actually write. Does even one Bush supporter think this: They think that most of the bad news from Iraq is just an invention of the anti-military liberal media. ? I don't think so. The actual complaint is that the media focus exclusively on bad news and never report either the least or most important of any good news. There are endless reports of electricity shortages in Baghdad, for example, but when electricity production exceeded pre-war levles that was not reported, nor was it as widely reported that there was better electricity supply to the many regions outside region whose electricity had been shunted to Baghdad in the pre-war era.

It is not the least delusional to assert that the antiwar left has grossly esaggerated the actual problems of the war. As others have written, it's as though the major newspapers and radios of the US had reported on June 7, 1944: "Army suffers 50% casualties at Omaha Beach: air and naval bombardments miss all targets; retired generals comment on gross incompetence. Why does FDR continue to back Gen. Eisenhower after Morocco, Sicily, and other flops?"

The 101st Keyboarders don't like Bush because he gave them their pet war, it's their pet war because Bush gave it to them. If he hadn't, they'd have loved their pet peace instead. The either believe the war isn't fucked up, so it's still their pet, or they believe it is, so they resent the war for hurting Bush's standing in the polls.

They're loyal to the man, and as long as the man is set on the war, they have to stay publically loyal to it too. But the effort is making their brains turn inside out, which is why the craziness is leaking all over the place: the dissonant consequences of an intolerable contradiction. They're buggier than HAL, and for much the same reasons.

You know to really be snarky Kevin, you should have ended the post with:

"This has been the Political Animal Edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions."

Kevin wrote: "... they don't think it's Bush who has screwed up their war, it's liberals. There is nothing that will ever change their minds about this."

It's just another expression of the so-called "conservative" cult of victimhood as preached daily on nationwide radio by Rush Limbaugh: "conservatives" are always the poor pitiful victims of powerful "liberal elites".

A sense of being the poor, pitiful, whining victim of "powerful liberal elites" is the core of the fake, phony, corporate-sponsored cult of mental slavery that is known as "conservatism" in America today.

It has always been this way with fake, phony cults cooked up by authoritarian regimes to mentally enslave their followers. The followers must be thoroughly indoctrinated with a sense of victimhood, so that they will turn to the Great Heroic Leader who will lead the battle against the "powerful elites" who victimize them.

In 1930s Germany, Hitler's brownshirts believed they were the victims of "Jews" and that Hitler was the Great Heroic Aryan Leader who would save them from being victimized by "the Jews".

Today in America, Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads believe that they are the victims of "Liberals" and that George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan before him, are the Great Heroic Conservative Leaders who will save them from being victimized by "the Liberals".

Look at the so-called "conservatives" who post comments here and you will see that their so-called "conservative" politics has little or no real content other than resentment and hatred of "the Liberals". They are poor, pitiful little victims who can do nothing but whine about "the Liberals" and lick the boots of the fake, phony "hero" George W. Bush, whom they imagine is going to save them from "the Liberals".

How come they don't care about the billions of dollars unaccounted for and lost on this war?

Ah, Kevin.

I'm proud of our President's conduct during this war. Unlike the 102nd Liberal Hand Ringers, I'm greatful for the protections and securities bestowed upon us by this government since 2001.

Have we been attacked since 9/11? Remember how Clinton gutted the military and intelligence in the runup to 9/11. We were in a desperate spot in those dark days, and the terrorists knew it. bin Laden saw the sleeping titan and thought he could knock us out with one swift punch. And if Al Bore were President, he would have been right.

But Laden miscalculated. Bush may not be the smartest tool in the shed, or the most eloquent, but he is armed with Reagan's best qualities. Steadfastness in the face of threats. Courage of convictions. Belief in his way of life.

Now we hang on the prescipace of self-doubt, thanks to the liberals and a media which thrives on manufacturing crisis. We will beat beat back this high water mark of liberalism. We must.

derek has it correct.

Bush's id has been adopted by the wingnuts as their superego. He can do no wrong.

You know, if Shrub had just sent me a check for my share of A Trillion Dollars, I might have voted for the guy.'

mmmm, naw.

It is not the least delusional to assert that the antiwar left has grossly esaggerated the actual problems of the war. As others have written, it's as though the major newspapers and radios of the US had reported on June 7, 1944: "Army suffers 50% casualties at Omaha Beach: air and naval bombardments miss all targets; retired generals comment on gross incompetence. Why does FDR continue to back Gen. Eisenhower after Morocco, Sicily, and other flops?"

Um, because the Germans had been kicked out of most of Russia, North Africa, Sicily and Rome?

My God, that's a stupid analogy. People weren't bitching about the lack of progress in a long war during WWII BECAUSE THERE WAS PROGRESS YOU COULD POINT TO. Whereas in Iraq, the atrocities keep multiplying, the car bombs keep going off, and the people keep showing up dead on the streets with drill holes.

If GWB has been President in 1941, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese now.

It is not the least delusional to assert that the antiwar left has grossly esaggerated the actual problems of the war. As others have written, it's as though the major newspapers and radios of the US had reported on June 7, 1944: "Army suffers 50% casualties at Omaha Beach: air and naval bombardments miss all targets; retired generals comment on gross incompetence. Why does FDR continue to back Gen. Eisenhower after Morocco, Sicily, and other flops?"

The problem with this analogy is that it doesn't work. We are not at war, except with ourselves.

I know we Americans love to blow shit up, but not every problem is grounds for war. We have a serious gang problem here in LA, and have had for many years. Clearly, the solution to this problem is to declare war on Mexico. Or, in BushWorld, on Iceland.

There will be no reasoned debate on the war until Bush finishes his term. There is a good debate to be had but not here and not on the left wing anti-military blogs. The military is learning to fight the sort of urban warfare that we face. They got a lot of it wrong early because the army has not been interested in COIN warfare since Vietnam, and not enough then. The Marines have been training for this for a decade and they did a much better job but we do not have enough Marines.

The basic disconnect with left wing Democrats, like most here, is that you don't believe there is a war. It's the old 60s experession; "If it isn't worth doing, it isn't worth doing well."

The other issue is whether Arabs can rule themselves without tyrants. Most of the commenters here, and James Baker (There is a combination) believe they can't and would prefer to deal with the tyrant of the moment. Maybe we who supported the war, were wrong and they cannot rule themselves. I don't think we know yet. I think it was worth a try since the alternative is pretty terrible.

