Pa. Prez Debate – moderated by Michael Scott?

By Rick Morris

The following is a transcript of the Democratic presidential debate from the state of Pennsylvania, dated Thursday, April 17, 2008.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening and welcome to this special edition of HARDBALL. We are taping a presidential debate here this afternoon from the University of Scranton in Scranton, Pennsylvania with the two remaining Democratic contenders, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. The man chosen by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party to host this afternoon’s debate is, along with his employees, the subject of a forthcoming documentary about office life in America. His name is Michael Scott and he is the regional manager of Dunder-Mifflin Scranton. He will be putting the questions to the candidates along with two of his employees. Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

MICHAEL SCOTT: Thank you, Chris. Somehow, you seemed funnier and more entertaining on TV. I am honored to be here this afternoon so that my wonderful ability to MC can help illuminate the choice in this election for my fellow citizens. I regret that my two most trusted assistants in the office, Jim and Pam, could not join me today. They insisted about the supply closet being long overdue for reorganization. I’m not quite sure why Jim was making air quotes when he said that or why Pam smirked a little bit as he did or why Kevin ended up outside the door giggling after they went in. I guess we’ll never know the answer to those questions. But I will get the candidates to answer my questions here today, along with the two people I have here with me instead of Jim and Pam, the ones I really wanted. Dwight Schrute is the top salesman at our branch and Toby Flenderson is a brainless jerk in our HR department who is only here because the stupid people in our country apparently deserve a voice also.

TOBY FLENDERSON: Please, Michael …

MICHAEL: Shut it, Toby, nobody cares about you. OK, my first question is for Senator Osama. Now, Senator …

SENATOR OBAMA: Uh, that’s Obama, not Osama …

MICHAEL: Uh, excuse me, I’m speaking here.

OBAMA: But you got my name wrong!

MICHAEL: Details, details. Save it for your answer. Now, Senator, you have really turned your image around. I see all these young people clamoring for a chance to support you and you’re the hottest thing since my routine last time on open mic night. But really, Senator Osama, do you really think people’s memories are that short? I mean, it was a good move to lose the beard and the turban and the “America must die” stuff, but can you really get elected president after being responsible for 9/11?

OBAMA: I am not Osama bin Laden! My name is Barack Obama. I had NOTHING! TO! DO! with 9/11!

MICHAEL: Uh huh, likely story. Just another politician dodging accountability. Senator Clinton, your response?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Michael, I can tell you that my campaign is not responsible for any implication that Senator Obama masterminded 9/11, those flyers in Ohio notwithstanding. But I want to pose the question: can we take the risk that he was responsible for 9/11?

OBAMA: That’s outrageous! Senator Clinton, I demand an immediate apology and a …

CLINTON: Ah, cram it, Hussein.

MICHAEL: Candidates, please! You’re not doing anything to elevate the level of discourse here! Let’s move along, I’ll take the next question. Now, Senator Hillary Rodman Clinton …

CLINTON: That’s Hillary Rodham Clinton.

MICHAEL: Exactly. Now, I look at you, the cool, collected professional woman in your tailored corporate pantsuits and I’ve gotta tell you, it’s very reminiscent of my girlfriend – eh, let’s call it like it is, my live-in lover Jan Levinson. Now, she rocks the whole powerful businesswoman look, but she is a tomcat in the bedroom. I mean, insatiable. Now Senator …

CLINTON: This is inappropriate!

MICHAEL: You haven’t heard the question yet! Talk about prejudging! So much for open-mindedness. Senator, is the same true of you? Are you a hellion underneath your polished professional look, and if so, why’s Bill constantly roaming the country looking for some strange?

CLINTON: This is sexist and insulting and …

MICHAEL: Blah, blah, blah. I gotta tell ya, you’re not helping your ice queen image much with your uptight response. Here I lob you a softball, give you a chance to talk about using cherry-flavored massage oil or whatever you like to use to get freaky and you get all weird on me!

CLINTON: and degrading to women and …

MICHAEL: OK, we see where you’re going with that. Osama, you got any response?

OBAMA: That’s Obama. I agree very much with Senator Clinton that any discussion of her frigid tendencies is completely inappropriate in this campaign …

CLINTON: You’ll pay for that, you filthy crackhead!

