In March of 1968, the Wise Men--a group of trusted advisors to President Lyndon Johnson--informed the president that American forces could no longer accomplish the mission he had hoped they could in Vietnam. A few days later, Johnson announced he would not seek another presidential term. In August 1974, Barry Goldwater and several Republican stalwarts told President Richard Nixon that they could no longer support him because of the Watergate scandal. The president resigned a few days later. Who in the GOP has the clout to shake George W. Bush from his stubborn refusal to end the American nation-building experiment in Iraq?

Democrats certainly aren't going to force Bush to end the war. Their votes don't match their rhetoric. They could defund the war if they chose to. Alas, it doesn't serve their political interests to stick their necks out so they won't. They didn't do so when they "authorized" the war (a cop out if there ever was one) and they won't do it now to defund the war. A group of Republican House moderates held a candid meeting with the president earlier this week. Rather than read him the riot act, they just told him what he already knew: things need to improve in Iraq or else. Or else what? People have been saying that for years. The situation hasn't improved. Bush's popularity has dived, but he doesn't seem too bothered by it. "Stay the course" is the unstated mantra.

Staying the course in an unpopular but winnable and just venture is laudable. But staying the course in a war that never should have been launched in the first place merely takes us further in the wrong direction. The reasons given for the Iraq war--WMD, an advanced nuclear weapons program seeking enriched uranium from Niger, complicity in 9/11--have proved to be false. And other war aims, including ridding the nation of a tyrant and ridding the region of a menace, have been accomplished. If we leave, will the killing continue? Yes, if we leave now, or two years from now, or ten years from now. It will continue no matter when we leave. What about saving face? That argument rationalizes the continuation of any war, no matter how wrongheaded. There is no national interest served by continuing to occupy Iraq. Insuring the domestic tranquility of Iraq is neither our fight nor an ideal we have done much to attain.

Who are the GOP wisemen who could shake Bush from his delusions? The best candidates for the job are also named Bush. A united front of congressional leaders telling Bush that America must bring the troops home could do the trick. But the Republican leadership seems to have drunk as much of the Iraq Kool-Aid as the president. Ditto for the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. In trolling for primary votes, they trip over themselves in support of the president.

Iraq is not serving America's just interests. America is not a means to other nations' ends. America is an end in itself. Let America's example, not its guns, persuade others that the republican form of government is the best.

The current war in Iraq reminds me of an old maxim. "Stupidity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results." Despite the rhetoric at the beginning of the war, Iraq was NEVER a threat to the USA and we had no business attacking. It is stupidity not to pull out.

Well said Dan.

Guy

"Iraq was NEVER a threat to the USA and we had no business attacking"

I can't say I agree with that statment however,
just remember that phrase when you hear people talking about sending peace keeping troups into Darfur or to attend to any other such crisis.

Is the U.S. in danger from Darfur, or Sudan? No.

Does anyone remember Kosovo? I believe we still have troops there, don't we?
Should we ever have gone into Kosovo?
Clinton thought so.(he said the troops would be home by Christmas)
I don't hear Harry Reid saying,"U.S. get out of Kosovo".
We are at war with Islamic Fascism whether some choose to admit it or not.I would much rather fight our enemy on their turf than ours.
If we leave now we will be effectively giving
Iraq to Iran and Al Quaida-not to mention condemning U.S. sympathizers to certain death.
Not a smart move; whether you like George Bush or not.
I don't think it's a mere coincidence that we haven't been attacked a la 911 since we went into Iraq.

Kosovo is interesting, in light of subsequent events, because we aided the side of the Islamic extremists. Sometimes it doesn't pay to be nice.

Before the Iraq war was launched, one of my reasons for opposing it was that deposing Hussein would leave a vacuum for Iran, or other Islamic extremists to fill. It's ironic that the people who support the war are now using the same reasons for staying that I (and many others) used for never going in the first place.

Amen to that.

Dan,

I don't see an incongruity, the way the war was fought initially combined with several mistakes along the way is why there would be a danger if we pulled out too soon.
But that vacum and an effective Iranian influence was not an automatic consequence of our going into Iraq.

Speaking of incongruities does anyone else see a slight contradiction between the previous post's anti-intellectual stance, and this posts plea for wise-men?

r.c.

In a word, no.

I think there is a fallacy of equivocation here, r.c. To be against intellectualS doesn't mean to be anti-intellect or wisdom or smart people or reason or whatever.

Maybe we shoudn't have gone into Iraq(hindsight being 20/20)but we are there now and if we leave with our tails between our legs, it will be a tremendous victory for America haters around the globe-as well as an open invitation to terrorism on our shores. We are at war. The war will be fought somewhere.Why not there?

Guess that explains why FDR engaged in undeclared war against the Germans in 1940-41. After all they attacked the USA didn't they. Anyone who believes Saddam wasn't a threat to the US must be sure the PRC isn't as well. Support terrorist groups, have WMD (wishing doesn't make them go away ace) and if he didn't have them please tell me what happened to them.

We all know the six Ft Dix weren't a real threat, nor where the Al Queda types in caves. Its all just paranoia. Nothing to see here, just move along.

Right.

Trying to explain the difference between good and evil to a neo-conservative is like trying to explain geometry to a cockroach.

Go Cheney Yourself

Dick Cheney gave away to charity 80% of his income last year. Pretty good for a Haliburton connected scumbag, eh?

John Kerry gave zero and Al Gore gave little stating that his contributions via his quest for a solution to Global Warming should be enough (disengenuous f%^k).

Good and Evil Clyde? What about the differences between right and wrong you liberal tool.

Clyde,
Maybe you care to explain the difference between right and wrong to the rest of us.

Support the Troops!.. Gived them Halliburton stock!!

Oh, by the way, I'm a true republican "you tool"

Gore sucks, Kerry sucks.... they all suck. Two different sides of the same corrupt machine. Kerry and Bush are both liberal Elitist Yale buddies, both members of the elite Skull and bones society and are actually cousins. Don't believe me? look it up. It was a fraudulent and contrived election. Just like this next one is going to be. Stand up for the constitution, don't be a pussy

Ancient Mariner, see: "The Golden Rule"

Right turn, Clyde. If you are a true Republican, I know where you're coming from. But, you better get used to moderate luke warm "Republicans" taking over the party because they still don't believe they can get elected by being true Conservatives (Rudy Juliani?? WTF!?). Which....kind of does make them not that much different than the dark side candidates or office holders. So, how do we grapple away power from these bozos? Few answers I suspect and clearly not enough just to be pi$$ed off about it.