Iraq is very different.  I have answers to all three questions.  

When did it start?  March 19, 2003.

Why was it necessary?  It wasnt.  The neocons wanted to establish a permanent military occupation of oil-rich Iraq, so they lied to the American people by blaming Sept 11 on Iraq, and by claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US.  They ignored Iraq's compliance with UN demands for restoration of weapon's inspection teams, and Hussein's agreement to dismantle a class of missles in the weeks preceding the invasion.

Who started it?  George Bush, and ultimately he and he alone must assume responsibility for every death and consequence of this "catastrophic success."

But that doesnt mean that the same strategies and tactics will work.  So you are right about that, but to deny that there is an element of deja vu is just another way of saying you arent old enough to remember that far back.  No crime in my book, and maybe even an advantage if it allows you not to respond to the right in a knee jerk deja vu way.

This debate -- the Iraq debate -- belongs to us.  It should be fought on its own terms and for its own reasons.  We can learn from what came before, but we should never, ever simply parrot it.  

The RWNM tried to say that Iraq was not like Vietnam. It is and it isn't.

How do you stop the bumper stickers that say "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam"?

I appreciate your sentiment Chris, but I don't think MyDD or dkos is driving the comparisons and I don't think we can stop it.

1.  It was John Kerry who asked in his 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake".   That's really a point that needs to be remembered.   By 1968 most thinking americans understood that the Vietnam war was lost yet it dragged on and thousands and thousands more lives were wasted.   We are at that point now in Iraq where the country needs to understand first and foremost that the Iraq invasion was a mistake that can't be corrected but can't be undone.   Continuing the occupation for another 2 - 5 years is just wasting more lives.  

I agree that it is politically useful (and important) to point out that this was primarily a neo-con republican mistake,  but we also have to be aware of the reality that most of the Democratic "leadership" signed on to that mistake.   And in my opinion I'm not sure which is worse,  the Republicans who led the invasion thinking it was a good idea, or the Democrats who supported it knowing that it was a mistake but afraid to say it.  

2.  The anti-vietnam war movement became anti-american in 68-70.   That is sad but true.   We became anti military, anti patriotic, and ultimately pro NLF.   Those positions were what made it difficult if not nearly impossible for middle america to join in the anti-war movement.
Those impulses though did not come out of no where, and understanding them may be helpful in ensuring that the current generation doesn't repeat them.

Finally -  I suggest people please look at Gary Hart's op ed column in today's washington post for a brilliant and appropriate use of our shared Vietnam War American History.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301178.html

But "Vietnam" is still extremely useful as an evocative, one-word way of encapsulating all that we're trying to say is wrong with the war. Surely as an English major you understand the power of metaphor and know that a vivid, one-word allusion, "Vietnam," is more powerful than having to repeatedly spit out "a war that started out with what seemed like, to a majority of people, good intentions at the time, but turned into a hopeless quagmire due to poor planning and a complete misunderstanding of the country's residents, that wound up tanking our economy, harming our standing abroad, and bitterly dividing the nation and damaging its psyche for decades."

You know, it's really about branding, and from the pro-war standpoint, you just don't want the war you're trying to sell get stuck with the "Vietnam" brand, just like you wouldn't want your car to get stuck with the "Ford Pinto" brand or your blimp to get stuck with the "Hindenburg" brand. And too bad for the GOP that the "Vietnam" association is starting to stick and pollute the image they've created for their product.

As for Vietnam being the starting point of the rise of Republican power, maybe seeing our failure in Vietnam and the success of the long-hairs in pointing out that failure pissed off some people and drove them into the GOP column. But concurrent with that were two other things that I think were much bigger in creating the shift toward the GOP: Johnson's promotion of the Civil Rights Acts, which moved millions of white southerners en masse into the GOP, and then the infamous Powell memo of 1971, which essentially laid out the framework of the right-wing noise machine and turned out to be their instruction manual for seizing the nation's ideological machinery. Vietnam, I think, was more of a signpost than what actually drove the shift rightward.

In the end, the activists of the '60s forged their own strategies and tactics and I urge you to do the same.  That is what we know as progress.  It is also necessary for your generation to be able to find its own voice and to define itself.  So go for it!

