We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Baker in The Times Online, describes the two main ingredients of the politics that are swirling around the War. First, the old familiar political gotcha games in an effort to embarass or injure the Administration, and, second, the high risk for the Dems that Iraq may be a stunning success - if it isn't already, despite the mad bombers. Baker:
"In a couple of weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls in their millions for the third time this year (the exercise of democracy can be habit-forming, can’t it?). This time they will choose a government that will have real power over the direction of the country. It will be a genuine first in the history of a region where medievalist tyranny has enjoyed five centuries of extra time.
Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, the most powerful living expression of that legacy, the tormentor of his own people and oppressor of others, stands trial for his crimes.
And the success in Iraq, intangible as it is, was never just going to be confined to the country itself. Look at the broader map of the Middle East."
Yes, look at the map. What if this all turns out extremely well, in the end? It might. Read Baker's entire piece here.
Belmont Club puts it better than I can:
"So it's true. Iraq is Vietnam and soon the 21st century version of the Carter era will dawn. Isn't that something to look forward to? Wait. The Iraq story: how troops see it from the Christian Science Monitor tells a diametrically different story. But that means nothing because 'public opinion' has made its mind up: Iraq is a catastrophic defeat. In fact, Martin Van Creveld says it is the worst military defeat in 2014 years, beside which Agincourt, the Retreat from Kabul, Waterloo, the Sedan, the Fall of France, Stalingrad -- all fade into insignificance. So who's coming forward to take the surrender, which is what customarily happens when one side is beaten by another?"
Read the whole thing. The fact is, the Dems and the Left hope Iraq is worse than Waterloo, because they want to win an election, and because they like to see the Evil US weakened and humiliated. But thinking it, and repeating it in print, doesn't make it so. Therefore, as freedom advances in Iraq and in the middle east, we will see the voices of the Left become more shrill, negative, defeatist - and desperate.