" Sadly, the same it's-only-about-America self-absorption will probably dictate the timing and nature of the decision to give up and come home."

Even more sadly, America will bear the brunt of the fallout. This seems a strange and heartless thing to say, since most of the loss of life will happen in Iraq, and if we think we've seen the worst of the civil war in that region, we ain't seen nothing yet. However, unless something very radical changes very soon in the way in which the United States approaches world politics, the Iraq War will give us a very nasty push off the pedestal. And I must say, at the risk of sounding elitist, that the United States has much farther to fall than Iraq, or pretty much any other nation in the Middle East.

It would be nice if, like England, we can stoically withstand the fall of our empire and move on. However, keep in mind: England's Empire began crumbling in earnest at the beginning of the first World War and came to an end shortly after the Second World War, a time in which England itself went through a very hard time (loss of life and everything) and barely escaped destruction. Is this what this Iraq War is the beginning of for the United States? If we keep doing the same old crap, it could be.

I don't want to be a doomsday prophet. Societies, after all, always teeter on the brink of oblivion. A state of controlled crisis is our normal state. However, it does not take much for the crisis to intensity, and remember: in addition to Iraq, there is Afghanistan. If you think those countries are far away, remember 9/11. If there is anything that day should have taught us is that if someone hates us enough, they can reach us across oceans. And George W. Bush and his band of thugs has stirred up, quite brazenly, not one but two very nasty wasp nests.

Flush with our righteous victory in the Second World War and our perceived righteous victory in the Cold War, the United States lost sight of the fact that our allies don't like us anymore, and our enemies are no longer afraid of us. We responded to that environment by electing hardliners who decided that picking on the little guy will improve our international standing. As a result we have sacrificed thousands of lives, pissed a lot of people off, confirmed the most vitriolic rhetoric spouted by the likes of Chavez, Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, and filled the terrorist training camps to capacity. It seems to me that our troubles are just beginning, and an un-graceful exit from Iraq is the least of our worries.

Uh huh, yeah, right. They're always so darn brave at first, but then Dick Cheney threatens to unload a shotgun in their general direction, and you can watch them backpedal. Pffth.

C'mon, Gates, demonstrate to us that your damn backbone is not made of cheese! Or you're the same as the stupid posers that got us into this mess in the first place. And besides, didn't John Kerry's experience teach you anything? It's much easier to say something unequivocable and short, than to explain it away afterwards. Nobody will remember your babble about the "complexity" of the situation. They'll remember the "No, sir", quite well. So stop piddling around and act like the guy for the job, for Pete's sake.

Or do us all a favor and go back to that teaching job.

RUMSFELD: Well, it's not a "war", nor is it necessarily "terror", and actually, you know what? I wouldn't even say it's "on". I think "on" was the most wrong part of the "war on terror" statement. "Around" may have worked better. Or hmm... maybe "whereby?" Or perhaps "through?" But definitely not "on". Which moron slipped THAT into my speech? They should've fired him instead of me.

Folks, facts, as Lenin said, are stubborn things, but for the wrong reason: they refuse to help anyone. Here's the deal: the Republican talking heads have seized upon a good way to deliver ideas, whether rooted in reality or not (mostly not), which involves simplified, direct sentences with clear declaratives. E.g.: Republicans are fighting against terror, Democrats want to cut and run. Do you, the American Public (tm), want to fight against terror or cut and run? Are you brave or are you a coward?

All right, you might say that it still didn't help to sway the public opinion enough in the 2006 Congressional elections. Sure. But keep in mind how tenuous that victory was for Democrats in many ways, especially in the Senate. Given Lieberman, the Senate is actually in the hands of the Republicans, and we all know that.

So. It's fine for this blog to express ideas in developed, logical but ultimately LONG sentences. The Democratic leaders, on the other hand, must adopt the Republican demagoguery in order to be successful. Like this:

Republicans are killing your kids. Democrats want to save your kids. Republicans are losing the war on terror. Democrats are trying to win the war on terror. Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are honest.

And when someone protests that perhaps their facts aren't all perfect, they would say this: Do you trust corrupt people with your safety? Do you want us to lose the war on terror? Do you want us to lose more kids? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of evil corporations that want to take away your money and your life?

I didn't think so.