MITCH McCONNELL AND JOHN BOEHNER ARE ASSHOLES!

And it goes without saying that George W. Bush is an AssHole. But McConnell and Boehner proved the mettle of their assholity this very day when Boehner stated that the death of over 3 thousand US troops and the maiming of at least 30 thousand others was a "small price" to pay to keep us safe from an imaginary enemy who didn't attack us on 9-11. To say the least, that makes Boehner a major asshole. I wonder when he'll get around to apologizing to all the family members of the dead annd wounded. Or will this be just another case of IARIYAR?

Then you have Senator McConnell - a true Kentucky Gentleman (a term I use extremely loosely). On NPR today, on All Things Considered, Harry Reed was asked about General Petraus' report to Congress about Iraq. Reed spoke thoughtfully and without personal rancor about the situation in Iraq, about how it would be a bipartisan effort to change the situation, and how he hoped that both sides would find a middle ground.

It was then Mitch McConnell's turn. He was asked if there were any positions on which the Republicans could agree with the Democrats. Senator McConnel, being the Kentucky Gentleman he is, stated rather matter-of-factly that all he could see was that the Democrats were rushing to surrender as quickly as possible to the terrorists! I guess this is the high-minded civility the Republicans are always demanding that the Democrats practice! Just a lovely man!

But this is the Republican way, after all. All that's left for them is to politicize the War, to pretend that they are somehow manly men who will fight to the death, even though they are not the ones fighting. Nor are they the ones dying. It's fair to say that some of the Democrats may also in fact be politicizing the War, but the question becomes "Which is better - To politicize the War so that more US soldiers die, or to politicize the War so that more US soldiers come home alive?" I know which one I would choose. We know which one Mssrs. McConnell and Boehner have chosen.

IRAN; THE SCAPEGOAT AND THE EXCUSE!

It has become abundantly clear that BushCo intends to force a military confrontation with Iran, whether a pre-emptive air strike or an all-out ground war is simply the question. The Assistant Secretary of State has been making noises about the so-called Iran threat and the proof they have, recent reports concerning the attack on US soldiers in Karbala have been blamed on Iran, though no proof has been presented. And the MSM has quite simply decided to follow along, though at least this time there seems to be some scepticism.

So why now? Admittedly, Bush has called Iran one of the "Axis of Evil" (odd that given that Iran is a working democracy and actually allows women rights which they do not receive from our allies in the region e.g. Saudi Arabia) for awhile now, but the rhetoric has been mostly lip-service. Not that Bush would not have attacked Iran if he thought he could, but he went first to Iraq. So what new reasons are there for this sudden show of bellicosity?

To put it quite simply, Bush and BushCo. have to find a scapegoat and an excuse for their failure, and the easiest way for this to be effective is to sound the alarm about Iran. Iran, Iran, Iran. The Iranians are providing weapons to the Shia Militias! The Iranians are aiding the suicide bombers. The Iranians wish to control Iraq and to punish the US. I doubt very much that Bush actually believes any of these platitudes. But for him, it's a matter of not being held responsible. Bush, as he has said himself, doesn't care about his legacy; he cares only that he is not held ultimately responsible for the catastrophe that is his Iraq policy. He is the petulant two-year-old who when he sees he is about to lose, changes the rules of the game so that the game continues until he wins. Or everyone else simply becomes bored with playing.

Which makes it all the easier for the truly insane who believe that this is the correct policy to pursue these policies. So while it is obvious that Bush cares little about all of this, there is a cadre of policymakers, the so-called serious men, who believe wholly in this policy and will force US to continue to pursue it, come Hell or High Water. They will in the end destroy the US because they care nothing about the US; they care only about their policies and their belief in those policies. Cheney is such a man. McCain is such a man. Most of the contributors to the National Review are such men and women. The War Whore Michael Ledeen is not only such a man, he is also the ultimate hypocrite. He now says that he never advocated for war in Iraq, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

And so now, unable to admit to the catastrophe that is Iraq, they turn their attention to Iran and blame Iran for all their troubles. Because, as everyone knows, Iran invaded Iraq in March of 2003. And the War Whores that bellowed for War cannot bring themselves to admit that they may have been wrong.

