The Democrats who have no worry about facing their voters do support leaving Iraq ASAP. But, those who will face voters soon, especially those who want to be president, just don't have enough courage to take a position that even a minority of the voters will savage. I refuse to believe that there are any intelligent Democrats who don't understand how vital it is to our national interest to get out of Iraq and do it very soon. So, I am left with wet noodle spine syndrome as the problem.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I believe the Democrats are well on their way to losing their majority in '08. It's definitely heading in that direction. In my opinion, the ONLY way for the Democrats to save themselves is to give the crowd what they want: a little Republican blood. Impeaching Gonzales would probably do it. Impeaching the president and/or the vice president (whether they're convicted by the Senate or not is unimportant) would do it for sure. The Democrats are using the wrong impeachment model when they refer back to Clinton (or even Nixon). The impeachment model they need to refer to is Bush-Cheney, because this administration's crimes and misdemeanors are unprecedented in this nation's history.

The Democrats had better look down the road and bust a move or two because there's trouble on the horizon. Big trouble.

"Fo one thing the Democrats hold only a razor slim majority in the Senate and as a result they have no power to force the Busdh administration leave Iraq"

Nonsense. The withdrawal could have begun following the first veto if the Democrats had any strategic abilities at all. They gave the president a bill. He vetoed it. The president defunds the war. End of discussion. Instead, the Democrats caved, as they have done on nearly every issue. The Democrats are not only screwing their chances in the next election, they may very well be screwing their chances for a long time to come. All it will take is for the Republicans to realize that if they can get the peoples' business done, they will get the peoples' support.

What, exactly, is better about a cowardly, feckless Democratic Congress over a rubberstamping Republican Congress? Where's the advantage to us? The Democrats made some mighty big promises before the election. If they don't keep those promises, they will get the boot, guaranteed. Here in Minnesota, the State Fair starts tomorrow. Senator Amy Klobuchar will be there, and I plan to give her a nice, big earful of hell about her vote on FISA. Then I will vote against her at my very first opportunity. A crappy politician is a crappy politican. Republican or Democrat, it really doesn't matter.

There is little effort, in the campaigns or among the netroots, to build support for an alternative, progressive governing philosophy. I agree with point and would like to expand its reach. It's not only lacking governing philosophy, it's also lacking a coherent social philosophy. Netroots, in particular, pay much more attention to Iraq than the US and when US policy comes up, it typically involves privacy, health care, global warming and at the borderline minimum wages.

Netroots seldom talk about declining standard of living, support for education on all levels, increasing research investments and unions. Before you unleash a new Dem president on the country you better make sure that foreign policy is not the only Democratic principle.

As for Iraq, the netroots can whine as much as they want, the majority in the Senate opposes withdrawal in Iraq. Now we can get quite blue in the face, but unless some Republican discover new balls, forget it!,

Instead, the Democrats caved, as they have done on nearly every issue. The Democrats are not only screwing their chances in the next election, they may very well be screwing their chances for a long time to come.

And that's the nut of it right there.
There's no getting past this.

Time for some fighters with spine. What are they afraid of? Hannity gonna call them names? He will anyway cowards!

It's like this, if you don't even fight, I guarantee you'll lose.

Best for us, sure, and I whole-heartedly support it, but it does nothing for the Iraqis.

That would be an incredibly risky bet. We're looking for results now--not promises for the future. They already made promises, and they haven't kept a single one. What's to make us believe a word that comes out of Patrick Leahy's mouth? Why should we give Nancy Pelosi an ounce of slack?

The House passed Pelosi's first hundred hours legislation. Fine. Good. Cute. But that was their work--not ours. Our work was to get us out of Iraq and, even more importantly, to get us out from under the grip of this abusive, lawless administration. That's what they promised us, and that's why we voted them into the majority. And on that front, they've failed miserably. In fact, they've made matters worse.

Nancy Pelosi may suck at the job of Speaker of the House, but she'd be a hell of a lot better for the Iraqis than Bush has been. Part of the reason the Iraqis are in so much trouble is because the president has an agenda that has no basis in reality. ANYONE in the world could do a better job of bringing order and reconciliation to Iraq than he has done.

It is as vain to assume that there could be Iranian control of Iraq as it is to assume that there can be American control of Iraq, Saudi control of Iraq or Turkish control of Iraq. Iran certainly has a good deal of influence with important groups in Iraq, more influence perhaps than any other country. But they would have no more success in subjugating the Sunni triangle and Anbar province than the US has had.