There is a real parallel between now and the 1930s. The arguments are so similar. Iran and Iraq were not industrial nations like Germany was in 1936 but this is not industrial warfare we are dealing with. Nuclear weapons and information war are the new, fourth generation, warfare and they have the oil wealth to fight us.

It's too bad that there are so few on the other side capable of a real discussion. Most deal in bumper sticker thinking, which is, of course, not thinking at all.

Let's face it, there's roughly 1/3 of the population that is absolutely convinced the war is right and there is absolutely nothing in this world we can do to change their mind. The only way they'll ever turn against the war is when a Democrat's elected president in which case you'll start seeing some of the most interesting intellectual contortions ever recorded. We need to forget about that group, and concentrate on convincing the rest of the country that we need to withdraw. The more we get upset at the wingnuts, the more we wound like them, and play into their hands by making this seem like a Crossfire-type partisan battle.

Kevin is almost always shallow on military issues and, sometimes as in this post, juvenile. The 101st fighting keyboarders is silly stuff. The liberal nature of the press is real and, while everyone has the right to voice criticism, it does hurt the effort and, unfortunately, both encourages the enemy and fits in with the enemy's perception of America as unwilling to stay and fight.

But the most obivous shallowness of Kevin's post is point 3. Who are the people -- who are the "they?" It is as silly as painting all liberals with one brush. If you are going to express intelligent and honest criticism, be specific about who you are talking about.

I think Kevin misses the most common rationalization, the one Kristol and the neocons are all over: that we needn't really fail in the long run if we just screw our courage to the sticking post, and put in the time and effort required.

This approach has the wonderful consequence of course that its premise can't ever be refuted. We can't really fail unless we stop pursuing the war, and we won't stop pursuing the war unless we decide not to persist. In general, if we cease putting more blood and treasure after year N, then they can argue that all we needed to do was push on to year N+1, and all would have ended famously.

At base, they're putting all their faith in a tautology. What a great reason to force people to die by the thousands.

Y'know egbert is right. Ever since the Iraqis, with help from Michael Moore & and cindy Sheehan attacked us on 9/11, we've been saved by our great and omnipotenet leader GW.
If it weren't for those damned christ hating liberals always talking about "the constitution" , "international law", and "habeaus crapus ??" we would bombed those dark-skinned christ hating commies back to the stoneages.

Dead on, Derek and SecularAnimist.

It's a huge tactical mistake to expect any wingnut to admit she was wrong about anything shrub has done. They are way beyond fully vested in this war criminal - their whole identities are wrapped up in believing - against the evidence of their own eyes - that bush is the Son of God.

Demanding that they face reality only infuriates them and makes them defend him more hysterically.

In my own family, I consider it a huge victory for truth, justice and reality that the bush-lovers have merely stopped worshipping him at the top of their lungs. Their silence speaks volumes.

I am extremely careful not to so much as imply through body language anything remotely resembling "I told you so."

Have you read any of the writings of the supporters of Bush?

Absolutely. In fact, Kevin links to their writings quite frequently. It's frankly bizarre that you would suggest otherwise. Most liberal blogs link to these writings in order to critque them. Where have you been?

Has even one of them written something like the Iraq war is a "pet war"?

No one would ever (obviously) write that or admit to such a thing given the inhumanity of it. It is a judgment rendered about people based on their writing and actions, e.g. cheerleading the projection of military power for ideological reasons that are mostly about enhancing the hegemony of U.S. power in the world while casually dismissing deaths and casualties (see New American Century, Project for).

read the essays of Victor Davis Hansen. Now you might decide that VDH is wrong

In fact, he is.

One of his common themes is that the Iraq war has not been more "fucked up" than previous wars.

Head PNAC'er Bill Kristol has said the same thing, primarily because it has made neocons like himself look like the fantasy-based ideologically-driven idiots with terrible reasoning skills that they are.

Here's what you and Victor and Bill need to understand; not only has this war been mismanaged, it was WRONG in the first place -- morally, legally, and strategically.

So, one of the reasons that Bush supporters are not more upset is that the actual "fuck ups" are not as bad as previous wars

In fact, they are much worse. There was no real threat, there were no WMD's, the military is close to the breaking point, our country is less safe, the country of Iraq has suffered a near complete social disintegration, violence is WORSE now than it was at the beginning of the war and we've been there LONGER than we were in WWII, Al Qaeda and Iran have both been gifted influence in the region -- and on and on.

In the words of General Odom, among others -- this war is the worst strategic disaster in American history. The benefactors have been Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria and in the long run -- China.

The sad thing is, if you read between the lines of your defense you'd see that you're biggest concern is for your own ego -- not your country, not the Iraqis, not the military men and women fighting there. You've IDENTIFIED with Bush so he has to be right...otherwise you'd be terribly wrong -- and that hurts too much to admit.

My advice: get over yourself.

The liberal nature of the press is real

If the media were remotely liberal, we wouldn't have to watch fake news to get the truth.

LMAO @ Mike K, who if he were interested in debate, wouldn't come on here lobbing a bunch of ridiculous assertions, and then surround them in invective and dismissal of his opponents, in a pathetic attempt to protect his assertions from being countered.

Really, would you wingnuts finally for once grow up? Either debate the issues or not, but don't blame your opponents for your inability to debate them.

Oh, for Christ's sake. You do realize how simplistic you've made this, right? OMG TEH NAZIS ARE COMING.

Aside from the fact that Iraq HAS no nukes, eeah, Iran is going to be different than every other nation with nukes and hand them out like candy o Halloween to terrorist groups.

Is the threat from Islamic terrorists real? You bet. Is it the OMGWTFBBQ CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATIONS the neocon hype machine has turned it into? Not even, and their blundering in Iraq's made the situation objectively worse.

And THAT is why we on the left can't have a discussion with you in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders- because you keep conflating a real problem of Islamic terrot into an imagined global conflict that will best be solved by the application of armed force and American empire, when it's pretty clear the age of colonialism and imperialism is OVER- and it caused a lot of the problems we're dealing with to start with.

I just read the very smart post by Mike K. Unfortunately, he is probably correct that, absent some horrific event that brings people together, there will not be a reasoned debate on the war or the larger security issues until the Bush presidency is over.