MICHAEL: Please! Candidates, can we keep in on the issues here? OK, I’m going to reluctantly turn over the floor to Toby here and I hope that he won’t stink up the place too badly.

TOBY: Thank you, Michael. Senator Obama, can you discuss your approach to withdrawing our troops from Iraq when you take office?

OBAMA: Thank you for that intelligent question, Toby. I believe that an expeditious and orderly withdrawal of our armed forces from the situation in Iraq will be imperative when I take office. I’d like to redeploy some forces to Afghanistan so that our response to Taliban attacks can be in the necessary manner, swift and sharp …

MICHAEL: That’s what she said!

OBAMA: Excuse me, what did Hillary say?

CLINTON: I didn’t say anything there Osama! Are you having a delayed reaction to all the drugs you used to take?

MICHAEL: Wait, no, Hillary didn’t …never mind, just please keep answering Toby’s stupid question.

OBAMA: All right. As I say, I want to increase our troop footprint in Afghanistan, creating a buffer …

MICHAEL: Buffer? I hardly know her!

TOBY: Michael …

MICHAEL: Shut it, Toby, you’re ruining the whole debate! OK, let’s move on from the way Toby just brought the debate down …

CLINTON: But I didn’t get a chance to respond!

MICHAEL: Hold on, there, Hitlery …

CLINTON: How dare you call me that!

OBAMA: She’s right, Michael, there’s really no comparison between her and the madman behind the Third Reich. Why, her and Bill offed a lot more folks than that back in Arkansas. I saw THE CLINTON CHRONICLES, you know!

CLINTON: You piece of sh …

MICHAEL: C’mon, people! Don’t let this thing degenerate. The people deserve better than this. OK, next question comes from Dwight Schrute.

DWIGHT SCHRUTE: Senator Clinton. As the top salesman for Dunder-Mifflin Scranton, I know quite a bit about dominance. I live it every day. As you probably know, males in any species of mammal can mark their territory and establish dominance by peeing on the floor. You are in no position to be able to position yourself in such a way. I would like to ask if you have plans to modify your pantsuits in a manner to allow you to squat and …

CLINTON: This is the most reprehensible, sexist …

OBAMA: Lemme jump in and answer that. I don’t think any man out there wants to see that. Can I get a “Hell Yeah?”

MATTHEWS: OK, we’ve heard enough. Good night from Scranton.

MICHAEL: Hang on, I’m going to do an impression as we go off the air. Lemme just get my Oriental props together …

Change

By Tony Mazur

You've seen and heard this word quite often, haven't you? I certainly have. Just as how minority groups despise racial epithets, I hate the word 'change'. I've developed quite a hatred for the word 'hope', too.

Barack Obama wants to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. He also wants universal health care. That's a wonderful thought, but how are you going to do that? Obama is like a boss who promises great things for his company, but has no idea how to follow through with them. But he is running on the platform of "change", which is mind-boggling because he has not told us what he plans to change.

Folks, let's dissect Obama's "Change" platform. Remember when he wanted to be known for his political views and not the color of his skin? Well, what do you think "Change" stands for? When Obama says, "Our country needs a change", what he's really saying is "I'm tired of white men running this country. We need more black leaders, and I want to be the first black president of the United States."

If you log onto Obama's website, a photo shows the Obama family picnicking on the grass, with a caption reading "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN".

The problem is, he has hypnotized EVERYONE. So many people all of a sudden are interested in this election because of this man. But nobody knows why. I don't even know why.

Why has the media not called him out on this "Change" campaign? It just reeks of racism, but just because he's a black man, it's all right. Let's spin this around. Say a white man wants to become the head of the NAACP, an organization predominately run by African-Americans (no!). This white man goes to extreme lengths to pull all of the racial stops, saying that this organization needs a "change". This white man would be persecuted by the media, and late-night television hosts would make a fool of this gentleman. But the media is afraid of offending minorities and women. That's why there are so many white man bashing in commercials and TV programs.

Homework assignment, class. Ask that one friend and family member why he/she is voting for Barack Obama. Remember to jot down their answer in the Comments Page below. Chances are, the response you will get is, "Well, I think our country needs a change, and I think Obama can do it." In other words, "I'm voting for him because he's a black guy."

(As I type this post, a Barack Obama commercial flashed on my TV. Tell me he doesn't sound like Gomez Addams from The Addams Family.)

