A Republican President together with a Democratic Congress elected with increased majorities who will hold the Presidents feet to the fire in sorting out the mess left behind by one of their own. If Democrats play it right 2012 should provide an even better opportunity for a clean sweep.

That's a tough game to play. I think the Congress has too many other duties to play right now; if they start the impeachment ball rolling, the government will do nothing else for the next year.

I do agree that there is no question that sufficient grounds exist to impeach Bush and Gonzales. Cheny, not so sure. I also think that "start[ing] with Gonzales" is something that has a pretty good chance of happening. That's almost being forced on the Congress.

Complete dishonor, huh? Would a little introspection as to how Iraq reached this stage be too much to ask?

I don't understand your continued faith in a President who has so badly mishandled such an important undertaking.

By the way, who is the "we all"? Because it certainly is not the majority of Americans who are supporting the congressional Democrats. The only "we all" I can discern are the diehard twenty percenters that believe Bush can do no wrong and/or place partisanship before principle.

Who is he? I was under the impression most of the killing in Iraq was being done by Shiite militias, or by Sunnis in reprisal for those killings. In other words, the "people we are responsible for" are killing each other.

This isn't World War II. It isn't even Vietnam, which I assume is what you're referring to in your first sentence. The enemy doesn't wear uniforms. In fact, which groups hate us the most is a constantly-changing variable. First the Sunnis wanted us gone because we got rid of Saddam; now the Shiites want us gone so they can get on with putting the boot to the Sunnis.

In short, I think your attitude, while commendably enthusiastic, simplifies and glosses over reality too much to be useful or accurate.

I find your reply a little vague, so please correct me if I mis-interpret.

As a beginner, I don't think you can so blithely define honor and dishonor in terms of U.S. government policy actions without taking into account the consent of the governed from whom that government loudly claims to derive its legitimacy and moral standing. The American people may not be long ignored, thank God. For that reason, if none other, the lifetime of the current policy is ticking away.

I consider it certain that the current policy will no longer be operative two years from now. And although I, too, consider the U.S. to have undertaken a duty to protect the Iraqi people, I think the first sentence of this paragraph is a good thing. As I indicated initially, I have a relatively high degree of confidence that the PR value of our occupation of Iraq to the insurgencies and to the international Islamic terrorist movement exceeds the positive benefits that our security operations achieve. In my opinion, we are not playing a positive role in the region currently.

As I have indicated here and several other times, I am ready for our nation to pay a real price to achieve a positive outcome to the Iraq adventure; however, I am not at all certain that there is anything we can do to achieve that, and unfortunately, I don't trust the current President's statements on the situation in Iraq to be true in even a general sense. So my preferred solution would be to elect a real President to evaluate the situation and propose a policy to achieve the best end possible, whether that policy be departure or escalation. I can't imagine that it would be a continuation of the current methodology.

The great mass of the Iraqi conflict is between Sunni and Shiites -- we are a third party to that conflict. We undoubtedly have enemies in Iraq, but neither side in that particular spiral of revenge is fully our ally or fully our enemy. You are speaking in terms of a simple war with a clear enemy because that is what has emotional resonance; that is what bucks you up.

This is a case where victory does not mean defeating the enemy. It means enabling a political compromise between two factions with centuries of bad blood between them. You would be more persuasive if you spoke of the challenge realistically, rather than pretending it's some other war.

The question is whether or not you are capable of living up to them. Look at today's newspapers for a answer:

A devastating series of bombings in a crowded market in a Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Baghdad and in a predominantly Shiite town north of the capital killed more than 130 Iraqis on Thursday, the same day a new U.S. envoy asserted at his swearing-in that the U.S. mission in Iraq was not an "impossible" one.

I agree with the unenthused new ambassador. It is not impossible that the US can stop the violence in Iraq. Maybe if yous all got on your knees together and prayed, things would work out.

I say this in all honesty, we occupy a different reality from the one you occupy. There is no common ground; we just have to tolerate one another.

is this Panglossian quote:

Bush-bots routinely criticized such talk as defeatist while in fact 75,000 troops and $20 billion per year for several years is downright Panglossian.

Had Dubya said 150,000 for ten or fifteen years at the beginning our nation would be much better off, today

on the Administration. Paul Bremer for example.

"Mission Accomplished" should have been "Great first inning, but now the real work begins"

But this diary does prove Orwell's point about the need of tyrants to re-write history.

make me want to cry.

I do hate it when the kos-folk make themselves look like utter morons.

for exactly what would be the first question.

What a surprising reaction. . . .

Actually, "honest" might've been a bridge too far, but in my opinion most of the Presidents in my lifetime meet the other two.

but...

And it seems to be getting worse instead of better...

You're caught! You do believe in history!