The dems are focused relentlessly on promoting/creating Bush failure and enhancing chances for a dem president on 08. Bush is limping to the finish line and has lost the interest and support of too many people.

I pray out next president is a very good one, willing to try to rise above politics. I don't really see one in the field. Our best hopes are probably either McCain based on some of his past or Obama based on hope that he really would be different.

And THAT is why we on the left can't have a discussion with you in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders- because you keep conflating a real problem of Islamic terrot into an imagined global conflict that will best be solved by the application of armed force and American empire, when it's pretty clear the age of colonialism and imperialism is OVER- and it caused a lot of the problems we're dealing with to start with.

bingo.

There are endless reports of electricity shortages in Baghdad, for example, but when electricity production exceeded pre-war levles that was not reported, nor was it as widely reported that there was better electricity supply to the many regions outside region whose electricity had been shunted to Baghdad in the pre-war era.

That's false in a number of ways. First, there were plenty of articles about that, which google shows. But the problem is that production was only slightly higher than pre-war for a very short time -- so what's the real story there?

The real story is that repairing Iraq's insfrastructure has been an unmitigated failure.

You're just upset because that was a tiny symbolic example of something going mildly right for a brief moment when everything else was going spectacularly wrong and you wanted to blow it out of proportion, as usual -- a la painted schools.

What is laughable is that currently electricity production is far below pre-war levels and that oil production is down as well. If up is a sign that things are going well then down is a sign that thing are going poorly, n'est ce pas?

Funny, I don't recall you touting this as an example of things going poorly. Is it because you lack integrity?

The dems are focused relentlessly on promoting/creating Bush failure

That's right! Dems made Bush fail! They let him do whatever he wanted for 6 years, as part of a super-secret cunning plan to watch him fall on his face!

My dog, does it get more delusional that that? Idiocracy, here we come...

Craigie,

The problem with you (and my wife) is you twist what I say. I did not say dems made Bush fail for six years. I said the obvious, they now are promoting/creating Bush failure to enhance the chances for a dem president in 08.

But at least my wife has some real world experience with journalism and knows the vast majority of media people are liberal, and she does not rely upon fake news for her news.

>>Have we been attacked since 9/11?

Anthrax, anyone?

What I love most about this meme: if al Qaeda flew two more planes into two more towers tomorrow, the rabid right would just respond with "See, we told you so! This is proof Bush was right!"

In other words, all contingencies prove that Bush is right.

Also, in case you forgot, the worst terrorist attack in US history occurred while Your Lord and Savior BUSH was President. Believe it or not, his term in office didn't start on 9/11 (well, for him it did; he was cutting wood at his ranch for his first 9 months).

Egbert: I very rarely respond to others in posts. There's enough conflict without picking fights. But a "high water mark of liberalism?" If the last six years of near total GOP control of the government and a large chunk of the media was a liberal heyday, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Face it: You guys were wrong and your policy has failed. Maybe a new congress will help, maybe not. But let's not get delusional.

Ah Brian so what if your wife has "some" real world experience with journalist. Do you have to denigrate the rest of the population of the planet who also have real world experience with journalist and disagree with your assessment. Oh by the way I'm an expert because I say I am.

You must understand that the hard-core Republican Party vote now stands at about 34 percent. Not bad when you consider that a few years ago it was 28 percent. By hard-core is meant voters who vote Republican for reasons of their own no matter what and no matter who. Thus virtually any poll that these folks translate into Republican vs. Democratic is going to show at least 34 percent. Right now they see the Iraq War as a Republican War which they must support because they support any and all Republican efforts.

In a sense, when it comes to the Iraq War, these folks are correct; indeed, it is a Republican Party War now, though at its outset it drew a more bipartian support. Of course, we now know that even at the outset the Iraq War was a Republican Party War but that was then and this is now. I'm sure there are many who supported the war at the outset that simply could not believe that a President could mislead them to the extent that this one did on a matter of such grave importance. Again that was then and this is now.

And incidentally, the hard-core Democratic vote would be about the same could it be counted upon. Unfortunately, it cannot vis a vis such distractions as the Nader vote of 2000 that brought defeat to Al Gore and currently the infatuation with Barack Obama which threatens to derail an almost sure-fire Democratic victory in 2008, a victory substantial enough not only to win the Presidency but carry the Congress as well. In short, the 34 percent Republican vote can be expected to hold fast through thick and thin; the Democratic vote, though seemingly as solid in polls on matters such as the Iraq War, tends to flutter in the breeze and chase after will o' the wisps when it comes to the tough task of winning the election.

A total of 34 percent, of course, does not win an election; it takes at least 17 percent more -- and that is tough sledding and requires a tough-mindedness that for Democrats would mean foregoing Nader-like infactuations and settling in from the get-go to win with the most winnable candidate. Republicans wandered off the ranch once lately with the fast-talking Ross Perot; they are unlikely to do it again. But the Democrats, well now . . .

"There is nothing that will ever change their minds about this."

This presumes that wingnuts like Marler, egbert, brian and Mike K possess brains. By the evidence of their posts, they don't. Accordingly, they can't change what they don't have in the first place.

This malapropism from egbert, though, is priceless: "102nd Liberal Hand Ringers"

One imagines Noam Chomsky with bells.

LMAO @ wingnuts who attempt to demonize their liberal opponents by comparing them to their own wives.

What insane lives you folks lead.

I'd argue that the reason they're not more upset is that Iraq was never the issue they cared most about. They support Bush principally because he's a tax-cutting fanatic who's on their side when it comes to God, guns, and gays. So if he wants to go into Iraq, great -- they support him. If it doesn't go so well, they're not too upset. But, hey, if he ever changes position on God, guns and gays, you'll hear the 101st Fighting Keyboardists get very upset, very quickly.

How do you know I'm not your wife?

Have you ever seen us in the same room?

bwa ha ha! My cunning plan is working!

At the risk of troll feeding, I'm not going to let Egbert's bullshit about Clinton "gutting the military" stand unrebutted.

The fiscal 2001 budget and requests through fiscal 2005 can be found here.

Comparisons of U.S. military spending with foreign rivals can be found here.