Israel in Palestine, the US in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US in Somalia - it's all the same unlearned lesson over and over. In the modern age of easy weaponry and explosives, bullets and guns that grow on trees, and uncontrollable black markets in the tools of destruction, even relatively weak people who are determined not to be ruled by various external powers can pretty well see to it that they are not ruled by those powers.

Nobody is going to take over Iraq.

The politicians cannot tell the American people that they have been defeated for then they will be labeled defeatist. They must pretend that they have a plan that will lead to something else. I can understand why they say things that don't make sense to me so I will give them some slack on this.

We can only hope that they are aware that the only choice in Iraq is complete withdrawal of US forces. It would be nice also that we cease the 17 year bombing campaign against them, but that is probably to much to ask. (Ah the beauty of air power, no KIA US pilots in 17 years).

I think the Democratic party deserves to be torn apart if they can't get us out of this war.

I am lucky enough to be living in a state (Minnesota) where one of the boneheads (Amy Klobuchar) who voted for the FISA amendment lives. She'll be at the Minnesota State Fair tomorrow. So will I. Any messages you'd like me to pass along to her? Personally, I plan to rip her a new one. If she cries, I'll leave happy.

The Dems (those on your teevee) don't understand the meaning of courage. What matters is the courage of your convictions (which implies that you have convictions), not the preaching of a "muscular foreign policy."

The neocons actually believe their lunacy.
But the centrist Dems are weaklings: terrified that they might be caught with an original thought.
When I read the crap from Democracy Arsenal, all I see is weakness, fecklessness: "Americans want macho, fine we'll give them macho. They want a foreigner to hate, fine we'll give them a foreigner to hate." Why would I ever vote for such opportunists trying to catch the Bush 9/11 bandwagon?

Too many Dems have only one conviction: that they should be in power. And that conviction transcends all others. (Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, yes I am thinking of you.)

I think progressives should pull a Buckley-Goldwater on them. Our message to them should be: As long you don't stand for something progressive, we're willing to let you lose. After a few election cycles, they'll change their tunes and see that victory means they have to grow a spine and be progressives.

People will say, but the Dems, even the bad ones, are better than the Repubs. Let's say they are. If Bill Clinton was willing to turn in his brother to the authorities for his drug problems (the best thing he ever did), hell I am willing to let the Dems sink until they learn.

If more people did that, trust me, Hillary would change her tune on the spot!

But instead we'll all wallow in our mediocrity in the belief that Bush-lite (ie, Hillary) is really all we can hope for.

Sorry. Not me.

The only thing that comes close to upsetting me as much as the thought of Bush's hubris driven fascist tendencies is a spineless, gutless, unprincipled opposition that capitulates under the guise of "bi-partisanship".

HEY D'S...TAKE A STAND AND FIGHT FOR SOMETHING OR YOUR TURN IN HOLDING POWER WILL BE A SHORT ONE!!!!

I will vote for Clinton if I am forced into it. A vote for a third party candidate is, as it was in the last election, a vote for the Republicans. I realize that a vote for Hillary is nearly a vote for the Republicans too, but at least I won't have to look at Mitt Romney's ridiculous Ken doll haircut for four years.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I suspect you will not be the only one staying home or voting third-party. If Hillary gets the nomination, '08 is going to be an excellent year for third-party candidates (not that any of them has any chance of actually winning, of course). I'd say Hillary's chances of winning in the general election are slim to none. I'll choke back the tears and vote for her, but I know plenty of people (my wife and my parents, for example) who simply won't vote.

Do something about it.

Get behind Stoller's Bush Dog Campaign.

The "democrat party" could also be part of the poor spelling problem.

Just sayin'... 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

And just why is it that we think that the Bush/Cheney regime, having amassed all this power and defied Congress at every turn, will politely hand it all over to a Dem on January 20, 2009 if no one has made a serious effort to impress on them that there are limits to their power before that?

Don't you think most Democrats in Congress see a Democrat president elected in 08 and that executive power in their hands?

Some may very well be thinking that, but I don’t think voters want a dictatorial president, of their party or not. I want to see a president and congress that will pursue a progressive agenda, personally, but before that they need to return checks and balances, restore individual freedoms and protections, purge the institutional incompetence and corruption and try to regain our credibility in the world (ending torture would be a start).

I dunno. Unless there's some new GOP blood, and with all the resignations and not-running-ism in the party, maybe there will be.