THE NEW WAY FORWARD = OCCUPATION

Bill Bennett was on The Today Show this morning, speaking about Iraq. Matt Lauer made mention of Bennett's remarks concerning the Iraq Study Group and how he had characterized them, and I was taken by the fact that Bennett's characterization matched Bennett to to Tee. I believe his words were that the Iraq Study Group was the most self-righteous and smug group he had ever heard. Had I been Matt Lauer, I would have suggested that Mr. Bennett should take a look in the mirror were he looking for self-righteous and smug. But that is all a digression to the more important point: We are never leaving Iraq.

Look, let's be honest: the Conventional War with the Iraqi military is long over and we won that. We destroyed the Iraqi military almost without a thought. The Conventional War which our soldiers fought was a resounding success, never mind the legality of it. But we have managed to make a complete hash of the Occupation, for that is what we are in now. We are Occupiers.

I've written about this once before, and others more knowledgeable and more erudite have also written about this, but the conventional consensus persists in calling our Occupation of Iraq a War. And as Bill Bennett pointed out this morning, then the terms used are victory or defeat. We must win the War. The problem is, we have already won the War; but we have lost the Occupation. Which brings me to the title. The only way Bush can appear as anything other than the completely incompetent CIC is by continuing to call what we are in in Iraq a War, because Wars end, and they usually end with a victor. So Bush and the Neocons continue to call our involvement in it War. The only War going on in Iraq is the Civil War there; we are stuck in the middle of it!

We are occupiers. Let's face it; that's what we're doing there. Occupation, in and of itself, is not a good or bad thing; after all, we occupied Germany and Japan after WWII and still have bases in both of those nations because of our occupation. Our relations with both countries are overall good, though starined now since we don't seem to have any sense of restraint anymore. But what we have done in Iraq is quite simply criminal. First, we invaded on false pretenses, then we ignored the necessary infrastructure needed for occupation. And here's where Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Senor, and all the rest prove how criminal they are. Not a single one of them thought that there may be more to taking over a nation than just winning a conventional war. Not a single one of them looked back in history just two generations old and saw what was necessary to solidify the gains made by the allies in defeating Germany and Japan.

History shows that to maintain order, the US and its allies did not disband the infrastructure of Germany and Japan. We did not tear up the institutions of those societies, leaving a vaccuum. But Bush and his cadre dont' really study anything. For Bush, this was always just an exercise in one-upmanship. There was never any threat from Iraq. Bush Jr. just wanted to play leader, just like he played at everything else. And once the initial euphoria of showing what a great leader was over, he lost interest in the hard work necessary to hold Iraq together. Just as he lost interest in everything else he's ever done. Just as he's lost interest in rebuilding New Orleans. And the only reason he is now even considering any changes in Iraq policy is because for the first time someone (the American Voters, six years too late) is holding him responsible, something no one has ever done to him before.

But there will be no change in policy or the change in policy will be to send more troops because that would be an admission that we did something wrong. No; Bush will state when he finally talks to us that we need to chart a new course which will be pretty much the old course. We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. We must win this thing and we will win this thing, if only we persevere. And he's right to a certain extent. If we stay there for 20, 30 years or more, Iraq will become stable again. Just like Vietnam is stable again. And he'll feel he's vindicated, because to him what's improtant is not how many US soldiers died, not how many Iraqis died, not how much treasure we spent prosecuting this illegal war, not what it's done to the country and our civil liberties: No; what matters to him is his reputation. He is so wrapped up in himself, that he actually believes that what is best for him is best for the country. He has become what Richard Nixon was accused of: an Imperial President of the first magnitude. He does not do the country's bidding; the country does his. But the truth is the Emperor has no clothes (or thoughts, for that matter).

A final question that needs to be asked: Just how many lives, how much of our country, how much treasure are we willing to sacrifice for George Bush to not feel as though he failed? How much are we willing to scarifice for the continued Occupation of Iraq?