As for the Republicanism, the activists of the '60s were, as now, only a small part of the population.  Even if you add in the real hippies, as opposed to weekend tokers, it was still a minority.  I think that the older Boomers are still more Dem than Rep, but that the younger Boomers, who never participated in all the '60s stuff, are the ones that are more conservative.  Partly it is because they have the (somewhat justified) feeling that the first wave of Boomers (born 1945-1957)took more than their fair share of the cultural energy and the goodies.  

Furthermore, the dominant characteristic of the Boomers is idealism and a belief that they are unique and have all the answers.  You see this in the conservative Boomers as well as the liberal ones. It is just that the first wave was liberal and now we are seeing the reaction by the conservative Boomers.  All the more reason why your generation should not get caught up refighting the '60s any more than we should have had to refight the '30s and your kids should have to refight the '90s and the '00s.

In the late 1890s America's power elite realized it needed to get involved in colonialist expansion in order to fuel its economy, but just about everything in the world was already taken. However Spain, with its declining military power and resource-rich holdings like Cuba and the Philippines, seemed like easy pickings.

Suddenly, a massive explosion took the lives of hundreds of innocent Americans! The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 was blamed on Spanish saboteurs (although it was probably a boiler malfunction). The yellow journalist newspapers of the day, owned by a few right-wing media barons, beat the drums of war and worked the nation into a vengeance-seeking froth.

So how did the war turn out? The mission was accomplished in a matter of weeks, with hardly any battle deaths. The prize, unfortunately, was that we had control of the Philippines, where the resources turned out to be uneconomic to extract and the ungrateful residents engaged us in an insurgency that dragged on for many years and killed thousands of our soldiers (not to mention perhaps one million Filipino civilians). Finally, in 1913, President Wilson threw in the towel and we slunk off. Sound familiar?

finally, someone had the balls to say it. i <3 you chris.

i was born the year we left vietnam, so i admit that i didn't live through that era, didn't personally fight the battles, etc etc.  and i am grateful to the folks that did fight those social battles.  but i must say that i don't believe that comparing this to vietnam means we have to refight all those same battles.

we've already seen that mass protests don't work ("focus groups").  we have already seen new tactics being developed EVEN THOUGH the vietnam comparison is being made.  why discourage it?  really, why?  maybe i'm being thick headed but i'm not getting it.

What too many people don't understand is this:

1. Vietnam was a stupid war
   
2. The Baby Boomer anti-war activists were correct in this assessment and helped draw attention to this fact
   
3. The nation eventually agreed with them
   
4. And the nation hated them for it

However correct they may be, I think most anti-war protesters hurt rather than help us. This is what happened a generation ago, and it could happen again today.

"I dislike the comparison to Vietnam because while history looks very unfavorably upon the Vietnam War, extensive American involvement in the war lasted for eight years. If this is another Vietnam, then there will be no withdrawal for another five and a half years."

i think that, unfortunately, this WILL be the case.  we will be there for another five years or more, no question about it, unless we craft an exit strategy that we are willing to follow through.

It doesn't matter what anyone here says or thinks or does. Bush and the theocons love war. They would like a neverending war that lasts at least 50-70 years.

The WOT and the War Against Communism are identical. They are both neverending wars against a mythical enemy that can never be defeated.

We are not just in a battle against the Iraq War. We are in a battle against the idea of a noble war. That's why Cindy's question is so critical.

I don't know if Cindy had help from brilliant framing experts or she just stumbled on it. I suspect the latter. The entire ideology of the theocons is based on and depends on the idea of a noble war. The freepers still think Vietnam was a noble war against the terrible Monolithic Communist Menace.

WWII was not a noble war or a noble cause. At best it was a justified war against an intractable enemy that really was bent on world domination. But then so were we.

Iraq is not unique. Or as they used to say in the bad old days, Iraq is not sui generis.

The goal of ANSWER and the anti-war coalition is to end war as an easy answer for all time. The lesson of Vietnam has not been learned. We need to strengthen the War Powers Act and make damn sure that no future President takes America into another phony war based on lies.

Nixon and Bush are peas in a pod. Nixon lied about Vietnam. Bush lies about Iraq. Nixon was a chickenhawk. Bush is a chickenhawk. Nixon loved war because it helped his image. Bush loves war because he loves being a war President.

That didn't stop them from voting for Reagan, Bush, Dole, and Bushie or becoming a NeoCon and wingnut TheoCon.