Tell a friend about this particular post because everyone else is afraid say anything for fear of being called a racist. All of my detractors are just a bunch of hypocrites. Who's playing the race card now?

My Hatred Toward Ron Paul Supporters

By Tony Mazur

As Rick Morris stated in the post below, Ron Paul will withdraw from the presidential race. I know, I know, it's sad for us all, but I guess he didn't appeal to the majority of the people.

Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist, libertarian, and, although I don't believe it, a conservative. Personally, I think he's a goof. There is no redeeming quality about Ron Paul.

However, I do not know what's more annoying, Ron Paul's political positions, or his idiotic supporters. When referring to the 2008 presidential race, I heard someone say that "Ron Paul is the only true conservative". As a fellow conservative, I am offended to be classified with this numskull. I support the War in Iraq. I greatly support the Patriot Act. How can you not support the Patriot Act? There are savages who want to kill us, and these dummies think our rights are being infringed upon.

Ron Paul backers are all the same, no matter what age they may be. He's quite popular among college students and ex-hippies. The typical supporter is usually a liberal or libertarian. He/she probably smokes a lot of pot, and believes in ridiculous conspiracies, like UFOs and the "bombing" of the World Trade Center on September 11th. That's kind of why there actually is a chunk of people who follow Dennis Kucinich. Chances are, they do a lot of internet blogging. Also, they are usually offended by anything remotely resembling criticism against Ron Paul. These are the people who shout to the world that they are moving to Canada if [insert Republican candidate] wins the election, but never follows through.

I'm already hearing phony conspiracies about how the government is keeping Ron Paul out of the public eye. He's not Ross Perot. Ron Paul cannot affect the outcome of this coming election, even if he ran as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately, it's going to be either McCain or Obama, two candidates I'm dreading to see in the White House. I wish a viable candidate can go up against them, but it won't be the case. And Ron Paul isn't the guy.

Toledo's mayor is a shameful pinko

By Rick Morris

You may perhaps think that headline is a bit over the top. You’d be wrong.

This assclown, who’s been a blight and an embarrassment on the people of the Glass City for decades now (with exploits ranging from baking his dog in an overheated car to ethics violations to calling a black public official “King Kong” to violating the First Amendment rights of local media) spit on our military when he unilaterally stepped in at the last minute to ban a Marine Reserve squad from conducting urban patrol exercises in the downtown area. His PR weasel said, “The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people.” The cost to the taxpayers of this anti-American jerkwater’s decree? Ten large.

It seems that Mayor Saddam-lover does not know or care that urban training is a vital part of the skill nurturing our troops need to prepare for hostile environs such as Baghdad or, if idiots like him get his way, perhaps even Toledo itself. As the saying goes, it’s the land of the free because of the brave and I am deeply ashamed that the some of the very finest of our society were sneered at disdainfully by this putrid little nothing.

Pakistan debacle exposes our overreach

By Rick Morris

I wonder how many people heard the news that Pakistan President/General Pervez Musharraf’s seizure of power over the weekend and assumed that he led off his announcement with a little sample from Jay-Z (THIS … IS … STATE OF EMERGENCY!). Nobody? Just me?

Regardless, the move represents a major black eye for the United States and exposes in humiliating fashion once again the consequences of our imperial overreach over the last five years.

In justifying the Iraq War, Bush administration officials disparaged the policies of their predecessors (including the president’s father!) over several decades in “tolerating” the repressive regimes of the Middle East. The deposing of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, we were told, represented a radical change in how we would utilize our power in the Middle East. No longer would we dirty our hands by dealing with repressive dictators and Third World thugs – freedom was now on the march! The president’s second Inaugural Address made this theme the centerpiece, which came as a surprise to pundits of the time.

Although it’s hard to remember clearly though the fog of our hard times in Iraq over the next two years, George Bush did have some momentary wind at his back as he took his victory lap in early 2005. Iraqi elections had just been held, and the images of jubilant voters waving their ink-stained purple fingers at the camera were compelling. Also at about that time, in a part of the world not far away, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine peacefully toppled a corrupt government trying to cling to power by illegitimate means. Shortly thereafter, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon drove out the brutal occupiers of Syria by rallying the country in protest. No less a Bush Administration critic than Jon Stewart wondered aloud whether Bush might be on to something with his insistence on the mandatory, immediate and unfettered institution of democracy anywhere and everywhere.

