but it's naive to think that the world's biggest economic and military power is going to suddenly recede from its hegemonic status. We don't need to stop having influence in the world. We need to stop using that power idiotically.

If the power being refered to wasn't in the form of explosives. While we can euphemistically refer to power, as time wears on and our moral authority recedes and our economic vitality languishes, what's left of American power becomes the ability to stamp our feet and blow up anything we don't like. It's certainly not a pretty picture of what it means to be a world leader. At least when the Soviet Union was intact, we had something to aspire to avoid being.

Today...not so much.

Prior to the war, we had much intelligence indicating that the "imminent threat" was bunk. This was not widely reported at the time.

It might not have been widely reported but it certainly was available information to anyone who was interested. As I've said before, the choice of words used to bolster the argument for war helped give away the game because it was clear that if the administration could have been making even bolder statements they would have been.

the only permissibly "Serious" critique of the war is the argument that it bogs down U.S. troops in one country and thereby impedes "our" ability to smack down other countries at will.

That this IS one of the many reasons the Iraq war is batshit insane. It has the advantage of not requiring anyone to question or consider whether our intervention is morally justified. And it helps explain why the Iranians think they can thumb their noses at us with impunity.

It has the advantage of not requiring anyone to question or consider whether our intervention is morally justified

You realize of course that you are every Conservative's worst nightmare. They absolutely worship a concept called sovereignty. That is unless it belongs to someone else.

Then I must be doing something right. The point about sovereignty is of course that you can't have it both ways. Either sovereignty is really important in which case our invasion of Iraq is clearly and unambiguously illegal. Or it isn't so important in which case all those people who absolutely loathe the UN and the World Court and need to just get over themselves.

Take your pick.

Saying anything else is just an attempt to shift blame for this debacle

rather than refer to it as "an attempt to shift the blame" I prefer the phrase "reprehensible lie" I'll repost something I said earlier to illustrate:

Let's see, invade the country....check. March straight past everything to get Bagdhad...check. Stop briefly at a massive cache of conventional explosives and then march right past without securing the site....check. Decapitate the government and disolve the only organized amred force sending everyone to the unemployment line....check. Start going house to house terrorizing anyone we think might be hiding arms or thinking ill of our soldiers.....check. Collect people at random and put them in the same prison used by Saddam and subject them to sexual humiliation.....check

After accomplishing that under Republican leadership, we're now supposed to believe that any violence that takes place after we withdraw is the fault of those who advocated for the withdrawal.

There are many words for that, but in the interest of decorum I'll stick to "reprehensible lie".

I remain convinced that Bush won't bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran--the military and much of his party in Congress would go nuts; senior Republicans have told me that bipartisan impeachment hearings would be inevitable--but that doesn't mean Bush won't continue to try to provoke the Iranians into some sort of military mistake.

I'm sure we all feel better now. If Joe says it, it must be true.

The situation is looking just too much like the prelude to our “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq.

While certainly the rhetoric and maneuvering out of Washington is similar, the difference in the attitude in American public is profound. To do something stupid in Iran would pretty much discredit the idea of "preemptive war" in the public eye for another 40 years.

What is this "preceded" of which you speak? We have always been at war with Eurasia!

The good news:

There'll be few American Casualties

The bad news:

The Iranians will rally around their leaders.

The good news:

Raytheon will get lots of fresh orders to replenish the depleted inventory

The bad news:

There will be a lot of semi-randomly selected burned and mangled corpses to dispose of.

The good news:

The good news:

The good news:

No wait.....I'll think of it!....gimme a minute.

kept saying that invasion and occupation by us was the kind of collaboration that was needed to bring the changes in rights and freedom that young Muslims were seeking

There's been discussion before about how everybody characterizes everything as if all of history took place in 1935-1948. Is this why everybody thinks that if we just wish hard enough we'll be able to liberate France? (again).

It was the same delusion responsible for the "greeted with flowers" myth that everyone was using prior to the Iraq invasion. Earth to experts - come in! People don't like to be invaded and foreign soldiers scare the piss out of them when they are there!

I have difficulty believing that this actually needs to be said but if the namesake of the FU is still spouting that kind of nonsense then I guess it does.

If you post before Monday, it will probably be because something really appalling has happened in the interim. Here's hoping we don't hear from you. Enjoy the weekend!