The 60's are OVER. Please don't try to bring them back to us!!!!

Anne

http://www.filipino-americans.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?url=filamwar.html

It took the United States more than three years to defeat the army of the first Philippine Republic. However, the outcome of the war was never in doubt, mainly because the United States enjoyed tremendous military advantages.

In numbers alone, the U.S. was superior. Although there were only 20,032 enlisted men and 819 officers in the U.S. Expeditionary Force in the Philippines as of January 31, 1899, more troops arrived in subsequent months. By April 16, 1902, more than 120,000 American soldiers had fought or served in the Philippines. Even more superior were the arms used by the Americans, who were well-equipped. U.S. warships were on the coast, ready to fire their big guns when needed.

In contrast, the Filipino arms were a motley of rifles. Some had been supplied by the Americans during the Spanish-American War, others smuggled in by Filipino patriots, seized from the Spanish army, or taken from American soldiers. Artillery was likewise limited. Most of their cannons were captured from the Spaniards. Many Filipino soldiers did not even have guns, but used spears, lances and bolos (big knives) in fighting. Filipino soldiers also lacked military training. They did manage to win some small battlefield encounters, but these only delayed the ultimate victory for the Americans. Their resistance did not arouse public opinion in America against the U.S. military campaigns in the Philippines to the same degree that American public opinion forced the United States to withdraw from the Vietnam War more than 70 years later.

Nevertheless, the United States had to pay a very high price, more than 4,000 American soldiers' lives. One of them was Major General Henry C. Lawton, who was killed in the Battle of San Mateo on December 23, 1899. He was the highest-ranking U.S. military officer to be killed in action in the Philippine-American War. The U.S. government also spent about $600 million in all.

Though I think that we agree that the Vietnam war was bad, the reasons for it's inception and subsequent failure are infinitely debatable.

Using Vietnam for a simple metaphor for a futile and unwinnable conflict seems valid enough, but going beyond the most simple comparision is unfair to the argument.  I can make a cogent comparision between the Iraq war and nearly any modern war to emphasize a particular point, but Chris is correct in his assertation that using Vietnam as a template for interpreting Iraq is not really a fair comparision (especially to 'Nam vets and Iraq vets, respectively).  They are simply not the same sort of animal, other than in the futility aspect.

Personally, any chance to learn from the mistakes of the (recent) past is worthwhile, but I don't believe that this is going to carry much weight with our genereation (i.e. 20-30ish).

PS

They would like a neverending war that lasts at least 50-70 years.
- Gary Boatwright

Actually, our old buddy Newt was saying something very much like that at an Iowa event recently.  I'm too lazy to do my homework, so don't quote me, but he did imply that the "War on Terror" could last "50 to 70 Years".  Last throes, indeed...

I feel that the Porgressives should be pointing out ways that in fact this was JUST LIKE VIETNAM.  

Now I understand that you've bought the neo-con line of Dirty Hippy, fine good for you, you caved.

Now if you'd go beyond that....and get into facts and figures you'll see that this war is by far worse than VietNam.  And if we don't pull out now we will be dragged into an ever increasing role.  now where did I hear that before?

Perhaps you should read articles from soldiers returning home to find that their President still hasn;t seen fit to give these fine people a reason for being in Iraq.  A reson for losing their buddies, and a reason for killing civilians.

Kerry was so afraid of this label that he turned away from his finest moment and looked weak and ineffective because he wasn't true to himself.

If people are inclined to think that this quagmire in Iraq resembles Vietnam then not talking about it isn't going to make it any different.  You, Chris Bowers, along with many  people of your age lack the the courage to step out the way our generation did and force a president to stop the madness.  

We lose because we are weak and no longer stand for anything. Does Iraq resemble Vietnam.  Yes.  The gulf of Tomkin fiasco was a lie. WMD a lie.  Iraqis a threat to Americans.  A lie.  North Vietnam a threat to Americans.  A lie. Fighting on because we were afraid to look like losers. Vietnam/Iraq.  The similarities are striking.

Except of course to those who are afraid of looking bad by making the comparison.  I am insulted and outraged that you would post such cowardly request from us.....geezerpersons.  

Just as the bogus artifice of a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was readily accepted, so too was the Resolution leading to the Invasion of Iraq. Although the "unassailable" facts were missing then, so too were they MIA for Iraq.