But it would be hard for Republicans to make the case that they're not Bush when they voted to support Bush all along. And even better, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans on record, basically saying Bush is right, the surge is working, stand them up, clear and hold, Strategy for Victory, blah blah blah. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Israel in Palestine, the US in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US in Somalia - it's all the same unlearned lesson over and over. In the modern age of easy weaponry and explosives, bullets and guns that grow on trees, and uncontrollable black markets in the tools of destruction, even relatively weak people who are determined not to be ruled by various external powers can pretty well see to it that they are not ruled by those powers.

This week's Economist (August 18th-24th) touches on this in regards to Israel and Syria:

In a conventional war Syria would be hopelessly outgunned.... But the success of Hizbullah's guerrilla tactics may have given Syria ideas. A former information minister, Mahdi Dakhlallah, said recently that the next war would not be conventional, but might involve “the resistance” (ie, guerrillas) with support from the army.

Guerrilla tactics defeated Israel in Lebanon. Israel initially relied on air power to attack Hizbullah's rocket-launching crews, and killed hundreds of civilians. It mobilised its ground forces too late, and then made a mad last dash for territory that cost many soldiers' lives but had little impact on the enemy. The new chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, is trying to learn from those mistakes; he is reversing changes made by his predecessor to the command and logistics structures and has been giving reservists extra duty and exercises to make up for their lack of training.

...

But as Hizbullah showed, advanced hardware is no longer a guarantee of military supremacy. Victory in the future will depend on better intelligence and planning.

It sounds like some people are learning, at least.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

In my mind the Democrats need to wage 2 wars simultaneously. The problem being that the only war Democrats ever seem capable of engaging in is a civil one. But to be fair, most of us in this country simply love to bitch about things but when something needs to actually be done about them, well we're all busy or the sun is in our eyes or something...

Democrats (hell Republicans with a soul too) need to wage war on this administration here at home. And in spite of my mixed feelings on the subject, that means impeachment proceedings. And not just one or two of them. This nation is being run like Enron and we need to clean out the entire (mis)management and put this ship back on course. There is no more time for meager gestures, careful political maneuverings, hollow criticisms or kid gloves. If some toes need to be stepped on, don't step...STOMP. DO something and do it now.

The other war they need to wage is against the entire Iraq debacle. Shutting that operation down ASAP is of vital national and global importance. Whether we are talking about troop losses, our international prestige losses, our national treasure losses (both to actual combat expenditures and ghastly corruption) or the fact that merely being there is making things worse everywhere, all of this must be ended immediately. There are no, none, ZERO reasons that anyone has offered that make a lick of real sense in regards to our continued occupation. I'm reminded of the old saying "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining" only in this case we all jumped down the hole in the outhouse ourselves. And once we get the hell out we need to start lining the criminals up that got us in there. It's the Step One - Step Two approach. Moving into the region with diplomatic and humanitarian aid is obviously what we need to be doing. And for crying out loud let's also bring in their neighbors to help the process out. Forget about what Iran or any of the other nations over there is or isn't. The crisis in Iraq that we made is a genuine catastrophic issue for all (no debating or fudged intelligence reports required).

What kills me about all of this is that all of it is so damned obvious. To quote Gob from Arrested Development...COME ON! What the hell is wrong with all of us if we can not see malfeasance and treason right before our very eyes (on a daily basis) and not do a damned thing about it but make up excuses for not doing anything and debating about who's got the better plan that won't be implemented. It's enough to drive you crazy, well me anyway...

... but the war gets funded when Republicans control Congress. The war gets funded when Democrats control Congress. Bush, Cheney, and Gonzo don't get impeached when the Republicans control Congress. Bush, Cheney, and Gonzo don't get impeached when the Democrats control Congress.   

I agree cscs.

This is primary season so things are much more about intraparty selections than interparty match-ups. Although that too is a factor being weighed.

But if Democrats had to report to the polls tomorrow with a Clinton vs. Republican du jour then you nail it - most would pull the Clinton handle while some might simply not show. I think this election in particular will see far far less Democrats voting Republican for any reason whatsoever. It's simply been too long and too frightening a nightmare under Bush for me to imagine them doing so. Especially looking at the field of candidates that the Republicans have to offer. It's in a word...dreadful.

If Clinton is the nominee, I will turn out on election day to vote (D) in every down-ballot race. I simply will not cast a vote in the Prez race. I will not reward any Dem with the Presidency who voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

It goes beyond Dems like me. Do you expect the independents to show up, too?

