Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow.

With respect to Mr. Wilde (who likely would have been humbled by the living satire of the Bush Administration), it should be "Seriousness", if only so as to distinguish from those of us who actually are earnest and honestly invested in dealing with these matters.

Nobody, anywhere, has said that Iraq is going "well".

The daily sectarian violence and car bombings may have something to do that.

As for the "overt participation by the military in dog and pony shows for the press" what would you expect? That reporters get shoved out the door of the green zone with a notepad and white flag?

Why shouldn't they, if things are going as "well" as you suppose?

LOL. you mean like kicking the game board over when you're losing? Yes that is pathetic.

This is NOT a game.

This is REAL.

People - men, women and children - ARE DYING.

And the worst of it all? You just don't care.

Because all you believe are lies.

That is what is pathetic.

I detect a definite abdication/jellyfish problem. Or too many cocktails. -- ondelette

Or preparing to hang the White House with the rope they themselves have woven.

Why...is Sharter26% still allowed to hijack threads? -- bamage

He isn't. We're simply obliging the "Kick Me Here" sign he's wearing on his groin.

Speaking of "adversarial", I notice that Democrats seem to be immune to said adversarial inquiry. As always IOKIYAD.

And how often have you did you call for the Republicans to aggressively investigate the legally dubious acts its caucus routinely engaged in for the last sixteen years?

On the other hand, we still have the Iraq war going on. The next phase, after the security situation improves, will be to determine whether or not the country can get it's political house in order.

The actual war in Iraq ended back in April 2003 when the Hussein regime fell. Whats going on right now is an extended occupation and half-hearted reconstruction effort, all being undertaken while the political state that was Iraq reverts to its culturally normal state of sectarian and tribal divisions.

To suggest the Surge will stabilize the 'security situation' where current garrisons are being reinforced is accurate so far as it goes and addresses just 40% or so of the country. The overall 'security situation', constituting the remaining 60%, is as bad as ever.

Additionally its not a matter of 'the country' getting it's 'political house in order' after the Surge is finished. That should have been the priority all along! Unfortunately the history of the country has always advised such a result.

I doubt that you'll find anyone who would disagree with you that if there isn't a political reconciliation by next year, we should accept our losses and go home.

Fair enough.

Nobody actually wishes for such a thing, shooter242 and his ilk's claims to the contrary. But only a fool lets optimism blind them to the facts on the ground.

The Republican caucus hasn't been shy about using either rule to hold up/foul up legislation they don't like. Why in hell didn't one of the Democratic caucus use either to stop this idiocy?

First, did both houses pass exactly the same bill?

Second, if they didn't, how likely is it the whole thing can get muddied up in Conference Committee?

Long shots, both, and I agree the Democratic leadership hasn't shown the sort of low-animal cunning their Republican counterparts have.

Any insights, anyone?

Oh, come on. If that pack of barely-domesticated animals haven't managed to take over after over a decade in control of things, I doubt they're going to make as much traction now that they're out of favor with the majority.

In any case, let's also keep in mind this latest disgrace of the Democratic caucus isn't a done deal yet. Presumably it still has to go through Conference Committee and then get voted on again. Who knows what some enterprising member might try next.

Then again, is there any such thing to be found amongst the Democratic Congress?

What in the name of the gods are they going to authorize and legalize next? Mass internment?

What in hell were they thinking?

You guys hate one-party rule, right?

Considering what's happened when your gang of barely-domesticated animals controlled all three Branches of Government between January 2000 and December 2006?

Remind me again which party:

*failed to quickly rebuild the Gulf Coast after Katrina

*failed to rebuild Iraq after it authorized a needless invasion

*failed to fully fund NCLB and pretty much every other serious Federal initiative

*failed to address the continued decline of GDP growth sans Equity Mortgage Withdrawls

*failed to properly account for all funds used in Iraqi reconstruction efforts

*failed to address clear and acknowledged violations of US Statute by the Executive Branch

Here's a hint: it wasn't the Democratic caucus.