From Time Magazine, October 1991, on the subject of George H. W. Bush's defense requests projected into the mid 1990s:

Partisanship, though, is far from the whole story. There is a genuine need to reshape the U.S. armed forces for a post-cold war world, and a perfectly legitimate question as to how much spending, how many soldiers and what types of weapons are required. After dropping 11.3% in just ended fiscal 1991, the Pentagon budget under the Bush Administration's plans would go down an average of 3% (after adjustment for inflation) in each of the following five years. Outlays would drop from around 5% of gross national product now to 3.6%, the lowest figure since before World War II; the number of men and women in uniform would shrink from 2 million to 1.6 million..

So in other words, egbert, you're a flat out damned liar and I'm calling you on it. Go peddle your Heritage Foundation neocon bullshit somewhere else. You're just a typical right wing con artist.

Great post by Mike K at 2:49. And our troops are starting to beat back this threat. Already, Condi is mentioning that Iraqi troop strength has shot up from 45 to 90 percent and there is new optimism in Bagdad.

But now the libs are going to cut funding just as were turning the corner. Go ahead idiots! That'll be the last nail in your coffins!

It's obvious we should haved nuked Iraq in order to save it.

Pabodie, I'm pretty sure Egbert was being ironic.

Cons will never admit anything on the Iraq war or anything else. To do so would require that on some level they are confident of themselves.

Conservatism as practiced in this country in the last half century has no other purpose than to beat up on liberals and other "outsiders" for the sole purpose of making people who are behind in education, income, and everything else feel better.

Even Irving Kristol has nothing to say that doesn't begin with "the problem with you liberals..."

"But now the libs are going to cut funding just as were turning the corner."

You're behind the times, egbert.

The plan now is NOT to cut the funding but to require troops be adequately trained and that they and their vehicles receive proper armor before deploying them to a war zone where almost all injuries and deaths are caused by IEDs.

Of course I'm sure you and your fellow travelers in Congress will find a way to explain why training and armoring the troops is a bad idea.

The Republican mind needs to believe in witches.

Come on Cal Gal, everyone knows Murtha's bill is just a stealth plan to cut off funds. We need to be honest about these things. What you cite is the purported political cover. I assume you don't actually believe it. Let's put the funding issue up for a vote and be honest about it.

matthrermarler: It is not the least delusional to assert that the antiwar left has grossly esaggerated the actual problems of the war.

There is significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq. - Iraq Study Goup

mike k : It's too bad that there are so few on the other side capable of a real discussion. Most deal in bumper sticker thinking, which is, of course, not thinking at all.

A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly 3-times the number there now. - AP 11/4/06

"The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006." - National Security Archive 2/14/07

brian: I said the obvious, they now are promoting/creating Bush failure to enhance the chances for a dem president in 08.

shorter Brian: bush is a victim

Just so no one else is fooled like Cal Gal about Murtha's stealth plan to cut funding, the following is from the Washington Post:

"Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

Great quotes by famous Republicans, "If I think too much, it kind of freaks me out." --Pamela Anderson

Of course, this isn't the issue. The failure or success of post war planning isn't as important as the fact that this administration knowingly created a false casus belli for to take the nation to war.

We were told, repeatedly, that America was at immediate risk from the worst kind of attack. Any support for these statements was taken from dubious or outright fraudulent sources, but this support was characterized as conclusive.

Hard to believe the country has sunk this low.

I should have said: hard to believe the country has sunk this low, after all the lessons that should have been learned. No excuses this time 'round.

I have to laugh at Brian's and others characterization of the "liberal media": Bush would not have been able to get it away with it without the eager aiding and abetting of Judy Judy Judy Miller, Count Novak, Timmeh Fathead Russert, Charles Krauthammer, Billy Prague-spring Safire, and the entire entirely supine White House press corps. No need to mention Faux News, MSNBC, etc. I can only hope that some day these tools actually come to realize their part in this horror, and how essential they were in brining it about.

Nothing Orwell didn't fortell - nothing new, and all the more inexcusable.

The technical term for this is Garbage In, Garbage Out.

In science what do they do when they find the result is the product of garbage in the first place?

Do they continue to use it?

But, cld, that requires recognition: and the media has an interest in ensuring that doesn't happen -- because that would require them to admit they were part of the con. Will the NY Times come out and apologise? The Economist (which still won't acknowledge how spectacularly it remains on the wrong side of history)? The Post's editorial page? The cable news channels?

If people truly understood nauseating truth of the "garbage in", they might ask why Timmeh Russert never bothered asking a follow-up question when Cheny, Rumsfeld and even Powell so clearly were lying through their teeth.

It is not the least delusional to assert that the antiwar left has grossly esaggerated the actual problems of the war.

In fact, it is PRECISELY delusional to assert that.

How can we prove it's delusional? Simply by referring to the facts on the ground, which if we look at say, the Iraq Index, boil down to this:

By every indicator Iraq is worse off than it was three years ago; violence, social stability and cohesion, infrastructure, corruption, border security, social services et al. And there is a refugee crisis that attests to this.

Do we need someone who's not from the anti-war Left to assure us that these facts on the ground aren't just delusions? Fine, here are some conservative icons who've described the Iraq was as a complete failure:

-- William Buckley, the "father of conservatism" -- not the anti-war Left.

"...it's important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.''

Francis Fukuyama, the "father of neoconservatism -- not the anti-war Left.

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.

"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."

Newt Gingrich, conservative Republican -- not the anti-war Left.

"If the military, White House, and State Department continue to avoid the word 'failure,' [concerning Iraq] how can you bring about a third stage?" Gingrich said.

James Baker and the Iraq Study Group -- not the anti-war Left.

William Kristol, founder of the Project for a New American Century and editor of the weekly ultraconservative rag the Weekly Standard -- not the anti-war Left

Pat Buchanan and the American Conservative Magagine -- not the anti-war Left -- and on and on.

Having shown that even leading conservatives and former conservative supporters of the war agree that Iraq has been a failure, let's put to bed right now here and forever the idea that the Left is somehow exaggerating the problems in Iraq.

Feel free to post your retraction.

Everyone knows that there are only three things that matter in real estate. And when it comes to Cheney/neocon foreign policy and the useful idiots of the Radical Right who support it, there are likewise only three things that matter: PNAC, PNAC, and PNAC. The current situation in Iraq is exactly the PNAC "stir the beehive theory".