I prefer to defeat these Dem hawks in the primary. If not, I expect to sit back and enjoy the general election campaign when the Iraq War is taken off the table as a Dem issue while flip-flops show up every darned place.

Glenn Greenwald has a post at Salon ("The Enduring Myth of Americans' Dislike of Investigations") which touches, a bit, on the "we kinda won... so where do we go from here?" discussion.

Greenwald's point is that polls show clearly that Americans want Congress to take action against the 'administration' -- despite the Republican's sad little argument that the numbers mean Americans think Congress is spending too much time investigating the administration!.

Well... Republicans lie; it's one of their chief features (To quote Robert F. Kennedy, they "lie....all the time. They lie when they don't even have to lie"). The polls, if the Thugs ever bothered to read them, support Glenn's critical point:

Thus, the only rational conclusion is ... the weaker Congress is in defying the President, the more unpopular Congress becomes.

The (so far) disappointing actions of Congressional Democrats may be due less to the myth that 'Democrats just can't lead', than the result of the general Beltway Effect.

Wings of political parties, lobbyists, members of Congress, industry and the military; the foreign policy “community”, journalists and pundits, have created a separate dimension in D.C. which defy the laws of Einsteinian and Newtonian Physics. It's a company town.

Crossing over the District line, it's mandatory to suspend all disbelief -- as if you were about to step into a poorly-written historical drama -- and this has been the case for generations.

Actually, it’s more like a bad episode of the original Star Trek: The inhabitants of a beautiful, capital city of a planet live in a separate reality, which has no real bearing on events outside the boundaries of their town.

Receiving no response to hailing, Kirk and Spock beam down, and tell the leadership of the political parties in the capitol that a Giant Thing From Space is bearing down on them; they need to take action and the Federation can assist. Already, their fellow citizens elsewhere on the planet are beginning to suffer.

However, the political leaders in the beautiful city chuckle, knowingly and politely: How absurd. Then, when Kirk insists, they turn tough — they have important things to decide. Politics is a delicate game of posturing and action — so many people depend on what they do for their livelihoods! Plus, there’s Quatloos to be made! and reputations to uphold! and power to be wielded! and we must sound sagacious when with The Speaking Heads!

Kirk and Spock end up in a cell; what the people in the capitol think is important is only true for them, and a few thousand others.

KIRK: It’s senseless, Spock — there’s a thing the size of a solar system heading this way, and all they can really think about is -- how they appear to each other!

SPOCK: Fascinating, Captain.

Unless and until the scales fall from the eyes of everyone in the Democratic Party -- from the Netroots, to the DLC -- about the true price being paid for the incestuous illusions which appear to seduce everyone in Washington, at some time or other ... we can't expect to make headway on a 'New Direction'.

We can't expect that candidates will just appear and clearly enunciate that Direction for us, and the rest of the nation.

I believe, ultimately, that we can provide this to the country. But, the Party has to come to its senses about where its true authority resides -- and only that is going to provide any new directions. And that authority doesn't reside in the District of Columbia, or the D.C. dimension.

I don't know if we will find that direction in this Presidential race; the D.C. dimension already seems to have anointed its candidate. However, the situation in America is dire enough that we must find a new understanding about politics and policy for the Democratic Party, one based on reality -- we don't really have a choice.

And until we do, we can expect that the giant thing from space will get us. Every single time.

[I had posted much of this as a reply on another site before adding it here.]

Me too. I gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt in 2004 but beginning in 2006 I started voting on the war and health care (and they do go together - the coward caucus is consistently cowardly) and I've now added civil liberties. I won't vote for Hillary because she won't deliver on any issue that matters to me. Why accept ownership of the war? Let the Republicans have it. If the Democrats aren't going to get out, I'm not voting to keep us in.

A lofty credential for a presidential candidate.

supported by our very own Amy Klobuchar, the great progressive Senator from Minnesota.

I e-mailed his campaign and got a good response. I thought he was waffling a bit for a minute but in the end he said he'd have voted against it.

Because the republicans will take it back. They'll ally with the principled democrats to rewrite these laws and take the power away from the President.

We're in an impossible situation. The republicans don't care about policy or principle. None of them.

That's why the unitary executive was a feature of the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations, while Clinton was impeached.

This is a new development in the post-Civil War era, partly a result of the final, post-Civil Rights Act consolidation of the Republicans as the party of the racists, and partly a result of a gradual elimination of principled republicans. The Northeast republicans are gone. The Northwest republicans are soon to be gone. The ones who stayed, stayed by acting like southern republicans--which should put them out of office after the next cycle.

