Live from a white spot in a purple nation on a blue planet...

I don't mean to pick a fight with theway2k , but I do mean to pick a fight with Charles Krauthammer, who apparently recently ripped off a Weekly Standard column, to the applause of the entire Bush Fan Club. We've been hearing about this impending victory since this picture was front-page news...in 2003:

No offense, but I only like getting fooled once on such things.  Now, on to fisking Krauthammer...

This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

First of all, how does "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good" count as opposition to the war?  If anything, that sounds mildly, tepidly supportive. It may not be your level of blank check, frothy-mouthed support for King George, but it's hardly opposition. Whatever, Charles.

The inanity continues:

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

Oh, yes, the evidence is trickling in...the evidence that the establishment Democrats and establishment GOP both want to take credit for any shreds of Iraq "success":

Imagine then the dilemma facing a Democratic president with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. It might be too much to think that steps would be taken to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, although a lack of firm policies and rigor in the endgame could have that effect. More plausibly, if victory is near, could the new president proclaim it and cement its benefits for America's future strategic role? Could the new president suspend his or her disbelief and accord the full measure of praise to a general who had saved the day? Could that president give full honor to the American troops, not just for their service - that's always easy - but for their achievement in winning. Could that president show up on an Army bases and declare, in full-throated pride, well-done and mission accomplished? (source)

Obama and Clinton were both supportive of Iraq, apparently, until things went south there and it became politically unfeasible to remain supportive.  BUT, don't worry, they'll find a way to claim credit if we win.  That isn't the issue.

The issue isn't winning and losing. It's a lot deeper that such tertiary concerns. It has nothing to do with victory or defeat from my perspective, it has to do with the way this nation has changed into something sinister since 9/11.  Yet Krauthammer faithfully delves deep into the Legend of King George:

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?

Ah, but then the truth trickles in...a friendly Arab nation?  A democracy friendly to the US?  No, we acted as the Soviets did during the Warsaw Uprising.  In the first Gulf War, we fought until Kuwait was free, then we sat back and watched Saddam kill Kurds and opponents (our supposed allies) during a decade of Clinton and Bush administrations.  We can't plead ignorance, either.  We watched some of it on CNN.

Operation Iraqi Freedom doesn't change that fact.  I'm sorry, but tell it to the hundreds of thousands who were rounded up and killed following our "victory" in 1992.  Then, once the opponents were expunged, we invaded Iraq on a false premise of WMD's and proceeded to set up a good-sounding puppet state in our politically correct, daft image.  From the Iraqi Constitution:

Article 29:
First:
A. The family is the foundation of society; the State preserves its entity and its religious, moral and patriotic values.
B. The State guarantees the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall care for children and youth and provides them with the appropriate conditions to further their talents and abilities.
*******
Article 31:
First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The state takes care of public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and medical institutions.
Second: Individuals and institutions may build hospitals or clinics or places for treatment with the supervision of the state and this shall be regulated by law.

Article 32:
The State cares for the handicapped and those with special needs and ensure their rehabilitation in order to reintegrate them into society. This shall be regulated by law.

Article 33:
First: Every individual has the right to live in a safe environment.
Second: The State undertakes the protection and preservation of the environment and biological diversity.

Article 34:
First: Education is a fundamental factor in the progress of society and is a right guaranteed by the state. Primary education is mandatory and the state guarantees to eradicate illiteracy.
Second: Free education is a right for all Iraqis in all its stages.
Third: The State encourages scientific research for peaceful purposes that serve man and supports excellence, creativity, invention and the different aspects of ingenuity.
Fourth: Private and public education is guaranteed. This shall be regulated by law.

Was this the purpose of it all?  Did 3000+ soldiers die so that the Iraqis could have universal healthcare, government schools, and environmental laws?  Does this make us heroic?  Does this make us victorious? 

We sinned, twice, both by omission and commission.  Sometimes "late" isn't better than "never."  The Bush legacy wasn't worth saving, but we saved it using a Rube-Goldbergesque George Bush Doctine: 

1. Hit them, then wait 'til they kill our allies.
2. Wait for a decade until their resistance, our allies, are completely annihilated or exiled.
3. Frame them with weapons they no longer have, but, when they had them the last time, we were providing them.
4. Invade on false pretexts using a terror attack based out of a separate country, on the premise that we are avoiding another terror attack.  This will save daddy's legacy and validate CFR plans.
   
5. Claim credit for success early in the conflict, maintaining loyalty to an ineffective family groupie who had no business planning the occupation of the country.
6. Allowing the groupie to thoroughly botch the occupation, nearly plunging the nation into a civil war and killing hundreds of thousands in the violence.
7. Build the world's largest embassy complex, set up a puppet state, and establish socialism under the guise of "democracy."
   

Hey, Mr. Krauthammer, if that's the "success" for which you want to claim credit, then, by all means, claim said credit.  If you want to fight with the Democrats for that credit, do so with my blessing.  That having been said, I continue to view this ongoing tragedy for what it is: a waste of resources and lives in a vain attempt to validate globalism. 

That's not my foreign policy.  That isn't worth killing over 3000 servicemembers to accomplish.  The Democrats and the GOP can both claim credit for this nightmare, but I, for one, pledge my undying animosity to those who led us down this path.  If they're in office, I will work to get them impeached and/or unelected.  If they are in the media, I will call them out.

If you believe this is worth dying for, put your life on the altar for the legacy of the Bushes and Clintons.  Pick up a uniform and put down your Starbucks coffee.  To use the parlance of our time, you are "Writing checks that your *ss can't cash," and that doesn't give you the right to make someone else cash them. 

We may "win" this conflict, but it is still the wrong conflict at the wrong time.  We may "lose" this conflict, but it is the fault of the King George, not the fault of the men and women wearing the uniform.  This administration and their enabling groupies from both parties must be held responsible for their crimes against the nation, the Constitution, and our uniformed services.