If not, I suggest you read up on the Internation Criminal Court and the UN Charter.

Thank you. I hear you loud and clear.

Aggressive war is wrong

There is such a thing as passive war?

The Vietnamese and the Iraqis now, paid with their lives for our imperial hubris, and then they continued to die while at home we had to bicker over the meaning of progress, the exact definition of our mission and if the American public would accept “defeat.”

From the perspective a rational human being, the situation is quite clear. Aggressive war is wrong, and the failure and end of such a war is the only desirable outcome.

Many mainstreet Americans do not delight to carrying around cynicism as the same badge of honor as others, ocassionally in evidence here, seem to.

For everyone’s emotional wellbeing, financial success and positive mental attitude, I hope we find a way to avoid it.

And your point is?

Agreed Casualobserver, I’m just as sick from hearing from those that keep looking back at 1990’s with the “Well Clinton did… ” So both sides look at the past for situations that “vindicates their personal world view.”

That said, I can’t see the TOTAL downside to any POTUS candidate to begin picking up on the direction in the Boehner intimated framework as long as they don’t sound like Chris and WA along the way (i.e. obsessed with the rearview mirror dialogue). It suggests to me an opening to be explored in measured rhetoric. When this question was framed in a not-too-broadside-assault fashion by Russert to McCain, even McCain began dialoguing slightly in the direction of the so-called Plan B.

If Petraeus fails to sway public opinion back to the “more for than against” by mid-Sept, those candidates would be seen as having been ahead of the game (i.e., a thoughtful leader). If Petraeus pulls off the modern day miracle (again measured by public sentiment), the candidate just morphs Plan B1 into Plan B2 because we still need to motivate Iraq to stand on its own feet……..i.e., “withdrawal” becomes “handover”.

But I wonder if that is the case, why is he still travelling so much? He’s in Baghdad then will continue on to Saudi Arabia to meet with Abdullah to assure him that there is no chance we will pull out for at least 18 months.

> both W and the public
> wants nice photo ops

I’d disagree about the public, Rudi, since the 2006 elections.

The House Dems have a new Iraq bill ready, that ends funding for Iraq after the summer, that Bush also promises to veto. (If we have a series of vetoes, how long before there is an override and how long before the public may take the Democrats’ side for a change? Depends on what is in future bills.)

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1115427912&hl=en

P.S. Cheney looks awful. Cross your fingers (even if you’re a lefty) and hope he makes it through November 2008. (If he were incapacitated, what then?)

Casual- sorry but I refuse to fake it- guess I wouldn’t have made a good Reaganite, LOL! I’m not seeing the shining city on the hill right now.

Your “great statesman” observation resonates powerfully.

We are so caught up in the moment that we have not yet begun to consider what I describe as “the pain of disengagement . . . that will reverberate for years to come” and I’m not sure we will be in any better position to do so this September or next.

There are no evident great statesmen on the scene at the moment, but I am hopeful that one will emerge out of the wreckage of the war and Bush presidency, perhaps someone from either party — or better still a dynamic duo from both parties — who are marginal players now but will rise about crass political showmanship and try to stanch the bleeding. (Gee! I sure sound like a moderate, don’t I, Tatukai.)

The damage that the American “loss” in Vietnam inflicted on government and society was enormous. It’s going to be deja vu all over again, only this time in an America far more fractured than 30 years ago.

Shaun, to the extent some of your post is focused prospectively, I salute you. IMO, there is little to be gained toward repairing the torn fabric of this country by constantly reliving events of 2002, 2003 or even March of 2007. May 9th and forward is the only timeframe that can hold promise of effecting something that can be CONstructive.

No, nothing about acknowledging an event of less than acknowledged success of a serious American endeavour is ever going to play well to any American except those who feel it vindicates their personal world view.

The September/October timeframe will be the occasion in which America discovers if it has any great statesmen left….someone(s) who is/are capable of focusing America not on what went wrong and who’s fault is it, but rather here is where we are and here’s how we best reconcile our divided country here’s exactly what we need to do to move forward on a unified basis.

I think the country as a whole is exhausted with the battle between the two parties, and many just want to see it end- they don’t care how. Others , of course, can’t admit it was a boondoggle from start to finish. But I expect leaving Iraq to split this country even worse than leaving Vietnam did, because then we will be debating about Plan B.