Finally, it appears the the Bush Republicans long-sought after defeat of the U.S. troops in Iraq is succumbing to the actual reality of a Democrat Party victory in that country, of which Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberals in Congress have been working so hard to achieve for the American and Iraqi people.

On the front page of the New York Times came the news Democrats and liberals have been confidently and patiently waiting to hear:

Baghdad’s Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves

By DAMIEN CAVE and ALISSA J. RUBIN
BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 — The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country.

Should this victorious trend continue, the Democrat Party will be able ride this news to triumph over the defeatist, naysaying Republicans next year.

I dare say, happy Democrat regeneration days may be here again!

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

The "imminent" threat was clearly defined as Iraq's or Saddams possession of and ability to manufacture WMD's.

But there were no such capabilities. Not was any evidence provided before the invasion that indicated that such capabilities existed. The aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, the mobile bioweapon labs were all fantasy.

The facts were he had the ability and infrastruture to manufacture WMD's.

Evidence please

The speculation was that he still possessed WMD's.

No. The speculation was that WMD development was being pursued despite scrutiny. It was an established fact that Iraq had WMDs in the 1980's. The documented evidence only indicated that some of these WMDs had been destroyed. As it turned out Saddam had ordered that WMDs be destroyed outside of UN observation. Nobody knew that he had done this and so the expected remaining WMDs were not found,

The point you made about lies and imminent threat centered on the point WMD's existed and known capabilities to manufacture WMD's.

Wrong. The capabilities to manufacture WMDs was not known. What was known was that there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.

Are you saying or projecting that you don't/didn't view Saddam as being the type who would have indirectly supported Osama's war against us?

Why would Saddam engage in activity that would lead to his desposition and death? Of course he wouldn't have supported Osama, it would be suicide. Indeed, despite not supporting Osama, he was suspected of same and was deposed and executed. So he quite rationally avoided supporting Osama because of the risk.

I've seen no evidence that prooves or clearly shows Saddam was morally or ethically above the realm of all possibilities to actively, via covert or under the table type means, take part in or play an indirect yet accomdating, supportive or feeding type role in Osama's terrorist campaign against the United States.

Saddam was a brutal ruler. There was no way he could change history to make him a Gandhi. Because he was brutal he necessarily had the moral and ethical nature of a terrorist (or street thug). Therefore he was automatically guilty of aiding and abetting Osama in your eyes and his life was forfeit.

Had he possessed WMDs after 2001, he surely would have hung on to them in order to make a last-ditch defense. But they were gone, destroyed by his orders n the 1990's when he believed that by complying with US demands, he and his sons could still ride out the storm.

Brutal doesn't mean stupid. He could act in his own self interest. It was not in his interest to support Osama; it meant his death. He would have been an idiot to do so. As it turned out, it meant his death anyways.

Zar, the fact of the matter is that we entered Iraq with a relatively small expeditionary/experimental sized force vs a large occupation, establish total social command and control size of force. Are you the type who jumps into a world of unknown's or do you enter with cautious conservative type restraint with the idea that we might not be able to stay long term?

This is ludicrous. Quickly is the best way to win wars. Only a fool believes otherwise.

KIA,

I think the others have done a fine job demonstrating the strength (or lack thereof) of your other arguments. So I will just deal with your blather about "wiggle, weasle, manipulate, spin, lie, deceive or deny".

You started off replying to a post I left for Marc.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Zar, as I recall, you supported the Iraq invasion as well. But, but.... I didn't know it was gonna turnout to be this hard, bitch.. bitch.. piss and moan.. whine.. sniffle.. sniffle..point finger at me, Semo or DA and blame. Write a sob story proclaiming that I've now turned over a new leaf and have become an opposition Democrat really isn't going to change or undue what has already been embarked upon in the past or accomplished in Iraq.

It seems you said that changing one's mind in this case amounted to bitching, moaning, whining, finger-pointing, and sobbing. Then you mocked me for changing party affiliation, which, trust me, I wasn't happy about.