Cranky

Brian at 2:51 PM while everyone has the right to voice criticism, it does hurt the effort and, unfortunately, both encourages the enemy and fits in with the enemy's perception of America as unwilling to stay and fight.

There's a civil war in Iraq. Most of the people fighting the U.S. there no longer view the U.S. as their main enemy. Other Iraqis have taken on that role. I really doubt that the combatants in this civil war spend much/any time at all thinking about American media accounts of American debates.

Still, I can see why you like to think it's just other Americans who stand in the way of victory. That allows you to keep alive the myth of American omnipotence -- 'we can beat anyone as long as we're united.' You just can't face the fact, all these years after Vietnam, that this really is a silly myth.

How's that ******* war going now?
David Lerman writes for the Hampton Roads (Va.) Daily Press: "The Democratic chairman and former Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned the credibility of President Bush's new security plan for Baghdad Thursday, citing news reports of an overwhelmingly American-led operation despite administration promises to let Iraqi forces take the lead.

"Virginia Sen. John Warner, a senior Republican, used a committee hearing to call attention to a New York Times report that the first major sweep of the Iraqi capital under the new security plan used only 200 Iraqi police and soldiers, but 2,500 Americans.
From Dan Froomkin's White House Watch

Kevin made some guesses about how conservative Bush fans feel. Here's how I actually look at it.

1. I do believe Bush has fucked up the occupation in Iraq, but I give him credit for winning speedy victories over Saddam and over the Taliban in Afghanistan. He's batting .667.

2. I think that most of the bad news we see reported about Iraq is accurate (except for stuff reported solely by the AP and sourced to "Jamil Hussein".) However, I think the media is ignoring or downplaying a great deal of good news.

3. I do think liberals are undermining morale by opposing the war. Nevertheless, the results of the war are Bush's. He hasn't used liberal criticism as an excuse. I wouldn't accept that excuse if he tried it.

4. My biggest complaint with Bush is that we may not win in Iraq. I think winning it is so important that we should do whatever it takes to win. Perhaps we would do better if we took the gloves off. I was happy to read that the Rules of Engagement have been changed to allow US troops to enter mosques that are being used for war purposes.

However, if the US fought with the brutality of Attilla the Hun and still lost, I would disapprove. My bottom line is winning.

I do believe Bush has fucked up the occupation in Iraq, but I give him credit for winning speedy victories over Saddam and over the Taliban in Afghanistan. He's batting .667.

Sometime I have to admire the complexity of faux-lib's spin.

In the above short passage we have him:

1) committing categorical errors by comparing forcible regime change with forcible nation building

2) leaving out an obvious item because it hurts his argument (ie, we're losing the peace in Afganistan)

3) inflating GWB's poor performance by comparing it to the skewed-toward-the-low-end metric of the batting average, rather than, eg, scholastic grades, where GWB's is "batting" an "F".

It's little wonder that most people just call faux-lib a liar and be done with it.

I don't get it. Ex liberal provides an intelligent, even handed comment that is in some respects highly critical of President Bush, and he is immediately declared a liar. Too often the level of discourse here is just not adult conversation.

otherpaul,
the important audience is not just the people fighting in Iraq, although neither you nor I know much about what they are thinking anyway. it seems to me that at least some, and perhaps many, welcome the signs of the lack of american resolve. but the more important audience is the much larger one around the world, particularly both friend and foe muslims.

My bottom line is winning.

And we'll know that happens when...?

I like winning too. What does victory look like in Iraq? Another Republican in the White House? Is that the goal?

And we'll know [winning] happens when...?

When we can smell napalm in the morning.

"I don't get it."

We know, Brian. We know.

You will never see "winning" because you will redefine it. My concern is with Republicans who have slid from the high purpose of 1994 to earmark records in 2006. That is what the election was about. The war with radical jihad will go on after Bush has finished his term. He will feel comfortable because he did what he could to stem the tide. What comes after will have a lot to do with what kind of world we live in. The fight will go on unless the Murthas of the Democratic Party are able to convince a majority of the public, in which case we will have a half century of combat. I don't have a problem with Democrats advocating their own policies. My concern is with the other party.

. . . I hit post and my comment vanished? Oh well. Anyway, it's quite amusing to have folks obligingly make what are at best slightly more nuanced versions of the delusions Kevin lists.

You will never see "winning" because you will redefine it.

Talk about projection. Geez.

Ok, Mike K, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is for *you* to define "winning", and to stick with that definition, and not change it everytime it becomes apparent even to you that we are "losing".

And thanks to Pollkatz keeping track we know the terminally deluded make up 30% of the voting population. 20% away from theocracy.

Brian,

Re. your first remark, it seems to me that at least some, and perhaps many, welcome the signs of the lack of american resolve.:

What's strange is that you think the signs most likely to influence Iraqi attitudes are produced and controlled by citizens in the U.S. who oppose the continuation of this occupation.

It's a lot more plausible that perceptions in Iraq are shaped by the signals from the U.S. military operations right there, in Iraq. That's what people there have first-hand experience of.

In that connection, the failure to have a good post-invasion plan and to send in enough U.S. troops signaled early on the lack of American resolve, though I admit it might have instead just signaled a lack of competency at the highest levels of the U.S. admin. Either way, it made it very difficult for Iraqis to place much confidence in the U.S.

At this point it's hard to see how to reverse that impression, esp. since it doesn't look like the U.S. can find enough troops to constitute a true surge.

On your 2nd claim, but the more important audience is the much larger one around the world, particularly both friend and foe muslims.:

Unfortunately, a large part of that audience has been turned against the U.S. in just the way that bin Laden had hoped. Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, killing approx. 600000 Muslims in the process, hasn't exactly been good PR for the U.S. in most of the world (not just the Muslim world).

In fact, the bungling, Keystone Cops nature of this whole ordeal has convinced many around the world that the U.S. isn't nearly as strong as it was made out to be, which is why weaklings like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Chavez have decided to score some easy PR points of their own by taunting the former superpower.

About WWII- we did not augment our defeats with piecemeal reinforcements (although the other side occasionally did). Throwing reinforcements into a lost battle is just plain bad strategy.