But inevitably, the moment did not last and the world was reminded again why sager minds had resisted the suicidal path of placing Wilsonian democracy above all else that Bush had embraced. Homicidal Hamas won the Palestinian elections and turned the Gaza Strip into even more of a terrorist hub than it had been previously (which really says something!). Iraqis subsequently elected tribal leaders and warlords to their government who, to put it mildly, had no appreciation for the sacrifices our country had laid down for them. The democratic experiment in Afghanistan was fraught with difficulty as well, with a similar ingratitude from many who we had freed there as well.

Granted, we had no choice but to promote democracy in Afghanistan as an alternative to the terror state we rightly annihilated after 9/11, but we should not have become so intoxicated by the early signs of success in that country that turning decades of established policy on its head could ever become an attractive option. After driving the Taliban from power, we were at a stronger point strategically in the world than we had been at any time since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and arguably the most powerful position since our arrival as a world power with our decisive presence in World War I. We accomplished in weeks what the mighty Red Army could not all throughout the ‘80s and we rebuilt the credibility that had been squandered by Bill Clinton’s cowardice in the ‘90s in the face of terrorist attacks on our interests worldwide. We had the world in the palm of our hands in early 2002, while still maintaining the sympathy of peoples everywhere in the wake of the devastating attack we suffered the previous autumn. Since the security and prosperity of the American people and free peoples everywhere depend on U.S. capacity for deterrence against war and terror, the tragedy of 9/11 had yielded, however briefly, a better world in its horrific aftermath.

Our previous Iraq War FAQ column addressed the crumbling of our military deterrence in the sands of Mesopotamia in the last half-decade. But equally damaging to our deterrence has been the disintegration of our diplomatic capacity. While promoting the “Freedom Agenda” as the cornerstone of our foreign policy efforts worldwide, we have done ourselves terrible damage by blowing our hard-won credibility:

^ While pronouncing democracy as a vital and non-negotiable concept in our dealings with repressive regimes, we never seriously challenged Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf states we rely on so completely – and the world noticed.

^ We talked tough on North Korea and said that we wouldn’t reward that murderous regime for their behavior – until we did – and the world noticed.

^ Now, we have rewarded Musharraf’s backsliding from democracy not with the calm backroom diplomacy that would have been available to us had we not made such a fetish out of imposing complete democracy anywhere as soon as possible but with the impotent whining of a country whose bluff has just been called – and the world noticed.

In its haste to pronounce George W. Bush as the Ronald Reagan of his time, a designation that could have seemed fair for as long as six months after 9/11 but now seems a grotesque insult to the Great Communicator, the American right has embraced the imperial overreach that has so damaged our national interest these past few years. This is largely because the neoconservative wing of the movement has taken hold almost completely in the 2000s and driven out the traditional adherents of the Old Right, who believed that the only relevant question to ever be asked was “does this serve America’s vital national interest?” Contrary to what today’s “mainstream” conservative followers remember, Reagan’s presidency featured a blend of neoconservative and paleoconservative policies (for example, while Reagan believed largely in free trade, he did not allow Harley-Davidson to be victimized by cutthroat foreign competitors). His United Nations ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously distinguished between authoritarian regimes (bad guys aligned with us) and totalitarian regimes (bad guys working against us). Once upon a time in this country, we used to put our own national interest ahead of sweet-sounding ivory tower dreams about filling the world with daisies and democracy. Now, in a world in which we have disavowed working with authoritarians who could be useful to us, we have been exposed as powerless without them. Did that decision make us safer? I think not.

Being there matters most: Jena and Iraq

By Rick Morris

Two seemingly separate stories that materialized this week are bound by one common thread: on-the-ground observance trumping a pre-existing media template.

In Louisiana, the “Jena 6” legal situation has resulted in a pall of racist shame being cast on a rural community. One reporter, who has been on the scene throughout the story, can posit with certainty that many characterizations that have been cast about the community are quite unfair. On a personal note, I should mention that I grew up in a suburb of Cleveland, namely Parma, Ohio, which is widely and unfairly considered racist and I do know firsthand what it is like to have my racial views prejudged based on where I live. While some injustices in this affair may have occurred, we cannot fairly understand what should happen from here until we separate fact from fiction about what has transpired. This account provides a valuable service in helping to sort out the historical record. We tip our hat to Instapundit, where we first saw this story linked.