So I then replied:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Two, it's called evolution. It's called growing up. It's called adapting to new information. You wouldn't understand, apparently.

I challenged your assertion that changing one's mind was a "bitch" move and instead stated that I was adjusting to new information/perceptions. And yes, that is part and parcel of evolving and growing. And yes, you do not seem to be able to tell the difference. It's pretty straightforward.

I suppose if you make a mistake you think it's manly (as opposed to being bitchy) to pretend you didn't make one.

Ok. You then responded with:

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Two, in evolutionary terms, I'd say you're still have a long ways to go before you catch up with me in the growing up department . . .

One can just hear the "nah, nah, nah-nah, nah. My big brother can beat up yours." Sheesh.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

. . . This is just my opinion based strictly on the 4T. Who knows, in real-life terms you might actually surprise me with your level of so-called personal evolution. I dunno, something just tells me that there is a major so-called evolutionary gap between the two of us.

So here you state who is more "evolved". You practically state that there is a "missing link" between us (i.e., by the use of "gap"). Hmmmmm.

My turn:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I said nothing about achieving any "level" of evolution. You criticized me for changing my mind and my worldview. I was pointing out that changing opinions based on new information and/or new perceptions is evolutionary. You still seem to have trouble comprehending that concept. I don't know what you're like in "real life" and from what I have experienced here I don't care to know.

This is self-explanatory.

And finally you say:

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

You're the one who mentioned evolution in a context that also transmitted personal maturity that promoted the idea that you were somehow now higher than me on the maturity scale. Zar, you can attempt or try to wiggle, weasle, manipulate, spin, lie, deceive or deny your way out of perceived trouble or hole created with your mouth or actions.

Who actually stated who was more evolved than whom in the quotes above? And the "context" was one of refuting the assertion that changing one's mind based on new perceptions is mere "bitching and moaning". If there was any "context that also transmitted personal maturity" on my part you certainly created it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've been leaving this alone, but no more ...

You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'fact'. Nothing you list here qualifies as fact, since it all has been shown to be not true. The correct appellation for that kind of argument is speculation. So, to recap, we invaded a sovereign nation based on speculation - all of which proved false..

M&L, I didn't offer any specific facts. However, the facts are available if you are willing to seek them out and find them on the internet. The facts were Saddam had the scientists. Saddam had the chemical plants. Saddam had knowlege and ability to produce WMD's. Saddam had nuclear capabilities as well. He had already built a nuclear reactor and the Jews blew it up. He had gased the Kurds and the Iranians. The speculation, as I already mentioned, was that he still had WMD's that could end up in the hands of terrorists. I viewed him as both a potential threat and an enemy of the United States. I supported his removal. However, I would have prefered using an alternate means to get rid of him.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Saddam was not about to share power with anyone. He had all potential opponents killed, whenever one was stupid enough to make that opinion known. Why would you or anyone think that Osama bin Laden would be due any different treatment.?.

Stalin wasn't the type who'd share power with anyone either. War and survival has a way of creating abnormal or out of the ordinary type partnerships.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Uh, Federal judges are all members of the Judicial, not the Legislative Branch of our government. The fact that you think they are is a bit disturbing, to be perfectly frank. .

FWIW, US District Court judges make rulings in cases that are then appealed to the Circuit Court in their respective circuits. Small panels of Circuit Court judges review those cases, and may decide to review the case as seated, or refer it to a panel of the whole. After that ruling, an appeal to the SCOTUS can be made ... and not before..

Federal judges are members of the Judicial system. However, federal judges are not members of the Judicial Branch. This may come as a surprise, federal judges are actually members of the Legislative Branch.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In a convoluted way, that's true, though the issue of why we created an opportunity for them in the first place is still germane. Whether it was by lie or by error or by stupidity, we were sucked into a war we had no business entering and one that will cost us dearly. I want an apology, damn it! If I had been asked to go there several times, like many have, I'd want that apology to be public, humiliating and in person, with the entire cast in attendance: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Franks and Bremer.


