As the war wore on last winter, I began to worry that Americans would see Iraq as "a series of unfortunate events for Poor George".

Having Baker deliver this message provides a sort of cleansing of such miasmic spin. Media heads will feel constrained to tell the "I told you so" story of Baker's August 2002 editorial in the Times in which he wagged the surrogate finger to 43, pretty much predicting precisely what has occured, along with Scowcroft and others from the Bush 41 and Reagan Administrations.

...and Thank Heavens for that! It's time the misguided mantras of these neo-cons get it between the eyes. The unprincipled rush into Iraq was doomed in the Summer of 2002, because as even Baker recently recalled in a Charlie Rose interview, Cheney at that time was denouncing the UN as a viable institution and inspections as meaningful due process, and hawking both pre-emption and war as no longer being the 'last resort'.

Sad as it is to have come to this, there is merit in America's re-affirmed sense of proper foreign policy principles, exhibited in a new Salon headline just posted I write: "Deserting the GOP: ...Republican incumbents can no longer count on the support of military voters". I for one would be hugely relieved if this episode ends with a theme of "starkly misguided George" rather than a "poor ole' victim of circumstances George".

in seeing the left wing of the CIA battle the right wing of the CIA.

Portraying Baker as a force of moderation is so misrepresentative as to be laughable. There is scarcely a slimey deal of the last 30 years that does not have Baker's fingerprints all over it.

Surely Bush 43 is discredited, but what of Bush 41. As former CIA chief and VP during Iran/Contra, Bush got away with perjuring himself when he insisted he was out of the loop. He then pardoned Caspar Weinberger on the eve of trial, sparing Weinberger the dirty task of ratting Bush out. Bush was front and central in arming and equipping Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Who do we think gave Saddam Hussein the precursor chemicals with which he gassed the Iranians and Kurds?

Now 41 pimps for the Carlysle Group - and a fouler band of war profiteers has never walked the planet: Bush 41 and James Baker III and John Major - the Anglo-American mafia at its worst.

The foul deeds of Eisenhower's military industrial complex have so muddled the world that it may not be possible to fix it - from the Iran Mossadegh coup in 1953 to Viet Nam to Iran/Contra to the Gulf War they have at each successive stage chosen the path of enrichment by exploitation of the misery of the masses.

No, Bush will not agree to withdraw troops from Iraq. We will be in Iraq until sometime after his successor takes office. That is a foregone conclusion. Why should Bush, who never admits he's wrong, change his mind, when right here on Liberal Salon, there is always the predictable flurry of posts from self-described Liberals who say it would wrong to just leave Iraq after we have messed up so thoroughly? Lost in this argument of should we stay or should we go, is the fact that to remain at the current level of force, is worse then pointless. After more then three years, it should be quite clear that we do not have enough troop strength to stem the tide of violence, much less turn it back. Yet all those who call for remaining, never suggest that we increase troop strength to a level that would have any reasonable hope of stabilizing Iraq, because the number - surely more then the 400,000 troops originally requested for the occupation, before we broke Iraq - could not be supplied without a draft and quite possible the bankruptcy of the US treasury.

I have said from day one, we will leave Iraq having accomplished nothing but creating a big unstable mess. The only question remaining is how much money will we waste and how many lives will be lost. To that prediction, I add another. The next race for President for revolve around candidates from both parties arguing over who can get us out of Iraq more quickly, because two years from now, no one except Bush and his Amen Chorus will have any stomach for one more moment there.

All this celebrating before-the-fact is making me VERY goddamn nervous. Let's STFU until after the election, please!

It was only two years ago when reading Salon just before the election, Kerry was not only a sure thing but seemingly had already won. Let's take breath, chill out on the polls and just vote.

I've always been against the Iraq war and in 2004 I thought it was of paramount concern to get Bush out of office.

It's 2006 now and Iraq is a disaster. There is no security nor basic services for the people. Tens (hundreds) of thousands of Iraquis have died. Women are subject to religious elements that have denied them basic rights that they had under Sadaam. The "democracy" that American troops are bringing into being is corrupt, sectarian and ignores human rights. American troops are under constant attack.

There is no evidence that the presence of American troops is achieving anything except to give cause to the insurgency. Iraquis no longer want American troops in their country.

It seems somewhat clear that the U.S. needs to exit Iraq. We could do this constructively by considering the mission accomplished -- Sadaam the dictator is gone and Iraquis are now free to put in place the government they want. The war was not "a mistake" as Sadaam the dicatator is out of power. The U.S. delivered democracy to a Middle Eastern country and then the U.S. left. What better message to send.

Most reasonable people agree that the U.S. needs to exit Iraq and put its resources into preventing a resurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan and the flourishing of terrorist bases in lawless states.

If anti-war people and, more importantly, the media can't support a withdrawal from Iraq without attendant "IT WAS A MISTAKE" glee, it will be really bad for the country. The U.S. invaded another country and the entire world was against it. Why not stress what was accomplished -- a hideous dictator was removed. The Iraquis are now free to choose their own destiny.

This is not about Bush, Cheney or Rove raising the "alert colors" pre 2004 election, or the administration telling their anti-war opponents that they are pro-terrorist. This is about how the United States is going to be seen for generations. While this administration has never left its partisan agenda at our borders, the end to the Iraq war is really an issue where all Americans need to come together for the national good. We have no leadership in Washington, but we should instinctively know that leaving Iraq in the best way possible is a matter of national integrity as well as national security.

This is the only way that the U.S. can salvage what's left of its tattered reputation. And I would really hope that every American could come together to this end.