Your last paragraph starts with a sentence using a very important word to understand what has happened. If supporters went back to the early days of this administration and looked at every time they described Bush or his actions as "bold" but replaced the word bold with "reckless", they would begin to understand what happened.

Should I stay or should I go now?

Should I stay or should I go now?

If I go there will be trouble

An' if I stay it will be double

So come on and let me know

This indecision's bugging me

If you don't want me, set me free

What risks are these? Your argument rests on deduction and inference, without much discussion of the facts on the ground. Undoubtedly, there are risks to continuing the occupation. But your introduction suggested you would make a balance sheet of them, compared to withdrawal. You then failed to do so in the body of your argument. Do some reading on the political, social and military situation in Iraq and rewrite. C+

People who argue against withdrawal always invoke the spectre of having "lost" in Iraq. They claim that they are seeking "victory" But in an ongoing occupation these terms are meaningless. To win or lose implies an end state and if there's one thing that's abundantly clear is that our current situation has no end.

If anyone were honest about this and acknowleged that Iraq is intended merely as a springboard, then perhaps we could have a debate on merits. But once again, we the people are supposed to just sit back, keep our mouths shut and let the boys in charge (who have access to all that intelligence) just take care of things.

What risks are these?

The risk that I explicitly referenced several times:

* The most glaring of these risks is the prospect of military conflict with Iran.

* And they are, with increasing explicitness, pining for war with Iran, and our occupation of Iraq -- military, strategically, and politically -- is what enables that conflict. How does that risk -- to say nothing of the multiple other risks from staying -- weigh against the risks of withdrawal?

* Whatever the "benefits" supposedly are from staying, are they worth incurring the substantial risk that we are enabling our country's warmongers to achieve their real goal of spreading our war beyond Iraq to their long list of Middle East Enemies, beginning with Iran?

As is true for any argument, there are many ways coherently to criticize the argument I made. But claiming that I failed to identify what the risks are from staying can only be the by-product of a failure to comprehend basic sentences.

You have it exactly right (or least, as I see it!). The Cons did not want to be in Iraq because Sadam was a threat, or because they could get their hands on the oil (altho that surely added some spice to the pudding), or to liberate the Iraqi people. They wanted to be in Iraq as a springboard to go against Syria and especially Iran.

And they are now starting up their moves against Iran again, after a brief hiatus. It appears to me that they had been stymied for a while by the Dem win in Nov and the subsequent congressional pushback, but now that the Dems have shown their yellow flags (removing the wording about having to get permission to attack Iran in the House, failing to generate any real outrage or back up subpoenas in their oversight committees, and then fading on the Iraq war funding), the WH is emboldened again and appears to me to be getting ready for a bold/reckless strike in the ME.

In the previous thread, Kovie called me lazy for being depressed about our prospects, but I don't feel lazy, just frantic. So far, Pres. Bush has exceeded my every expectation of perfidy and lawlessness. I hope I'm wrong this time, but I really don't see what's to stop him from going over this last cliff. And with Rove thinking ahead, they've got the directive giving Bush dictatorial powers in case anyone objects. Maybe I'm hysterical -- I certainly hope I am, and that instead of the doomsday scenario I see, we'll just muddle through until 2008, when a Dem will be elected Pres. and restore a bit of the Old Republic.

That seems a big enough risk to me.

If it doesn't, consider that the longer the occupation goes on, the more violence the entire area is enduring.

We've been building permanent bases in Iraq since the beginning; clearly, the administration's mission is a larger, and longer term, mission than the one(s) they have represented to the American people.

And they've deliberately discouraged any talk of peace for Israel.

They may just think they are going to get control of the oil this way, but they never seem to anticipate the dangers that threaten.

Nevertheless, destabilizing the region really can lead to World War III, Armageddon, and all the rest of your worst nightmares.

I'd say those were sufficient risks, but even an attack only on Iran is risk enough for me.

And I think Glenn made it well. It is fair at this point to make a bald accusation of dishonesty at the neo-cons and calmly assert they only want to remain in Iraq for ulterior motives.

It fits them perfectly: Their ideology calls for lying to the masses to get them to accept otherwise unacceptable policies in order for the Serious leaders gifted with True Insight to lead the country for the Greater Good whether the people want it or not.

You know, it occurs to me that the Democrats missed an additional great opportunity in the recent funding supplemental. They were able to get a minimum wage increase approved in the bill, knowing Bush wouldn't veto and the Republican senate wouldn't filibuster because warmongering is much more important to Republicans than is keeping the poor down.

Well, they should have put in a provision explicitly barring any military action against Iran without Congressional approval under any circumstances.

See if Bush would be willing to veto that. If he did, then they could attack him for wanting to start another war without cause, and if he didn't then it would be explicit law that no war with Iran would take place.

Of course, AIPAC was able to throw its weight around a couple months ago to stop just such an act being voted on, which was a real shame.

Perhaps this is something to keep in mind for the next supplemental. If we can't stop this war by God, let's at least prevent the next one.