I posted yesterday and I invite all to go to our web site at"www.chicanoveterans.org" and then click onto "cactus juice--commentaries" and you will find a post titled, "Indigenous Immigration:  Courtesy, Civility, and Compassion".  Although quite lengthy, connecting the dots will be found there.  Put simply, one will then fully understand and appreciate why over 71% of the Chicanos were opposed to the Invasion of Iraq.  Further, advocating for a Declaration of War, and not a Congressional Resolution, was our effort to reach for the higher moral ground when our nation was debating whether to go to war.  Unfortunately, our troops are now facing the daily analogy of a "hamburger hill".  

History is a mode of communication that enables us to relate, through a common system of beliefs, what we think is going on right now.

That's why the righties are trying and failing to make the WWII analogy, while the lefties are making and winning the Vietnam analogy.

Of course Iraq isn't Vietnam.  Not by a long shot.  The insurgency has nothing on the scale of organization or manpower that the Viet Cong and the NVA took into the field.

The Vietnamese Communists fought with emplaced artillery, relative air power parity.  By the Easter Offensive, they brought armored divisions into the fray.  They built a tunnel system that ran right under US leadership buildings.  They had the material support of the Soviet Union and China.

War has simply changed.

Modern war is urban infantry war.  Weapons systems, to a great extent, have outlived their usefulness.  Small units, with decent communication, lay seige to cities.

Every half-intelligent observer of modern warfare has known this at least since the siege of Sarajevo (although the smarter ones saw it in Beiruit).  

Aside from the siege of Hue, nothing like what's going on in Iraq occured in Vietnam.

The point: history is used more for literary device than for scientific analysis.

My big political awakening was when I was 15 (1975) and became involved in the Gay Liberation movement (as it was then).  Any progressive tendencies I have flow directly from that.

Around 1991, I was a part of the Los Angeles chapter of Queer Nation, the offshoot of ACTUP, Larry Kramer's group.  QN took a more satirical, street theatre approach to things--more kiss-ins at malls as opposed to die-ins in front of the Reagan White House.  At one meeting, we were discussing something or other and someone made a comment like "Well, at least we're not like those old drag queens like at Stonewall". Ruh roh: an older activist in his 40's just exploded, saying stuff like "If it wasn't for us old activists, you snotty little assholes would still be going to clubs where it was illegal to touch another man and you'd get arrested for dancing with another guy" etc. etc.  It was....intense.  He made some good points, but he completely "lost" that room of, well, snotty little asshole 20-somethings.

I've always remembered that guy's outburst and it taught me this: move aside when the next wave of activists come along because one tends to remain frozen in the time period of one's formative experiences (see: friends who only listen to the music they listened to in high school).  Still be involved in one's pet causes (mine is anti-gay job discrimination), but only give advice when explicitly asked and let the new wave make their own mistakes; it's the only way they'll learn real lessons. The saddest part for me is that a lot of the men I should be doing gay activist stuff with got wiped out in the first two waves of AIDS deaths; that whole generation that would have carried on from the Stonewall-era people, just gone, all that knowledge just vanished in to thin air. Sigh

-- Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

-- We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action ... should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

-- We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine...

Read the rest

.

Let me point out that "the sixties" were defined by this incredibly tiny hippie minority, perhaps 1/7 of population. 6/7 of the population was "straight." -- and essentially inert in an amazing variety of ways. The hippies had no actual power, only the ability to push things onto the public stage.

Is Iraq like Vietnam? Yes and no. At some point during the last two years, a cloud of resignation settled upon the Iraq "adventure," and all of the older people, mostly "boomers," began to feel it. There are a lot of us older folks who are aware of that war feeling. But Vietnam more-or-less crept up slowly upon the public stage. Unlike virtually all the other wars, which pretty much "began" at some point in time, Vietnam gradually "escalated" it's way into public view. One other strange thing about it was its pointlessness. You can at least argue that Iraq is about oil. Vietnam was really about, well, "nothing," really. This pointlessness seems to have been connected with its not having a decisive beginning. It is important to keep in mind that the number of Vietnam veterans was and still is very large, and most of these veterans do not accept that the thing was pointless. From the perspective of most (not all) of them, it had a meaning. However I find the conventional idea that we "lost" in Vietnam odd, since, what was there to lose? (As in, did we really give a damn how the people of Indochina paid for all that damn tea?)