This is a pity, as Max says. It would be awful if the spineless wing of the democratic party were to destroy this opportunity. Or, as Ed Kilgore no doubt would say, if the rabid left wing of the party were to destroy this opportunity. Ed's position would be more persuasive if there were more democrats in the rank and file who supported legislation like the bankruptcy bill--and who support a "centrist" approach to the occupation.

You can't stand the thought, but that's how things are. Again, somewhere between one quarter and one third of Americans think things are going swell. It is clear that for many people 3,700 US soldiers dead in Iraq isn't enough.

Look into history. In mid-1944, it should have been crystal clear to most Germans that they were going to lose the war. But millions more had to die before Germans capitulated. In early 1945, it should have been clear to the Japanese that their little war was going nowhere. But things had to get a lot worse before the war could end...

It's all about the power of denial. Some people are better at denying reality and need a much stronger kick in the backside. Sad but true.

"I want to Iraq War over too, but it needs to end the right way, and Congress is not the place where fine-tuned foreign policy can be made."

Exactly. Which is why Congress allows the president to veto funding for the troops and then lets HIM figure out what to do next.

"We need a president, one dedicated to peace not war, to do pull this off right, so I'm perfectly happy to wait another year and a half to begin."

Frankly, I find that attitude reprehensible. There are Americans and Iraqis dying over there. Men, women and children--many, if not most of them, utterly innocent. Easy for you to sit on your La-Z-Boy and oversee the event with the calm, rational eye of one who's not touched by the suffering.

"The ghastlier this whole business looks in hindsight the less likely it will ever be repeated."

Wow. Just a bunch of faceless numbers for you, right? No humans were harmed in the making of this political point? Just wow...

I disagree...

In mid-1944, it should have been crystal clear to most Germans that they were going to lose the war. But millions more had to die before Germans capitulated.

German leaders chose to send millions more to their deaths. In addition, these German soldiers chose to serve.

In early 1945, it should have been clear to the Japanese that their little war was going nowhere. But things had to get a lot worse before the war could end...

Japanese leaders chose to send millions more to their deaths. In addition, these Japanese soldiers chose to serve.

Now, one could argue that the Germans were brainwashed by a charismatic megalomaniac. And, that the Japanese were culturally indoctrinated to not question authority.  However, that still does not negate the choices these people still had. It might have been a difficult choice, it might have even been life-threatening; but the choice was still there.

It seems that many - if not most - chose either apathy, fear, or a desire to do more harm to fellow human beings.

It's all about the power of denial. Some people are better at denying reality and need a much stronger kick in the backside. Sad but true.

Agreed.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

Re: In mid-1944, it should have been crystal clear to most Germans that they were going to lose the war. But millions more had to die before Germans capitulated. In early 1945, it should have been clear to the Japanese that their little war was going nowhere. But things had to get a lot worse before the war could end...

One big difference though: Both Germany and Japan knew that as soon as they surrendered they would be occupied by their enemies and perhaps subjected to various sorts of punitory retaliation. America by contrast could simply withdraw from Iraq (no surrender needed) and there would be no real consequencse to the US itself, albeit the consequences in the Middle East are a big question mark. But there's no practical reason for Americans to be stubborn about this as there was for Germany and Japan in WWII.

Re: Frankly, I find that attitude reprehensible. There are Americans and Iraqis dying over there.

To quote a couple of famous American generals: "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it" and "It is well that war is so terrible lest we grow too fond of it." As I said, the Iraq War needs to end but the details of that ending matters very much. It can be a bad, nasty end (there will be no good end) or it can be a horrific catastrophic end. I frankly would not trust George Bush to shut off a DVD player the right way, let alone bring a war to a conclusion (which he shows no intention of doing and I doubt even cutting off funds would affect his stubborness; he'd just find the money elsewhere). I think we (and the rest of the world, including Iraq) will be far better off if we wait for a more capable and dedicated president to do this job. The minor trickle of deaths we are now seeing could easily turn into a tsunami if this is not handled right.

Re: Just a bunch of faceless numbers for you, right? No humans were harmed in the making of this political point?

One does not use terms like "ghastly" or "horrific" in referrence to mere numbers. Good grief, reread what I wrote. I think the problem here is that you are blind to the potentials of the future and perhaps think that as soon as the last American leaves Iraq (no matter how that happens) the Good Will And Peace Fairy will magically appear and turn the country into Shangri-La. Uh-uh, that's not how it will work. My intention here is actually humane: I am counselling that we avoid a far, far worse calamity by exercizing a bit of patience and reason now rather than engaging in a blind stampede for the exit and not giving a hoot what we trample on the way out. And once again, there is no way Congress can force George Bush to do this anyway (no, cutting off money WILL NOT WORK!) so the point is quite moot.