Now listen up all you neo-cons, Osama supports W. and vice-versa. They both need each other as convenient foils to rev up the base. Osama has stated that one of the reasons for 9/11 was that the U.S. would respond by doing something stupid in the middle east. Boy was he right. Meanwhile the Republic party won the 2004 election by following Karl Rove’s suggestion to run on the war against Osama. Osama even helped out by issuing a video intentionally designed to rev up the Republic base. After all, W. is the best recruiting tool Osama has.

I do believe Bush has fucked up the occupation in Iraq, but I give him credit for winning speedy victories over Saddam and over the Taliban in Afghanistan. He's batting .667.

No one doubted the ability of our military to quickly dispose of either Saddam or the Tabliban. It's what would happen after that most of us opposed to the war figured Bush didn't have a clue about and what we were concerned with.

.> My biggest complaint with Bush is that
> we may not win in Iraq. I think winning
> it is so important that we should do
> whatever it takes to win. Perhaps we
> would do better if we took the gloves off.

President Bush has had 5 years to do "whatever it takes", including a war tax sufficient to pay for his war, a new Truman Commission, Dollar-A-Year Men and Zero Profit War Contracts, and activating the draft. He has done none of these things. Therefore we can conclude that "winning", even by the Radical Right's definition, is in fact not important to Mr. Bush. Or the Radical Right.

Cranky

The liberal nature of the press is real and, while everyone has the right to voice criticism, it does hurt the effort and, unfortunately, both encourages the enemy and fits in with the enemy's perception of America as unwilling to stay and fight.

Who is "the" enemy? And are they getting a discount on delivery of the New York Times? I think that part of the problem here is seeing multiple parties in the Middle East all as "the" enemy of the U.S.

And Ok, Mike K, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is for *you* to define "winning", and to stick with that definition, and not change it everytime it becomes apparent even to you that we are "losing".

Isn't this a bit off-message? Can't have "conditions"; this would embolden the terrorists. But here's a possibility proposed by our very own President: "Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace." Of course, he continues, "I say 'relative peace' because if it's like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way." There you go. A limited number of car bombings. How does five per month sound to you?

C'mon! How about some good news! Like today, several million Iraqis didn't get blown up! Plus, I found a dollar in those pants I never wear.

Fucking liberals.

craigie,

that's my dollar.

that's my dollar.

You should keep your hand out of craigie's pants.

meet me at the gay restaurant, I'll give it back

Oh, ye of little faith! The war isn't "fucked up", it's just a colossal success that hasn't yet occurred, just like the stockpiles of Saddam's nukes that haven't yet been found.

I'll bet you liberal losers dumped your Enron stock in '01, too...typical defeatist mentality. Not me, chumps! I've got *discipline* and *stomach* and faith in our corporate leadership, no matter what the leftist media may say or some biased jury may dictate...and when the Mighty "E" soars once again I will cash out at $300 a share, marry Ann Coulter, and laugh at you all from my palace in the sky! HAHAHAHAHAHHA!

What's strange is that you think the signs most likely to influence Iraqi attitudes are produced and controlled by citizens in the U.S. who oppose the continuation of this occupation.

It's a lot more plausible that perceptions in Iraq are shaped by the signals from the U.S. military operations right there, in Iraq. That's what people there have first-hand experience of.
-- otherpaul's response to Brian

I'd just like to add to this thought: to the extent that Iraqi opinion of the US can be affected by US political opposition to the war, I'd think that it would improve their overall opinion of us to know that most of us don't approve. That we are free, even encouraged, to say so could also have a beneficial effect on Iraqis' respect for liberal values.

Again, that's assuming they pay any attention at all to our politics. Their own domestic politics are certainly much more compelling to them, you know, with the civil war and sectarian cleansing going on. We are a force to be reckoned with; we aren't the only one.

On the other hand, what will it do for their faith in democracy to see all this debate and open opposition, and it has no visible (to them) effect on how the occupation is conducted? I mean, if they know most Americans oppose the war, voted to change leadership over it, and are having an open debate about it, but the damned war continues to kill them every damned day,then why should they put much trust in US- or UK-style democracy?

In fact, the bungling, Keystone Cops nature of this whole ordeal has convinced many around the world that the U.S. isn't nearly as strong as it was made out to be...

Amen. But it's even worse than that, in at least two ways: first, the misadministration has taken what was strong and wrecked it. The U.S. has never been shy about using military force, but there is a huge difference between using it and using it up.

Second, much of the world now sees us as incapable of responsibly using the power that we do have. They see us as a threat. The neo-cons seem to think this is a good thing and sustainable forever, without taxes or a draft. It's worse than insane; it's criminally insane.

mike k: You will never see "winning" because you will redefine it.

"Absolutely, we're winning." - President Bush, October 25, 2006

"We're not winning, we're not losing." - President Bush, December 19, 2006

ex-lib: over the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Taliban no longer is in existence." - GWB Sept-2004

"Last year was the bloodiest since the United States overthrew the Taliban in 2001, and opium production “broke all records in 2006.� - Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the outgoing commander of all NATO troops in Afghanistan 2/13/07

ex-lib: I do think liberals are undermining morale by opposing the war.

...its got to someone's fault.

"Only 35-percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war." - Military Times 12/30/06

A staggering 68 percent of Americans are opposed to the surge, according to the latest Newsweek poll. - 1/20/07

67% believe Bush’s decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by his personal beliefs regardless of the facts. - Newsweek 1/27/07

37% of Americans believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. - Rasmussen 2/2/07

Only 28% give the President good or excellent marks for handling the situation in Iraq. - Rasmussen 2/2/07

54% of Americans would vote to cut off funding for escalation if they were in Congress. - Fox News 2/16/07

ex-lib: However, I think the media is ignoring or downplaying a great deal of good news.

thinking again?

There is significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq. - Iraq Study Goup

A view here about those followers/conservatives supporting continuing war escalation by Glenn Greenwald:

They only get excited about their Grand Global War of Civilizations Which is More Important Than Any War Ever when it can be used to justify starting wars, blowing things up, increased surveillance on Americans, and breaking laws. Everything else -- genuine measures to combat terrorism -- bores them, and true counter-terrorism measures always are subordinated to their other priorities, whether it be tax cuts or the Drug War. The hallmark of an inauthentic belief is a refusal to sacrifice for it. When it comes to their Glorious War, the Bush administration and its followers ooze nothing but a refusal to sacrifice.