H-m-m-m. Your idea of a small force and mine are rather different. A BCT or two might be small in this context, but that's less than 10,000 troops. We went in with 300,000. How, by any stretch of the imagination, is that 'small'?

BTW, I corrected your spelling along with mine. I hope you don't mind.

I'm shocked, a guy who constantly pounds or chisels at ones conscience and regularly reminds me about all the innocent people who are dying in Iraq due to our presence, does a flip and displays his cold hearted side by asking the question why did we create the opportunity for them in the first place. One answer to why comes to mind, 9/11 caused a change in our policey with the Arabs from a passive/reactive type policey to a more aggressive/proactive type of policey. Basically, the Americans got tired of fucking around and slapping the wrists of aggressive Arabs.

BTW, if my spelling errors tend bug or offend you, by all means, feel free to correct them.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

KIA,

I think the others have done a fine job demonstrating the strength (or lack thereof) of your other arguments. So I will just deal with your blather about "wiggle, weasle, manipulate, spin, lie, deceive or deny".

You started off replying to a post I left for Marc.

Don't kid yourself, the strength of ones argument can also be measured by the number or types of folks with opposing views that it draws and how much liberal BS is slung at it hoping to discredit or smother it.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

It seems you said that changing one's mind in this case amounted to bitching, moaning, whining, finger-pointing, and sobbing. Then you mocked me for changing party affiliation, which, trust me, I wasn't happy about.

As I recall, you were attempting to change the minds of others. The bitching, moaning, whining, finger-pointing and sobbing remarks applied to the method you often use to change anothers mind.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I challenged your assertion that changing one's mind was a "bitch" move and instead stated that I was adjusting to new information/perceptions. And yes, that is part and parcel of evolving and growing. And yes, you do not seem to be able to tell the difference. It's pretty straightforward.

OK, after your initial misread or FU, you continue down the path of clueless and make matters even worse.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I suppose if you make a mistake you think it's manly (as opposed to being bitchy) to pretend you didn't make one.

No, I generally own up to my mistakes and do what it takes to correct them. Plus, I evaluate my mistakes, figure out the cause or reason than I adapt, modify, seek higher knowlege or make proper changes so the mistake doesn't or is much less likely to ever happen again. You appear to run from your mistakes, attempt to weasle out them or deny them on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

One can just hear the "nah, nah, nah-nah, nah. My big brother can beat up yours." Sheesh.

My big brother was abit of a wuss. My dad was pretty tough. He gave up on the bigger son and focused his efforts on the littler son. BTW, my oldman died when I was fourteen. So, the my dad can beat up your dad kinda lost its primary element, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

So here you state who is more "evolved". You practically state that there is a "missing link" between us (i.e., by the use of "gap"). Hmmmmm.

Well, the "gap" had nothing to do with some sort of a "missing link" between us. The "gap" had everything to do with our levels of maturity. For all I know, this place may be your playground and in real life you're a different person.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Who actually stated who was more evolved than whom in the quotes above? And the "context" was one of refuting the assertion that changing one's mind based on new perceptions is mere "bitching and moaning". If there was any "context that also transmitted personal maturity" on my part you certainly created it.

Question, who wrote the first "TWO" and who wrote the "TWO" statements that followed? The first answer is you and the second answer is me. Read your number two, the last comments or end kicker as I interpreted it pertained to what? Now, my counter had nothing to do with the proceeding pouring your heart out, owning up type comments at all. My counter had everything to do with that little kicker you tossed in at the end.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The real lesson from Iraq is that preemptive wars are foolish.

An ounce of prevetion, being worth a pound of cure, is only useful with 20/20 vision. I mean, who can say that stopping a Versailles Treaty-abusing Germany in the 1930s would've aborted the mass slaughter of the 1940s?

The tree fell in the woods... if no one heard it, did it fall?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Whether the threat was "imminent" or not is irrelevant.

Think about it... no one preempts a non-threat, "imminent" or otherwise. I mean, does a U.S. invasion of Greenland next year sound ok to you? Or, put another way, why did nearly 70% of Americans approve of invading Iraq in 2003, but no one does now in hindsight?

Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan. The tree falls... silently.

Originally Posted by zilch

An ounce of prevetion, being worth a pound of cure

Only if the 'doktor' isn't a quack. IOW, then leeches really did George Washington some good in 1799 , didn't they?

does a U.S. invasion of Greenland next year sound ok to you? Or, put another way, why did nearly 70% of Americans approve of invading Iraq in 2003, but no one does now in hindsight?

We must invade Greenland. The ice cap is melting and that is causing global warming. Only the infusion of carbon based fuel burning machines, and lots of them, will save us now.

A few thousand people a day are now returningm to Iraq from Syria and Jordan. We need to plan for potentially bigger troop withdrawals. Timetable are for 2008.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Federal judges are members of the Judicial system. However, federal judges are not members of the Judicial Branch. This may come as a surprise, federal judges are actually members of the Legislative Branch.

Please substantiate this with some evidence from the Constitution itself, or from a federal statute, or some legitimate source other than your own assertion.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Don't kid yourself, the strength of ones argument can also be measured by the number or types of folks with opposing views that it draws and how much liberal BS is slung at it hoping to discredit or smother it.

No, arguments are weak or strong based upon the quality of their logic and the supporting evidence, not upon who disagrees with them in type or in numbers.

The argument against invading Iraq was always stronger than the argument for invading Iraq, based upon past experience, moral authority, and the lack of evidence to support an invasion. The pro-invaders were using emotional arguments designed to appeal to fear of WMD and personal dislike of Saddam Hussein.

To recognize that one was misled, even that one's emotions were being used, is indeed painful, and learning from these events can be evolutionary if the person applies the lessons to future events.

Some of us were opposed to the Iraq invasion for moral reasons, practical reasons, or a combination of the two. I think it would be more charitable if we didn't beat people over the head with "I told you so" and instead act as a sounding board as they work out their sense of betrayal.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Don't kid yourself, the strength of ones argument can also be measured by the number or types of folks with opposing views that it draws and how much liberal BS is slung at it hoping to discredit or smother it.

This depends on how much the people involved are locked into their own value system as opposed to actually listening to what is being said. If you get a community locked into their conservative BS attempting to lecture a second community locked into their liberal BS, the fact that either or both communities draws loads of opposition BS in response to their own BS does nothing to validate either world view.

Like many threads, this one has the feel of a perpetual motion machine. If it were only possible to harness the energy produced in political values clashes to perform useful work, we would have no problem getting past peak oil. The notion that lots of people disagreeing with one is proof of the validity of one's position is... fascinating. The approach seems to be based on hidden premises that one's own values are correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

M&L, I didn't offer any specific facts. However, the facts are available if you are willing to seek them out and find them on the internet. The facts were Saddam had the scientists. Saddam had the chemical plants. Saddam had knowledge and ability to produce WMD's. Saddam had nuclear capabilities as well. He had already built a nuclear reactor and the Jews blew it up. He had gassed the Kurds and the Iranians. The speculation, as I already mentioned, was that he still had WMD's that could end up in the hands of terrorists. I viewed him as both a potential threat and an enemy of the United States. I supported his removal. However, I would have preferred using an alternate means to get rid of him.

OK. You do advocate regime change based on speculation? What means other than preemptive invasion do you advocate to achieve speculation based regime change?

My own largest problem is in the objectives of the US troops. The administration was warned by the Pentagon that they were going in with no where near sufficient troops. The troops that did go in could have secured army bases and weapons depots to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and insurgents, but did not. They could have been tasked to large population centers to maintain law and order, but were not. Instead, they were tasked to the oil fields to prevent a major burn out of the oil infrastructure such as occurred in Kuwait. The few troops sent into Baghdad with specific tasking were told to take possession of the oil ministry buildings. I just have to assume that these objectives reflect the values of those who initiated the invasion.

