Self-Immolation

While the pundicracy has had it's cynical giggles at a split in the Democratic attitudes towards Iraq, also known as Joe Lieberman versus Sanity, how much note will be taken of the obvious split on Iraq between the GOP's self-described purveyor's of non-spin McCain versus Hegel?

Furthermore, it is obvious that after mocking, haranguing and praying that we on the left who decried this disaster before it ever started, sentient conservatives are having a moment of their own:

Although, I disagree with the remedy of Rick Moran, I at least give him credit for understanding that the Administration has been lying to all of us for years about a war (as opposed to a blowjob):

For if there is a victory to be had in Iraq – and one can just barely make one out in the distance amidst the blood and ruin – it will take courage on the part of the President to confront these problems and do what is necessary in order to reverse course. And this will entail both risks and probably a larger casualty count among Americans fighting there.

Yes we need more troops – a lot more at least temporarily. Order must be brought to Baghdad and its environs and to do that we would need, according to General Trainor, is perhaps as many as 50,000 more Americans to both police the area and ferret out insurgents and the death squads.

For that to happen, the President would have to admit he and Donald Rumsfeld have been wrong all along and that in order to achieve stability, the additional troops must be sent. It is of the utmost distress to me that this President has failed to take responsibility for past mistakes and admitted to error in prosecuting the war. The grudging admissions of mistakes just isn’t getting it done. If he is serious about winning in Iraq (and he has called Iraq the “frontline” in the war on terror”) then he is going to have to go before the American people and explain why additional troops are necessary.

Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now. The whispers in Washington that the President wishes to simply “hang on” in Iraq and leave the denouement to his successor is possibly the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard – which leads me to believe that it is not true. But it is equally immoral to simply apply more of the same prescriptions to a war that is now clearly out of control. Drastic changes are necessary. And if the President is not willing to apply them whether out of fear of the political consequences to his presidency or the Republican party, then he doesn’t deserve to sit in the big chair.

I bolded one part of this because, frankly, if one doesn't think at this point that Bush, Cheney and Rove are not capable of immoral cynicism, there's little hope you'll ever believe such a thing is possible.

They lied to get us into this war, using the highest level of immoral cynicism possible, they've continued it throughout. By this time you really have only two choices about Bush, he's either barely smart enough to breathe, or he is just as immoral and cynical as Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld (for whom you do not have the option of stupidity, they're just patently immoral).

The solution to Iraq is not more troops, the actual solution set sail in the Spring of 2003 when we gave it up to allow flightsuit photo ops. Now it is just a parade of horribles. They either fuck themselves and us over now; or they fuck themselves and us over after several hundred more Americans die and billions more are wasted in costs several months down the line. In my opinion, we might as well get the Iranian's best price on the giant embassy, or they'll get it for free in a few years anyway.