Let me point out one really big thing that has never, ever, changed. There are always some who find war intolerable, and some who find it socially useful. Who really wanted to fight in WWII? But what would Hitler have been without his bloody war?

Now there is one really huge thing that has always been changing, and will continue to change faster and faster. The world itself is running down. Running out of oil. Running out of space to live in. Even running out of, say, fish. This fact has made its enormous mark on war itself. Vietnam represented a tiny expenditure of human energy compared to WWII. (Although the physical energy may have been comparable.) So far, Iraq is quite small, in terms of human energy, in comparison to Vietnam. Even as the world fills up with more people, the available human energy is diminishing, simply because we have less ability to waste that energy. The vision that comes to mind is of billions of tiny ants fighting millions of relatively feeble wars.

War is not really our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is running out of earth to fight it on. Ultimately it will become more feasible to just starve people than to use expensive lead to kill them. This is very, very serious shit.

Whatever successes progressives managed in the past, outside of the gay rights movement, since 1980 our victories have been few and have been quickly reversed.

-=-

Two points.

1. The older generation is over-entertained. They are a very soft generation that gave us global warming, George Bush, and the parents of Chris Bowers.

2. The progressive movement, according to KOS and how its defined above, has given us only a blowout defeat in 2004 yet Chris manages somehow to hold both in the same post. Its over-emphasis of gay lifestyle alienated 90% of America that wasn't even half interested in being as gay as big gay al KOS and his big gay boatride; Gay rights were a social movement, not a political movement. Not one major piece of gay legislation ever passed any government anywhere except for some obscure state with less people than three city blocks of manhattan. And even then, only barely and only because the governor was paid off. (hey, the guy did deals with Enron, he's going to do deals with the gay lobby. Seal those records, baby!)

1. Iraq isn't vietnam because politically
   a Iraq is an invasion of a country by America
   b The Iraqis are completely innocent of any crime
   c They are fighting for their freedom from us
   d Although they are also fighting a civil war
   e We did it for hate, revenge (bush's dad was attacked by saddam)
   f We are completely over the top as a society
   g insurgents are rebels, not al qaeda (best as we can tell)

2. America is not tracking towards vietnam because socially -
   a We are a far more liberal country
   b We have fewer resources and a lesser position in the world
   c We are much more corporate oriented (40% then, 76% now)
   d We watch way too much TV
   e We've got way less free time on our hands

So lets separate social activism from politics. If we do so, we get a clear picture of what chris is trying to call the progressive movement, and what I call the libertarian movement.

1. Environmentalism - we seek a return of the mechanisms of power to the people, for the purpose of saving the lives of our children against the corporatist earlier generations who destroyed the atmosphere and mounting evidence, ignored by the right and feebly defended against by the left (with the right campaign contributions!) - that the world has suffered irreversible global warming and is tracking towards its own destruction. Strictly a business proposition - Corporate lobbies don't care, we do. (80% of us, in fact)

2. Libertarianism - We oppose emminent domain and seek to re-establish the tax burden off our shoulders (American individuals pay 76% of all taxes, Corporations only 5 measley percent) and the right of a smaller, more effecient government

3. Peaceful right of self determination - We really don't care if you're gay, get out of our face. Do whatever you want.

4. Economic prosperity and policies that labour for the children, and the people - like promoting education and universal healthcare - investments that make sense.

5. Finally, a global competitiveness to our country - candidates that can stand up on their own two feet, and not mealy-mouthed front men for ultra-right or ultra-left activist organizations.

The libertarian democratic movement has already begun, with Paul Hackett and the Big Sky democrats already winning where every other democrat lost.

1. Both were started over lies (Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMD)
   
2. Both fought in cultures we have little understanding of
   
3. Both justified by the same spurious reasoning (Domino theories)
   
4. In both, the actual state of affairs on the ground was hidden from the American public
   
5. In both, the civilian leadership botched the war and refused to admit mistakes
   
6. In both, we lost the hearts and minds of  the native civilians.
   

And protesting the Iraq war is politically incorrect.  We must look for the postive in G.W.Bush's achievements in Iraq.

Read this directive from the DLC and make sure y'all obey it.  Especially all you younger folks. The future is in your hands. And for Christ's sake write some decent pro war music so we can march for war instead of peace.  So much more inspiring dontcha think.