There are a bunch of lessons learned here. I'd be curious as to what you think they might be. I have a notion that military force may have to be used again over the course of the crisis, as a last resort, but I would not be surprised that we are forced to the last resort. The Iraq invasion seems far more an illustration of what might go wrong than a model operation to be repeated should we encounter similar problems. Changing cultures by force is not easy. Suppressing insurgency is not easy. If we are aggressive in attempting to change cultures by force, we should expect insurgency, and be prepared to field the recommended force levels required for the task. High technology might be a force multiplier when fighting overt 2GW conventional wars, but does not replace boots on the ground in an insurgent conflict. Given recent conflicts, the US armed forces were trained and equipped too much for 2GW / 3GW conventional war, too little for 4GW. (This is changing. I don't know if it has changed enough. One never knows what the shape of the next war will be.)

I could go on with other proposed lessons learned, and might if I get a reasonable response.

But what are your lessons learned? I'm not asking who to blame. I'm not asking whether conservatives or liberals have a higher BS level. If facing a similar situation, what have you learned, if anything, from our recent experiences? What might you do differently?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The notion that lots of people disagreeing with one is proof of the validity of one's position is... fascinating.

Channeling Spock?

Originally Posted by sean '90

A few thousand people a day are now returningm to Iraq from Syria and Jordan. We need to plan for potentially bigger troop withdrawals. Timetable are for 2008.

I guess the ethnic cleansing is pretty much wrapping up.

Originally Posted by Steven McTowelie

I guess the ethnic cleansing is pretty much wrapping up.

Yes, because the segmentation of the ethnic groups into de facto segregated areas is effectivly complete. Outside of Baghdad, everyone has their region, inside of Baghdad, everyone has their wall.

Originally Posted by Steven McTowelie

I guess the ethnic cleansing is pretty much wrapping up.

Yes, along with U.S. GI heroes, Iraqi Sunnis and Shites have together cleansed their cities of invading al Qaeda terrorists.

Only dumbass American liberals and "progressives" would think that's a bad thing.

Originally Posted by zilch

Yes, along with U.S. GI heroes, Iraqi Sunnis and Shites have together cleansed their cities of invading al Qaeda terrorists.

Only dumbass American liberals and "progressives" would think that's a bad thing.

Just wait until Iran effectivly controls 90% of Iraqs' oil. The politicans cannot agree in Iraq. The shiites, who have the most oil, are the frendliest Iraqis from the Iranian viewpoint..

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Just wait until Iran effectivly controls 90% of Iraqs' oil. The politicans cannot agree in Iraq. The shiites, who have the most oil, are the frendliest Iraqis from the Iranian viewpoint..

Like I said, only dumbass American liberals and "progressives" think like this.

All is bad, and that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Channeling Spock?

A little bit, I guess. Can you come up with a better word for this human behavior?

Originally Posted by zilch

Yes, along with U.S. GI heroes, Iraqi Sunnis and Shites have together cleansed their cities of invading al Qaeda terrorists.

Only moronic Bushbots believe this load of crap.

Originally Posted by zilch

Like I said, only dumbass American liberals and "progressives" think like this.

All is bad, and that is a good thing.

It goes around

It comes around.

It's circular.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

A little bit, I guess. Can you come up with a better word for this human behavior?

<Spock>Illogical.</Spock>

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

1. M&L, I didn't offer any specific facts. However, the facts are available if you are willing to seek them out and find them on the Internet. The facts were Saddam had the scientists. Saddam had the chemical plants. Saddam had knowledge and ability to produce WMD's. Saddam had nuclear capabilities as well. He had already built a nuclear reactor and the Jews blew it up. He had gassed the Kurds and the Iranians. The speculation, as I already mentioned, was that he still had WMD's that could end up in the hands of terrorists. I viewed him as both a potential threat and an enemy of the United States. I supported his removal. However, I would have preferred using an alternate means to get rid of him.
2. Stalin wasn't the type who'd share power with anyone either. War and survival has a way of creating abnormal or out of the ordinary type partnerships.
3. Federal judges are members of the Judicial system. However, federal judges are not members of the Judicial Branch. This may come as a surprise, federal judges are actually members of the Legislative Branch.
4. I'm shocked, a guy who constantly pounds or chisels at ones conscience and regularly reminds me about all the innocent people who are dying in Iraq due to our presence, does a flip and displays his cold hearted side by asking the question why did we create the opportunity for them in the first place. One answer to why comes to mind, 9/11 caused a change in our policy with the Arabs from a passive/reactive type policy to a more aggressive/proactive type of policy. Basically, the Americans got tired of fucking around and slapping the wrists of aggressive Arabs.
5. BTW, if my spelling errors tend bug or offend you, by all means, feel free to correct them.

