Here's something you don't read every day on a left wing blog. President Bush was right.
That's President George Walker Bush.
And he was right on May 1, 2003. Major combat operations in Iraq were over. We no longer had anything to worry about fighting an army under the command of Saddam Hussein.
Even Bill O'Reilly was right. The war didn't last six weeks. Our army and air force completely dominated the Iraq military. For historical comparisons, only Germany's early successes in World War II, crushing Poland, blazing through the Low Countries and subduing the French by avoiding the Maginot Line can compare to how easily our armed forces dismantled the "fifth largest army in the world", as if that ranking meant anything at all. (I'm not putting up a picture of O'Reilly to celebrate his correctness. One picture a year is enough of his ugly mug, so I'm at my quota until 2009.)
How could the president be so right and thing still be such a mess? Well, it's because Dick Cheney was right, too! Of course, we have to go back a little farther for him to be right, all the way back to 1994. Yay, YouTube!
I don't have a picture of Donald Rumsfeld being right, because he wasn't. When asked, he said that the Department of Defense had looked at all contingencies for what would happen after the fall of Saddam, and that is either an outright lie or a partial truth so puny in its truth content it might be worse than an outright lie. They may have looked at all contingencies, but the worst case scenarios were rejected out of hand by guys like Wolfowitz and Feith and Paul Bremer. And under their expert leadership, many worst case scenarios came true.
I've heard it said by people on the left, but I'd like it to become the standard frame. We fought a successful six week war in Iraq, followed by an unsuccessful occupation now entering its sixth year. We are paying for it, all Americans regardless of political affiliation, so we get to ask the question. When is the occupation over?
McCain says 50 more years or even 100 is okay with him. With all due respect, Senator, that's the wrong answer. Moreover, even the 25% to 30% of the public still supporting this occupation would shrink if the question was "Should the U.S. have a military presence in Iraq for another 50 years, regardless of cost in money and lives?" Asking it that way, I doubt 1 in 10 would answer yes.
The general election can be won, and McCain has already given us all the ammunition we need. Given that he will keep running his yap and all of us are human and prone to error, there will be even more positions he will be unable to defend when the questions are asked over and over.
Don't give up hope just yet.
Friday means Random 10.
So It Goes Nick Lowe
The Sun Whose Rays Are All Ablaze Shirley Henderson
Anapse To Tsigaro 3 Mustaphas 3
Love Child Diana Ross & The Supremes
God Only Knows David Bowie
Hand In Hand Elvis Costello & The Attractions
Jesus Walks Kanye West
Sing It Way Down Low Hoagy Carmichael & His Orchestra
My Baby Just Cares For Me Nina Simone
Some great stuff, but let's concentrate on Suavecito, shall we? Yes, Jorge Santana was in Malo and yes he's Carlos' brother, but it wouldn't be fair to say he was the leader of the group. Suave in Spanish and English mean about the same thing, and Suavecito would be the male diminutive of suave. I had always wondered why it was Suavecito instead of Suavecita, the feminine version, but the lyrics say it's about the feeling the guy gets, not the chica linda who inspires those feelings.
Dirty old man that I am, I'd rather be blabbing about las chicas lindas instead of the grease weasels running our country right now, but honestly, who likes talking about these people?