I think the reason that the 101st Fighting Keyboarders aren't more upset has to do with unconscious emotional intuition. Reasoning doesn't enter into it.

For some people, aggression is normal, healthy, necessary for survival, a-okay. Aggression is even fun. Their world view can be summed up as "a strong offense is the best defense." They believe that might makes right; the strong have a right to beat up the weak. For them, the weak, the vulnerable, losers are disgusting, contemptible. They are not conscious of their aggressiveness, however. They just assume they are normal, and everyone else is the same way.

The lame excuses, the whole narrative of a WW2-like global war on Terror or Islamofascism, the accusations that the liberals are weakening morale, the liberal press, and so on, are just twitterings. The left brain interpreter is making up explanations for what unconscious emotions feel so stubbornly: Be powerful.

The real reason they still support the war in Iraq is because they are aggressive, and the US is there. Therefore, the US must win. If the US "loses" Iraq, then the US is weak. And if the US is weak, then they are weak. And if weak, then disgusting, contemptible. And that can never ever be tolerated.

*The liberal nature of the press is real* - Brian - and similar claims from other conservative oriented Americans.

Now that is delusional. Neither the press nor the broadcasting media in the USA seem in the least bit liberal to a European. I have not come across a single American newspaper with a countrywide readership that is anything like "The Guardian" or "The Independent" in the UK for willingness to follow a left or left of centre editorial stance. Were there any major American papers that from the beginning questioned the rightness and wisdom of embarking on the war against Iraq? The news programmes and political documentaries on radio and TV for the greater part of the period since 2002 have been utterly devoid of any incisive and critical analysis of the Bush regime's foreign policies. Press, radio, and TV in America seem totally conservative, conservative, conservative. Just not conservative enough, presumably, for the paranoid mad dogs of the rabidly right wing segment of the American political landscape.

If you were honest Kevin you would admit that nearly all neocons have condemned Bush and Rumsfeld for several years...we are more exasperated than you smug libs are because of Bush's obstinance at changing tactics and his lack of communications skills.

The problems are the enemy's fault. Bush has accepted some limitations on our actions to seek some desirable diplomatic gains. Some ideas worked, some didn't. Bush has had rules of engagement forced on him by those who amplify minutia such as abu Graib and trivialize the risk of releasing enemy combatants.

Actually, I think this is where we catch the war bloggers in a big contradiction. When you suggest to them that the Iraq War would be better served by a new leader and it would be best for Bush and Cheney to resign and let someone else take over who is more competent, they quickly balk. Clearly, if you really believed in the Iraq War, you would have to agree that this would be the best way to improve the morale of the troops, gain more public support for the war and possibly put the war in a new direction. It would also set that new president up for ‘08 if he really salvaged Iraq. There really isn’t a good argument against this from them, they just refuse to entertain the idea. This is when it becomes obvious that keeping Bush in power is more important to them than winning in Iraq.

Lionel Hutz, attorney-at-law: Oh, ye of little faith! The war isn't "fucked up", it's just a colossal success that hasn't yet occurred, just like the stockpiles of Saddam's nukes that haven't yet been found.

I'll bet you liberal losers dumped your Enron stock in '01, too...typical defeatist mentality. Not me, chumps! I've got *discipline* and *stomach* and faith in our corporate leadership, no matter what the leftist media may say or some biased jury may dictate...and when the Mighty "E" soars once again I will cash out at $300 a share, marry Ann Coulter, and laugh at you all from my palace in the sky! HAHAHAHAHAHHA!

LH has the honesty to admit how happy he will be if our side fails in Iraq. S/he wants the US to lose. I suppose s/he was thrilled at yesterday's bombing that killed several dozen people. If we withdraw and hundreds of thousands die in the ensuing chaos, LH will have an orgasm of joy.

"Ok, Mike K, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is for *you* to define "winning", and to stick with that definition, and not change it everytime it becomes apparent even to you that we are "losing".

Posted by: Disputo"

I've been posting here since before the invasion. Kevin wrote that the election would never happen. I disagreed and it did happen. Kevin posted that Bush would pull out before the 2004 election and he didn't. I posted my disagreement.

I've previously suggested that what we are trying to do is establish another Turkey, with rudimentary civil government backed up by a professional military that will keep them relatively honest and will step in if necessary. Hopefully, as the years go by, the civil authorities will get better at running the country. I've not suggested that Jeffersonian democracy is likey to break out but I do think Iraq had a better chance than most other Middle East countries (At least Arab countries; I think Iran will solve its own problem), to establish a modern society.

I could be wrong. Al Qeada has chosen to make a stand there and has been able to create chaos between Sunnis, who are still unwilling to accept their fate as a minority, and Shia who have many wrongs to avenge against the Sunni minority. Iran has seen our irresolution and stepped in with their own support.

I see wishful thinking on the left which says there is no proof of Iranian intervention and anyway, they would never support Sunnis. We have found a large cache of Steyr-Mannlicher sniper rifles that were sold by Austria to Iran a couple of years ago over our vigorous objection. That is smoking gun quality proof of official intervention. We should retaliate with Special Forces incursions in hot pursuit and to seek out and destroy weapons depots. I don't think we have to go to war with Iran because the adventurism of the ruling mullahs is about to produce collapse. They already have an oil crisis.

Success will be apparent when the NY Times writes that we were always going to have a successful Iraqi government and anybody who forecast defeat was a Republican trying to slander Democrats. Sort of like the end of the Cold War, which everybody knew we would win because the USSR was doomed from the start.

Seriously, we will see success when the Sunni see that they can't win and begin to cooperate in expelling the foreigners and the home grown jihadis stop blowing themselves up in Shia markets. That is already happening outside Baghdad.

The Shia will finally realize that the militias are causing more trouble and crime than is worthwhile. They aren't needed anymore since the Sunni terror is subsiding. We will not recognize this until six months have gone by with a steep decline in violence and few US casuaties. The sniper problem will be the last one solved and that is why the Austrian sniper rifles are important. Iranian al Quds snipers may try to keep it up as long as they can.

It will look a lot like Kosovo looks now.

Hmmm, so a trillion dollars spent, hundreds of thousands dead, thousands more wounded - to create another Kosovo as a best case scenario?