One example may sound unbelievable at first glance, but makes more sense upon further consideration. The much-vaunted nooses hanging on the tree on school grounds were apparently not racially motivated, but a misguided joke aimed at one group of white students from another. While this might seem to stretch credulity, it really doesn’t. We hear and see all the time about this historical illiteracy of kids these days. The notion that some of them might be too uneducated to know the context of racism and lynching is actually quite possible, regardless of where they live.

The other story we reference is the defining one of this last half-decade: the Iraq war. Over the course of the war, the American public has been told by the mass media about a conflict that degenerated horribly after the initial success of toppling the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. However, the template that fit for three years does not anymore, as the surge of 2007 has reversed the previous horrible bumbling of those in charge of our war effort and helped stabilize very unlikely parts of the country. As has been the case all throughout the war, military bloggers have been way ahead of the curve in the reportage of the story, because they’ve been on the front lines consistently and been able to report on the realities of day-to-day life. Michael Yon’s dispatch illuminates quite clearly the widening gap between the default media coverage of the war and the realities on the ground.

Speaking of milbloggers covering the scene up close, Bill Roggio continues to be near or at the top of this outstanding field. We had him on THE FDH LOUNGE show previously, in what we consider one of our greatest segments ever, and we look forward to doing so again, although we regrettably have not been able to get our booking requests answered (we mention this solely to let those listeners who have requested a repeat appearance know that we want it also and are working towards making it happen). Notwithstanding that, Bill is spending every day making the most difficult-to-understand corners of the world relatable to his readership and his latest writing about the volatile Pakistan nightmare is both enlightening and chilling indeed. If the world finds itself engulfed in a large-scale war with unprecedented use of weapons of mass destruction, elements currently operating in Pakistan could end up more responsible than anyone else.

It's official -- Israel took out Syrian nukes

By Rick Morris

Shades of Osirak in 1981, the Israelis have destroyed a grave threat to their security in the form of a Syrian nuclear weapons facility. It's very sobering to think that our intelligence agencies missed this while committing at least some form of assessment failure about Iraqi capabilities pre-war. We can all be grateful that the superior intelligence agency Mossad found out what we could not, that the Israelis got the job done, and that their necessary attack did not further inflame the Middle East.

Morris Report on Iraq ratified!

By Rick Morris

... on a program where I am the co-host and co-executive producer. Stop the presses!

On The FDH Lounge this past Sunday night, we unanimously approved the content of the war FAQ document posted here last week. Too bad Mr. Neocon Chris Galloway was not on the panel that night to cast a dissenting vote!

FDH Lounge Show #16: September 16, 2007

By Rick Morris

The 16th edition of THE FDH LOUNGE on SportsTalkCleveland.com (8-11 PM EDT) will have a great variety of talk on a number of issues, befitting the show "where nothing is off-topic."

In Hour One, immediately following the Dignitaries' Opening Statements, we will examine this week's "Morris Report" about the Iraq War. This was an Iraq War FAQ segment posted on The FDH Lounge blog, attempting to break down the war from top to bottom in a manner that most people can understand even if they do not agree with all of it. I will read it in full and then have a roundtable discussion with my fellow Dignitaries, leading to an up-or-down vote to endorse it at the end.

This discussion will stretch into Hour Two, at which point we will move onto The FDH Lounge News Nuggets: Britney's latest struggles, Kid Rock levels Tommy Lee (with an interesting aside about the woman they fought over, Plastic Pam), the Oregon-Houston mascot fight and OJ decides to take up less violent crime.

In Hour Three, we will have The FDH Lounge Movie Spotlight and then The FDH Lounge Pigskin Report as we reflect on a mammoth weekend of college and pro football action.

Join us for another great installment of the show Sunday night! You can listen quietly at home, or call us at (216) 881-9600 or (866) 453-4782 or email us at studio@sportstalkcleveland.com .