Jeanne Doyle
upperbucksfordemocracy.com

Writing in the Democratic Leadership Council's
Blueprint magazine, Will Marshall, president of the
Progressive Policy Institute, suggested that Americans
on the left aren't so American at all. Calling on
Democrats to balance their criticism of the
president's handling of the war with praise for his
accomplishments -- "our forces and their allies have
toppled one of the world's most odious tyrants; upheld
the principle of collective security; liberated a
nation of 24 million; made possible Iraq's hopeful
experiment in representative self-government; and
changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli
conflict" -- Marshall said it's time for members of
his party to disassociate themselves from those with
stronger antiwar views. "Democrats need to be choosier
about the political company they keep, distancing
themselves from the pacifist and anti-American
fringe," Marshall wrote. "And they need to have faith
in their fellow citizens: Americans will accept
constructive criticism of their country if they know
the critic's heart is in the right place."

What heart????

Johnson would have been a great president but he was brought down by his capitulation to fear of the Democratic hawks in his own party.  He knew it and he agonized over it.  

Nixon, unlike Bush, had the guts to come out of the White House one night and go talk to anti war protestors that were camping out at the Lincoln Memorial.  He showed more courage than Bush and/or many Democrats.

Our party was weakening then and its much weaker now.  We lose for a good reason.  I respect the strength of the republicans.  Santorum's richest corporate followers can count on him supporting their concerns.

We cannot count on our party to support ours.

That's why we lose.

1. LONG, LONG WAR.
   
2. INEVITABLE DEFEAT.
   
3. GOVERNMENT FUCK-UP.
   
4. NATIONAL SHAME.
   
5. LOTS OF DEAD BODIES.  
   
6. BIG MISTAKE.

This isn't an old hippy-progressive thing versus new-progressive.  I wasn't a hippy or a liberal back when the war was going on.  In 1972, I had three brothers who had all served in Vietnam.  Everybody in my graduating class was scared shitless of being drafted.  There were some that were politically motivated.  I was into Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan and victory.

And here I am, ex-republican, ex-hawk, ex-lots of stuff, and I am totally against this war, not because it reminds me of Vietnam, but because it is so fucking boneheaded and based on one pompous fascist lie after another.  Shit, they haven't got ANYTHING right.  It's worse than a Three Stooges short.  Our foreign policy is trashed for the next few decades and it's going to cost us.

But I use the Vietnam frame because it's great shorthand.  It says right away the most important things that I want to say.  And as much as it pisses off Republicans, they have no answer to it.

The so-called progressives are another problem. They seem completely allergic to realism. For example, a few of us keep trying to just get rid of the voting machines, which probably nobody trusts, nor should trust. They merely enable massive high-tech fraud -- nothing more. Almost none of us is willing to demand anything big. Somewhere folks have been indoctrinated with a paralyzing fear of immoderation. They refuse to make radical demands. For example, I have been demanding a floor on poverty and a ceiling on wealth -- after you own more than 1000 times as much as the poorest folks, you just cannot acquire any more. The radical moderates ("progressives") seem to think this is "totally unrealistic," and quite possibly it is. But if you're bargaining for something, you cannot go in asking for exactly what you expect to get -- if you don't ask for more than you expect, you will never receive what you expect.

We learned that the hard way via John Kerry. He voted for a law that would allow Bush the power to declare war as a "last resort." We found out that the war was always Bush's very first resort all along. Big surprise!!! And now we have this war, and the insanity of Abu Ghraib, and etc., etc., etc. And the mess is so huge, the stakes so high, that our situation now can only be described as totally impossible. If we just leave Iraq, how will we negotiate for oil with people we've tortured in Saddam's own torture chambers? The whole situation has become an an unmanageable disaster that no one can fix. All because people like John Kerry had this insane compulsion to seem "reasonable."

And the "conservatives" -- oh Lord, give us a break. Their idea of "moderation" has been to invariably defer to these radical masters of disaster, the neocons. The neocons instinctively do everything possible to destroy the whole damn country. Every where you look, these maniacs are smashing something that is essential to the survival of the nation.

If you look around, you will see that everyone in the U.S. seems to have become a raving lunatic in the eyes of just about everyone else on the planet. Maybe it's the fluoride in the water. Or maybe we should simply demand that the states dynamite every school and college in this nation, so we can start over before it's too late. I am now ready for this option.