In response:

1. You are backing away from your absolutism. Good. That shows maturity.
2. Stalin had stand-off allies. Would he have allowed Churchill to set up shop in Leningrad? Of course not. Then why assume Saddam would allow something equally self-defeating.
3. No, they aren't. The only thing the Legislative Branch can do is determine how many inferior courts there will be and what they are allowed to do.
4. I as merely pointing-out your incorrect statements. Do you wish to offer alternate scenarios based on fact, or are you satisfied with your current answers?
5. Thanks, I have spell check, and I'll be happy to use it liberally.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...injuries_N.htm

20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tally
At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.

I"m in the business, and pretty good at it, but I swear I couldn't even make this shit up.

And what have all those dazed and confused neurons bought us?

Well some would say Al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, but since we were the Casus belli for their creation, that's just a Mulligan ("a do over") for us.

Maybe that world traveler, Bob, has it right -

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711u/kaplan-democracy

Iraq has had three elections that have led to chaos. Bringing society out of that chaos has meant a recourse not to laws or a constitution, but to blood ties. The Anbar Awakening has been a rebuff not only to the extremism of al-Qaeda, but to democracy itself. Restoring peace in Anbar has been accomplished by a lot of money changing hands, to the benefit of unelected but well-respected tribal sheikhs, paid off with cash and projects by our soldiers and marines. Progress in Iraq means erecting not a parliamentary system, but a balance of fear among tribes and sectarian groups.

Yep, a "balance of fear" -- now there's something to lose your mind over.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/bomb...dad-iraqi.html

Guerrillas set off a big bomb in downtown Baghdad on Sunday.

The bombing near the Health Ministry in Baghdad on Sunday, and the earlier bombing on Friday of a pet market demonstrate how artificial the relative reduction in violence in Iraq has been. One newspaper account revealed that the pet market had begun doing business again only because the US military forbade automobiles to drive in that area. Now, I'm all in favor of such measures as part of an over-all policy, and had suggested them myself at IC in the past. If car bombs daily kill a lot of people at a market, then obviously it is best you don't let people drive into that market. So I'm not complaining. I am just pointing out that if you get relative calm that way, you can't be sure it isn't just an inevitably temporary policy that is producing it. And sure enough, last Monday the US military had started letting people drive in the area of the pet market, and . . . kaboom! Car bomb? Yes. Car bomb.

This problem is why everyone admits that we need a political solution. Security precautions are temporary. Political solutions can be long-lived.

but on the political front, it doesn't look so good -

On Sunday, the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented to parliament its bill revising the expulsion of ex-Baathists from government jobs and public life. The Shiite deputies in parliament essentially booed it, with the thirty Sadrist deputies pounding the table and making it impossible for parliament to conduct business. Parliament adjourned among shouting and scuffling. Shiite suffered under the Baath Party and are uncomfortable at what they see as an attempt to rehabilitate Baathists.

And a clue to the big winners -

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq (ISCI), has denied that Iran has behaved disruptively in Iraq. Al-Hakim lived much of his adult life in exile in Tehran and is still close to the ayatollahs.

If I was Bush, I'd insist that Ahmadinejad give me my due - after all, compared to what 'W' has handed to the Persians, Chavez's "heroic"efforts look like chum change -
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Hugo Chavez Receives Iran's Highest Honor