The Iraq War: An FAQ

By Rick Morris

The Iraq War is the single most divisive issue of our time, with most elements of it still remaining confusing to the American public nearly 4 ½ years into this conflict. As previously stated, my position on domestic and international issues is that of the paleoconservative, as opposed to that of the somewhat militaristic neoconservative wing which dominates the Republican Party and the pacifist philosophy of the Democrats. I believe strongly that the paleo position is the one most in touch with the approach of the American people on this most difficult of matters. As such, I’m going to apply my paleo philosophy to the dominant questions of this war and create a “Morris Report” of sorts. On The FDH Lounge program this Sunday night, we will hold a straight up-or-down vote on the contents of my answers to ascertain what my fellow Lounge Dignitaries think. I believe that they will agree with me that it is a fairly accurate unified position of what the American people feel deep down about this war.

Was the initial invasion a mistake?

This is the question that sets the tone for how almost every person reacts to everything that has happened since – which is certainly not wise. It is also a question which most people consider to be a fairly easy one in one direction or the other – which again, is certainly not the case.

On the positive side of the ledger, we must admit that by 2003, Saddam Hussein was wiggling its way out of the post-Gulf War “box” that we had fashioned for him. Aided by the usual leftist demonstrators in this country whining about the effects of U.N. sanctions on the Iraqi people, Saddam was constructing a strong case of “punishment fatigue” in the world community. As we have subsequently learned, Saddam made a mockery of the Oil-For-Food Program by getting governmental and non-governmental stooges from England, France, Russia and a number of other countries to help him evade the world body’s limits on his weapons programs. If left in place in 2003, Saddam Hussein would surely not be nearly as boxed in by the U.S. and the U.N. as he was in the initial years after the first war.

Additionally, we must disregard the spurious surface logic of anti-war demonstrators that Saddam, as the perpetuator of a secular regime, could not possibly be in cahoots with terrorists who were religious fanatics. The Middle East as a whole is rife with countless examples of the old phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – and among anti-American actors in that corner of the world, the United States and Israel are always the instruments of the devil no matter what. So every time you hear a leftist raise the differences between Saddam and terrorist groups as evidence they would never work together, you are listening to the perfect embodiment of smug faux intellectualism. Hussein’s Iraq did have links to numerous terrorist groups and even had training facilities in Baghdad – although this admittedly was all-too-common in the Arab world and there was in all likelihood no connection between Saddam and 9/11. While it seems like more jihadists are materializing there every day, we are killing a boatload of them in Iraq and our successes in Anbar province at the expense of Al Qaeda have reversed most of the propaganda gains they chalked up during the war.

The other obvious positive involves the fact that many stretches of the country, especially those in the Kurdish north, are better off than they were before our invasion and most people in the affected areas are greatly appreciative of our help. And it should not be minimized that, although chaos has ensued since the war began, we saved Iraq from genocide by Saddam Hussein. This actually starts the segue to the other side of the ledger, however, since mass killings take place in other regimes around the globe and our country has never thought of itself as a global policeman.

The negative side needs far less explanation, because these points have been drummed into our heads for most of the duration of the war. Let’s start with Iran, which unquestionably has a nuclear weapons program underway and has always been a graver strategic threat to us than Iraq. Iran is much stronger without the Iraqi counterbalance in the Gulf region, and has been emboldened by sectarian rivalries in Iraq and the fact that we have gotten bogged down there and are automatically less of a threat to confront them militarily. The strengthening of the mad mullahs of Iran outweighs our total gains in and of itself. And all of our enemies in the Arab world have reveled in the propaganda gains we have handed them during the course of the war, with the Abu Ghraib scandal topping the list. These enemies have also had forces coming in and out of Iraq all throughout the war as that country has served as the training ground for urban warfare that Afghanistan used to be.

But from there, we have a death toll of what will likely exceed 5,000 of our best and bravest and an injury assessment several times in excess of that. As brutal as this statement may be, death and destruction are inevitable in war, and we lost far more men than this at the Battle of the Bulge alone. But with the Axis powers posing a global threat, we knew that this blood had at least been shed for a vital and necessary purpose. Unforgivably, we cannot with certainty say the same of our fallen heroes in Iraq. To add insult to their deaths and injuries, many units were not properly equipped with body armor and other defense against the merciless enemies we have faced – and they were saddled with a failed status quo policy for almost four years until the 2007 troop surge turned the tide somewhat. The years of wasted motion while we lingered without a credible counterinsurgency strategy represent one of the greatest blunders in American history. We have an exhausted military, with much degraded and destroyed weaponry needing to be replaced at great cost. And we have soured the American people on the very concept of war when it may be necessary in our clear national interest against some other entity in the near future. The overreach of the 2000s has been every bit as damaging as the pacifism of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘90s.