With a relationship to the so-called "War on Terror" of, essentially, zip.

Boy, am I glad the GOP is so clever.

Seriously, we will see success when the Sunni see that they can't win and begin to cooperate in expelling the foreigners and the home grown jihadis stop blowing themselves up in Shia markets. That is already happening outside Baghdad.
Posted by: Mike K

Yeah ... that isn't shifting the goalposts at all, and EXACTLY what the chimp said we were going into Iraq for 4 yrs ago.

But why would you expect the Sunni, whose country it is, to "see that they can't win and begin to cooperate" when the Americans, who are the invaders, cannot?

> I see wishful thinking on the left

Mike K:
Tax increase or no tax increase? Zero-profit war contracts or no zero profit war contracts? Truman Comission or no Truman Commission? Zero-exemption draft or no zero-exemption draft?

Yes or no. Be specific. Is this "long war" worth winning to the Radical Right or not? Pay for it, or put it on my chidren's credit card?

Cranky

Thank the Lord that I have finally identified the enemy - It is those "Cuds". So I have directed Gen Pace to take out all Holsteins and Jerseys in Iraq and Iran.

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run� and “stay the course.�

BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,� George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.

Mike K. : There will be no reasoned debate on the war until Bush finishes his term.

I think that there has in fact been plenty of reasoned debate, and Bush and his supporters have lost the debate. Congress passed a non-binding resolution opposing the surge, and will eventually pass binding resolutions requiring the redeployment of American forces out of combat zones, and then out of Iraq altogether. I expect that Congress will have required all or almost all troops to get out of Iraq before Bush leaves office. I don't think that is a wise policy, but I do think that is the policy that most Americans want, and the policy that won the 2006 election (though not exactly on the ballot, it was in people's minds.) At present, the Republicans in the Senate are still opposing cloture votes on particular resolutions, but that will end (I think), as one after another a few more Republicans come over to the Democratic point of view. There are enough of them whose constituents want a reasonable withdrawal.

Windhorse: In the words of General Odom, among others -- this war is the worst strategic disaster in American history. The benefactors have been Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria and in the long run -- China.

This is not worse than the VietNam war (2 million Vietnameses dead, 55,000 American soldiers dead, etc.) That war also produced a greater weakening of the military as, among other things, planes and their spare parts were reassigned from Europe and then shot down. In the Yom kippur War the U.S. was unaable to resupply the Israelis as spare parts could not be found in real time.

If you read between the lines ... .

Oh sure, if you read a lot of stuff I never wrote you'll come up with many meanings totally unrelated to my "lines".

ex-liberal: "If we withdraw and hundreds of thousands die in the ensuing chaos, LH will have an orgasm of joy."

That's okay, 'cause you're coming on the corpses already. At this point, it's hard to believe you are still swallowing your own horseshit. If you took five-minutes' break from discrediting critics you would realize that the issue is how badly your guys have fucked up the war they craved as much as any pedophile love schoolyards.

You picked the wrong team, ex-American, and your rationalization grow more feeble with every death-filled day. Sorry, but we're not here to make you feel good about your moral failings—which are larger than most, since you occasionally appear to have an actual conscience.

I've been trying to understand what "winning" looks like to supporters of our occupation of Iraq. At Powerline, John Hinderaker provides clues by quoting "this email from Steve Natschke, who spent three years at CENTCOM headquarters."

Natscke: "As I see it, things are turning out better than we expected from a GWOT point of view. Al Qaeda's decision to make a stand in Iraq has provided us with an opportunity to deal them a significant blow. They have invested many resources - there aren't that many suicide bombers out there - and much of their reputation counts on defeating us in Iraq. All we have to do is stay and we win. Iran is over-playing its hand and will see just as much trouble on their side of the border as they instigate in Iraq. All we have to do is stay and we win."

Talk about optimism. All I have to do is seek out the biggest bully in a biker bar, insult him, and if I'm still standing at the end of the night, I win. And you all owe me drinks. For life!

The only way to win he 'war' is to kill every Iraqi and have President Bush drink their blood. Most Bush supporters also support this solution.

Borat does, and that should be enough for us!

Brain: "But at least my wife has some real world experience with journalism and knows the vast majority of media people are liberal, and she does not rely upon fake news for her news."

Good, then she abhors Fox News. And of course she understands that regardless of personal views of boots on the ground, the "vast majority" of media managers who suck up to authority, especially the hateful, life-squelching kind that we currently are stuck with.

For the record, no Dems are hoping for defeat. Bush has cocked up this whole adventure, and he doesn't need any help in that department.

mike k: It will look a lot like Kosovo looks now.

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." - Tony Snow March 24, 1999

dead enders never tire of being wrong....its why they are..

dead enders...

Maybe they'd perhap to repeat the experience of the German people in 1914 through 1918. The government kept the dissidents in check, the army did their damnest to win, and the press reported the government line right up until the day the generals surrendered.

Yeah, the press makes all the difference!

4. The REAL war isn't with Iraq or Islamic extermism, it's with liberals, secular humanism and science. The wingnuts ought to be more upset with him that he's discredited their jihad against all things progressive and rational.

Yes, this is delusional. But they don't think it's Bush who has screwed up their war, it's liberals. There is nothing that will ever change their minds about this.

Unfortunately, these people do exist. The same thing happened with Vietnam. I know guys who started blaming the media for Iraq two years ago. And believe me, they are very whiney guys. Information that does not support their “beliefs� scares the crap out of them, so they open fire on the messenger.

What some of them want (explicitly in private conversation) is to “blow them all up, kill them all�. After all, “they aren’t people like us and cannot be trusted�. Just giving you direct quotes, that’s all.

Two things. One, everyone knew we were in WWII for the long haul. In Iraq, we were promised that it would last maybe a year, tops. Broken promises lead to a lack of faith that things are going well.

Two, those of us who opposed this effort must pay attention to what the trolls are teaching us. They believe this is going well and that President Bush can bring it to us, if only we have faith. That faith is an issue that must be addressed.

Ok, really three. ex-lib: "However, I think the media is ignoring or downplaying a great deal of good news." Fox and the Washington Times are clearly not liberal orgs; neither is reporting this "good news". Therefore, I must conclude that there ain't much.

It's haaaard.