I "think" for the time being I'm going to keep what I'll do if HRC gets the nomination a deep dark secret (or maybe I'll just fib about it).  Here's the reasoning... If I say I won't vote for her under any circumstances, she has no incentive to rethink any of her positions and issue a mea culpa and pledge on the ones I find problematic, to say the least.  If I say I will vote for her against any Republican she and the Democratic Leadership folks at her side also have no incentive to move my direction.  So MHO maybe its best I keep them guessing a bit longer.

For the rest of you... I send monthly money to Obama, Edwards, and Democracy for America, and occasionally to Act Blue, which should let you weigh odds on who might get my vote.  <grinmode></grinmode>

aMike

SeeDee
Thanks, hrebendorf, for your characterization of JFP311's remarks as 'reprehensible'...For those of us who live every day with the thought, even sometimes a remote thought, that the 'phone ringing might bring sad news, I wonder if the guy has any idea of the contempt his blase attitude generates?

I'm a little more direct than you, hrebendorf.....Eff Yu Cee Kay you, JFP311, and all the rest of you un-feeling thoughtless morons who see a 'year and a half' more of this senseless Iraqi slaughter as a policy to be embraced.

Nope. Not at all what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that people get caught up in a plethora of reasons... Pride, ego, depression, apathy, panic, groupthink, etc.

Same reason why so many people hold onto losing stocks and other financial assets. Sometimes people don't know when to step back and remove oneself from the situation to come up with objective choices.

Same reason why sidewalk traffic flows in a certain way, especially in busy cities in New York.

Political leaders, especially, seem to have this breaker in their brain when it comes to saving face. How many egregious lies and rationales have we heard from our own politicians, when it would have been so much better just to come clean?  Or throw money and money and more money at a problem, without stepping back and looking at other alternatives.  Or continue to "stay the course" even though it's obvious the course we're on will lead us over a cliff?

Prime examples are the Sanford prison experiment and, especially, the Milgram experiment.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

SeeDee

Your attempt to see some analogy in the Germany of l944 and the Japan of 'early 1945' is lost in the facts relevant to that era.

Both the populations of Germany and Japan were under the iron-fisted control of THEIR OWN national governments whose propaganda machines continued to whip the hatreds of their people into granite convictions that utter defeat and destruction were better than voluntary surrender to foes who demanded 'unconditional surrender'.

Maybe one-third of the American public is being conned by our current Leaders, but, if the other two-thirds (or even, say, 60-percent) become vocal enough and ACTIVE enough, the imperialistic war in Iraq will end.

And, BTW, (honking the horn here) had you run up against the Japs fighting the 'little war' at Leyte Gulf, Luzon, Iwo and Okinawa, as I did, you would not have characterized it with the adjective "little".

"The minor trickle of deaths we are now seeing..."

Tell that to the families of the next American soldiers killed over there. Tell them why the loss of a father or mother, brother or sister was "minor". Explain to them how it's actually good that their loved ones died now, because in the long run, we'll all be better off if a few more soldiers bite it. Explain to them how George Bush wasn't qualified to bring their family member home anyway. I'm sure they'll feel much better and probably think you're a frikkin' genius. Your blase' disregard for the critical nature of the situation is really quite astounding. The Good Will and Peace Fairy is not going to appear in Iraq anytime in the near or distant future. But our presence in the region virtually guarantees more suicide bombings of innocent civilians. At least without us there, the Iraqis can begin the process of rooting out their real enemies instead of worrying about the invasion of a foreign army. You seem to believe that they want us there. If so, you're completely and utterly wrong.

"My intention here is actually humane: I am counselling that we avoid a far, far worse calamity by exercizing a bit of patience and reason now rather than engaging in a blind stampede for the exit and not giving a hoot what we trample on the way out. And once again, there is no way Congress can force George Bush to do this anyway (no, cutting off money WILL NOT WORK!)"

You're a Republican troll. The far, far worse calamity you're talking about is already taking place. Unless, of course, you're talking about losing access to Iraq's oil. In which case, you're a Republican troll. And if you can please explain to everyone how an unfunded war works, I'm certain the entire world will be most grateful.

"Make no mistake about it. War is a sometimes necessary evil, but it is always evil."

--Jimmy Carter