Centerfield

Boy, I'm just not ready to jump on the "debacle" or "failure' bandwagons.

If one recognizes the goal of democratizing Iraq as difficult and messy to achieve, then one should expect setbacks, and especially organized opposition from those whose interests conflict with western democracy.

And if one recognizes the goal of democratizing Iraq as difficult and messy to achieve, one should expect that the goal will not be reached without showing resolve in the face of opposition.

So I'm sticking with uncertain but hopeful over debacle or failure.

Are you comfortable with this adminstration, looking back at the "open arms" and "cakewalk" talk when we first invaded?

The debacle is not the fact that the war is still going on - we not-blind people over here expected that was going to happen. The debacle is that even though, to put it bluntly, "we were right and you were wrong" (where "you" is the cakewalk crew), for some reason some still trust the cakewalk crew to run the restoration.

I never thought it would be a cakewalk, which is why I only supported the war on the presumption that Saddam had WMD's, which he could deploy using methods that emulated Al Qaeda's. I figued it would be tough, but necessary. Now it's looking tough and unnecessary.

Regarding the Administration, while I've been critical of them, I don't know that they can all be placed in the cakewalk basket. Some were and some weren't, but I don't recall who was who.

What happened to Les Aspin? Who has been Aspined so far?

The essential problem with the administration goes something like this: 'Never admit a problem. Therefore there are never lessons to learn.'

I really don't know if this is the Bush vision of being 'team players' or -- as many have said -- arrogance or even ideologically reinforced stupidity.

I never thought it would be a cakewalk. Indeed, my main objection to invading Iraq was my pessimism over the prospects for success. But Bush has stressed on multiple occasions that no one should think that anything would be a calkewalk. He never said it would be easy. Surely no one else in the administration should be used as a proxy for the admin's views when the President has been pretty clear. As usual dippocrite, your characterizations are gross mischaracterizations.

To the extent that the Bush admin has hoed the row of "never admit a problem see no evil"-ism, it has surely been echoed by "see no positive"-ism on the left. Honestly, I'd be happier and more positive towards the administration if it were more upfront about whatever miscalculations it has made.

B I have no doubt that anti-war partisans would morph any such admissions into "even the adminstration admits its failure." Such is life when partisans have a ready-made negative intrpretation for each of two opposite policy approaches. Honesty and forthrightness is sacrificed.

Bush has stressed on multiple occasions that no one should think that anything would be a calkewalk.

Is that before or after the Mission Acomplished Photo-Op?

Dipocrite, that's the best you've got?

In your spare time between partisan blatherings, maybe you can take a trot down to the ROTC. If you ask nicely, maybe they'll explain what "mission" means in the context of a war, as opposed to a battle or a war.

Try again.

It would be wise to remember that the revolutionary war in this country was began 'by only a few unhappy people'. Look what they accomplished. It is not the number of people but the strenght of their will to win.

Ask an honest question, get a snarky answer, eh?

While I remember a great deal of mixed rhetoric pre-Mission Acomplished, to my recollection, right up until this week, the adminstration has issued nothing but rosey outlooks. I certainly could be wrong, but at least I'm not an ass about it.

Hipocrite,

Actually, I thought you asked a snarky question. But now that you've clarified it, I'll give a sincere answer.

Pre-invasion, there was mixed rhetoric, so saying that the Administration was calling is a cakewalk is a bit revisionist.

But you're right, post the fall of Baghdad, there was a spirit of triumphalism that said the hard work was behind us, and reconstruction, while costly, would proceed unchallenged. That has proven to be a major error.

A spirit of triumphalism? Yeah it was there, in some areas, but Bush himself always stressed that this would be a long war on many fronts over many times, and that there was much work to do, and so on.

I viewed this spirit of triumphalism as a little childish and premature. BUT. But let's not forget that the proposed invasion of Iraq was met by many of those opposed to it with dire predictions of high casualties, quagmire, and pitched opposition, widespread or total destruction of oil fields. Lots of things that were, frankly, way off, and never came to pass.

We toppled the regime and took over the country pretty quickly and with minimal casualties and minimal destruction. And I think the partisan right triumphalism was a direct response to extent to which the anti-war lefts most dire predictions were way, way, off.

Lost in all this is that one reason we took over the body of Iraq quickly and with minimal casualties is that we deferred conflict in expected areas of high hostility, like Fallujah. And now that bill is due. My sense is that both the right-triumphalists and the dire consequences left were off the mark.

And to anticipate a left-handed response to that, I draw a big distinction between criticism of how the INVASION would go and how the OCCUPATION would go. The invasion went as well as could be expected, and the left was totally wrong about that. The occupation has been very difficult, and anyone who expected otherwise was a fool.

As an additional clarification, when I say "cakewalk crew," I refer only to those members of the adminstration (notably, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) who were publicaly of the mistaken opinion that the invasion and reconstruction would be quick and painless.

I want to see an Administration "cakewalk" quote, in context. I can't remember any.

And the idea that the revolt took the Administration by surprise is silly. Why do you think we have over 100,000 troops there? Just to rebuild schools? To be potted plants, maybe

Q.: "Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?"

A.: "There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."

Why we have all the troops there? Flypaper. Remember bring-em-on?