Yes, oj, but those other mistakes were progressive mistakes, except for the first gulf war which was more of a country club republican error. We all know that 'progressives' are never mistaken.

Perhaps I am naive but I can't believe a majority of Americans would think that taking out a genocidal dictator is a huge foreign policy mistake. Unless I am misreading the American voter this, Hillary's out in 90 days talk, and Murtha's cut the troops off maneuvers are not going to help the Dems in '08.

Taking out a genocidal dictator, or any dictator, is not an issue with the American people. The only reason the Iraq war has lost popularity is because of the perceived lack of aims/progress coupled with the constant drip-drip of American deaths. If US soldiers were dying with regularity, nobody would give second thought to whatever else we did there. (Witness the Balkans. Witness our soldiers stationed in Europe and Asia. Nobody cares what we are doing anywhere. If our soldiers were getting killed in Germany or Korea or the Balkans, the whole dynamic of public reaction would change.)

We need to ask the neo-peace creeps, again and again: if this has not been vectory, what would victory have looked like?

We have taken down the major regional power--a wourd power by relative standards--in a few days, at trivial cost. It as though we waved a magic wand, and the whole rotten edifice came crashing down.

Even more than the military victory was the lesson presented to the fuzzy-wuzzies around the world. Let the Mahdi armies charge the Maxims, Omdurman awaits.

Now a mistake has been made. After taking down the dictator, partially breaking down the bars of the "Iraq" cellblock of the spiritual jailhouse, we "compassionally" recoiled from the creative chaos which all could have foreseen.

Ironically, the mistake is related to the very course of action the defeat-mongers advocate: we have acted as though it mattered what the rest of the jailhouse wanted.

On the contrary, the more confusion, the weaker the enemy remains. It is up to Islam to reform Islam. Let them learn what is to become a competent people. Let them reach for restructuring via openness, and let their walls fall.

Is there any possibility that Searchlight Harry can be held accountable for the nonsense that comes out of his mouth? Ensign would have beaten him in 98 if it hadn't been for "late votes" from the Vegas casino unions. He should be the #1 target for Republicans in 2010, always assuming the party still exists in 3 years.

Sam is absolutely correct.

Tom C, AWW, Lou, and OJ

You are ignoring the nature of Reid's criticism and the sinking support for this war with the public.

Reid and most all Democrats are telling you that Bush's muddling thru the Iraqi occupation and inserting America in a civil war is antogonizing Muslims with NO FRIGGING UPSIDE BENEFIT TO THE US in regards to ending Islamic terrorism. The America public is responding favorably to that argument.

Why not argue that challenge rather than ridiculous statements about how the Iraqis (shiite, sunni, whatever) really deep down love the sh*t out of us, because we got rid of Saddam? They don't love us. They'll do back flips and dance in the street, if an Islamic character could pull off another 9/11.

Furthermore Lou, Iraq wasn't a power. No Arab country is a military power. Neither is Iran. We invaded and the Iraq military went home. For four years we have schmucked around getting blown up by IEDs. Really great military strategy, right?

Who cares what Democrats, the far Right and the public think today? At the same point in the Reagan presidency they were all anti-contra. History isn't a popularity contest. In two years everyone will claim to have never wavered on the Reformation either, not least you isolationists.

Posted by: oj at February 19, 2007 3:16 PM

h-man - fair enough. But if the American public wants a plan to win, which Bush put forth with the surge approach, then Reid's let's give up now approach is a sure loser. Go look at the recent IBD poll which shows 70% want to win in Iraq (much more GOP than Dems of course).

And the comparisons to Vietnam show how the Dems and the MSM are trapped in the past. Pretty hard to find anyone who argues the US stopped support for South Vietnam was a good thing and yet the Dems are pushing the same tactic. When we have been in Iraq for 10+ years, having lost 50,000 soldiers (almost all draftees), with no end in sight then I'll buy the Vietnam analogy.

H-man, obviously, I disagree, at leasst in part. The many books on Gulf War II generally hold that Iraq fought about as well at could be expected of a 1970's armed force up against the state of the art.

The military policy had been superb, the political aftermath has been a disaster. War cannot be compassionate, nor kinder and gentler. Having unleashed constructive chaos in the Middle east, we proceeded to pine for the lost stability. We have been wobbling and flip-flopping over the coming reformation, and we are now poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

You are correct, I am afraid, about the sinking public support. The people would have stood behind a war that had spirit, song and power; they are turning away from a never-ending social work project. I talk to a lot of people who should know better, and who can be Socratically walked through all the arguments for victory, but who are still ready to cut and run.

The media are past masters of semantics.

Our military is increasingly being referred to as "mercenaries"! It'll take a little time, but soon everyone who doesn't read this blog will be convinced that the downtrodden "enlist" in the military because the worst economy since Herbert Hoover forces them to risk their lives, not for freedom or our security, but for sustenance.

It matters not how crazy the rhetoric. Lies repeated often enough soon become gospel. Without almost divine intervention, by next year, the great majority of voters will opt out of the WoT and Hill & Bill will be back.

People's support for the war is based on whether they think the leadership can deliver victory.

Bush does not have the credibility anymore that he can win and end the conflict. The American people have given him more than enough time. This is more than making some mistakes - mistakes are always made during war. It is that the mistakes were those people warned Bush about before the war, but he ignored them; that he denied for so long that there were any problems; and that he's announced a few too many times that victory was around the corner.

Bush, and the Republicans, have only themselves to blame. It's poor war leadership.

Reagan likewise led poorly, but won.