. . . is here. Mulhern is particularly apt when describing the actual (as opposed to the mythical) failures of Bush. A taste:
When President Bush cast the war in Iraq as a war for the benefit of Iraqis with vital collateral benefits for the U.S., sensible people recognized his argument for the nonsense it was and tuned him out. By choosing to cast it that way, President Bush guaranteed that the war would have shallow support at best. He also guaranteed that it would drag on long after that shallow support dried up entirely . . .Maybe we need to find an Iraqi version of Pervez Musharraf. Maybe we need martial law and an American military governor. Maybe we need a partition that rewards the Kurds and disappoints both the Sunnis and the Shiites. Maybe we need some combination of the above. In any case, we need to stop talking about how the war can serve Iraqi purposes and start talking about how it can serve ours. Republicans had their chance to do that and they squandered it.
I would only add, by way of softening Mulhern’s blows and perhaps reminding us that politics is never simple, that the real failures of Bush became ever more difficult to condemn because he was under constant assault for imagined failures. Defending him against those imagined failures and character attacks (e.g., Bush lied, Bush is arrogant) made it difficult to spend much time on the real problems. Besides, he was the belle we brought to the ball. I do hope we fill our dance card better next time.
Oh puleez..."Operation Arab Smackdown?" Send this Monday morning QB back to his books. The United States could no more "descend on Iraq like the Biblical plague" than we could attack Canada. It’s true there is an "honor" dimension to this war, but there is also the valid attempt to change the region and to eliminate a man who has trafficked with terrorists. Does this nitwit really think that Bush would have had greater support for the war if he had said "we’re just there to kill some Muslims and show them who’s boss." What stupid analysis...we did that in Afghanistan. Iraq required something more.
We’re not allowed to use the military to advance our own interests. We’re only allowed to sacrifice our troops to advance the interests of others, as in Kosovo and Somalia. Bush could never admit that we actually have good reason to be in Iraq. We have to pretend we’re there to give free lunchboxes to Iraqi schoolchildren for awhile and then leave.
You have the right to go fight for "our interests" whatever you may think they are. Your interests, may not be mine.
But nobody is stopping you from flying over to Iraq and joining up with the Iraqi army of police force or stating your own little campain. But don’t expect the rest of the country to give up their lives and the lives of their loved ones for what you consider "our" interests.
Bush and the Republicans failed to convince the country that the occupation of Iraq had anything to do with the so-called "war or terror" (tm GOP).
Not even the 15 Intell agencies felt Iraq was reducing the number of terrorists, they reported it was increasing the number.
Bush couldn’t even convince the spooks. That’s because it’s just not true.
However lame I personally find Marko’s argument -- and I very much think it incredibly lame and stupid as hell -- that’s beside the point. The girlie men of America won the election. I suspect the troops will be outta Iraq within the next 6-9 months.
Then, we’ll give the bastard terrorist Nazis a few years to rebuild Baghdad into another Afghanistan, through which to launch another 9/11... and then we’ll nuke the livin’ hell outta that joint and everybody in it.
Oh yeah, whatever. Bush sucks.
Plubius, I will lay you ten to one odds that the military does not leave Iraq in the next 6-9 months.