The War Goes On Forever
Sorry I haven't blogged recently, but I think I have said everything I need to say for a while.
For example, in September, I wrote an impossibly long rant called "Damn Right I've Got The Blues"
Buried in all that I said (in relevant part) (Really accurate predictions in bold) (Current Comments in italics):
It was never about WMDs to me, and I have written about it in "The Man Who Would Be King" (I will excerpt from that post -- my Election Day 2004 post -- next time), but those of us who feel that way dropped the ball.
***
The notion that we should have seen all along that Bush would expletive everything he touches doesn't change my support for the war. You can't wait 8-12 years for the Republicans to get kicked out, and probably even longer for a War Democrat, to fight a war, which, contrary to public opinion, we did not start.
Democrats are going to have to live with the scenario -- not talked about, and obscure then -- not talked about, but obvious now -- that we should have taken greater action after the first WTC bombing in 1993, we should have retaliated when they bombed the Khobar Towers, we should have bombed anything when they bombed the U.S.S. Cole during the Presidential election campaign. If we had, then Al Gore would have been President, and they probably would have never bombed our building in the first place.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (yeesh), you go to war with the President you have. But you still have to go to war.
And when Boy George pulls out of Iraq next summer, because the Republicans don't want a draft, and don't want to face the voters in 2006 for an election campaign, it will be too soon.
Or when Boy George pulls out of Iraq in 2008, because Cheney has taken all the money out of Iraq he can, and his Vice-Presidential immunity from prosecution is expiring, and they don't want Jeb saddled with Iraq in the Presidential election campaign, it will be too soon.
(T)he earliest possible date we can leave ... is not when Iraq is a democracy, but the much longer time when Iraq is in a position to defend itself against Iran (whether or not Iran throws off the mullahs).
***
Tragically, Bush 43 thought and behaves as if he still thinks, just like Michael Moore, that this was a war of choice.
(Otherwise, why would he be vacationing in Korea in the middle of a war)
That's why Bush thought -- Bush still thinks -- he could fight this war on the cheap, with one hand tied behind America's back -- putting domestic political considerations and profiteering first. Putting short term victories in front of both the military war aims and the more important cultural/ moral war aims (like the information you gleaned from the terrorists at Abu Gharib and Gitmo is not worth the hit we take to our self esteem. Like what if the terrorists bomb New Orleans?)
We are still fighting with one hand behind our back.
Since we are planning to leave in the forseeable future (don't listen to the politicians, look at the generals), we must be ok with losing.
It seems to me that if Mr. Murtha is carrying water for anyone this week, it is not for liberal Democrats. Why should Mr. Murtha care about liberal Democrats? He is carrying water for the Generals. It is telling that when the Representative from Ohio went after Murtha on the floor of the House today, she said she had spoken to a Marine colonel. Perhaps the Colonel ought to speak to his own General before he shoots off his mouth. Maybe the Representative ought to speak to a General, too.
Maybe we should have known that the Republicans (c.f. -- Bob "there are only Democrat Wars" Dole) would lack the fortitude to see the war through. But even then, you had to go in, and hope that the Republicans would find the courage somewhere along the line to stay the course, and expand the war to where it ought to be fought and won -- both on the battlefield of the Middle East, and in the creation of the more perfect union here in the United States. It is still possible they will stay the course. Can't hedge a bet on this one. You've already put down the "all-in."