We addressed the blood, now let’s examine the treasure. It’s almost inevitable that over $1 trillion will be spent in the desert of Mesopotamia by the time we cease serious combat operations. At a time of reckless pork-barrel federal spending (the bill for which will be passed on to our grandchildren), underfunded port security and a looming entitlement crisis that will bankrupt this country soon enough anyways, it’s more than an understatement to say that we could sure use that trillion dollars back.

So the answer, while not as overwhelming as the knee-jerk anti-war protestors would have you believe, is that the decision to go to war was not worth it. Even given the fact that the intelligence community for whatever reasons put forth the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, every other justification for war was flawed even when viewed through the lens of the time (and I was one who was queasy about our decision to invade). As addressed above, we had no semblance of a counterinsurgency strategy to follow the first part of the war when we would topple Hussein. We willingly put ourselves in a position to be ganged up and marginalized in the world community by opportunists in the French and German governments and countries looking to assert themselves on the world stage at our expense in Russia and China. We put all of our propaganda hopes on the swift success of democracy, when centuries of human history have shown it to be an institution that can only work well amongst a people who have taken the time to embrace and understand it. Democracy itself has been discredited in the eyes of countless Arabs, a blunder of historic impact. And by toppling a minority Sunni government and empowering the Shiite majority, we ensured that their co-religionists, our enemies in Iran, would inevitably be strengthened. Of course, the neoconservative war theorists believed that we could march right into Iran after we pacified Iraq, but we’re years away from that possibility as the Iranian nuclear program becomes more of a threat each day. Also, the Sunni-Shiite-Kurd rivalries frozen by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were very reminiscent of the Balkan feuds kept under the surface by Communist rule – as it turned out in both instances, once the totalitarians were gone, vicious rivalries never firmly settled reemerged with a vengeance and toppled any attempts at regional stability.

On balance, the war was not worth it, certainly in retrospect and arguably at the time. Given the best we are likely to still accomplish in Iraq, it is very unlikely that history will be kind to the decision to invade.

Did Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction?

Notwithstanding the answer to the first question, and the fact that the absolute consensus seems to be that they did not, I am still a bit uncertain on this issue. Rumors have floated for years that Baathist thugs trucked the WMDs across the Syrian border to be stored by their allies in the Damascus dictatorship. It seems highly unlikely that the Bush administration would keep that information under wraps, especially given its need to defend an unpopular war – but, with the urgent imperative to keep Israel from engaging in shooting wars unhelpful to us in Iraq, anything is possible. Even if Iraq did have WMDs, however, I still believe that we should have held off on invading, at least at that time – because we did face reality and realize that invading North Korea was a bad idea and we haven’t invaded Iran (yet).

Should we own up to the fact publicly that the idea to go to war was a mistake?

No, there’s nothing to be gained by it in any sense, morally or logically. First and foremost, we would be dishonoring our troops by undermining the rationale of what we professed to be accomplishing with their blood. The wounded and dead and their families don’t deserve that, not by a longshot. Also, any goodwill we would regain with any erstwhile allies would be more than negated by the fact that our enemies would be emboldened by a public admission of failure.

Has this war damaged our deterrence factor?

No question about it. Sadly, it ruined the incredible level of deterrence we earned by accomplishing in months what the Soviets couldn’t in several years by wining in Afghanistan. Every tinpot dictator on Earth feels emboldened by the fact that Uncle Sam has his hands full with a ragtag terrorist network in Iraq – and since deterrence is more critical to keeping America safe than almost any other factor, we are likely to pay a dear price for our failures to date and will pay a bigger toll in the future if we can’t earn back more respect for our military capabilities by the time we inevitably draw down in Iraq. And a war-weary American public will be that much harder to rally when we face a legitimate threat, due to rationale for this war that was thoroughly discredited in their eyes.

What are the similarities and differences with the Vietnam War?

Similarities

^ Both wars lost the support of the American people, in part because many opportunistic and unprincipled politicians have succeeded in defining it narrowly as an unpopular president’s war as opposed to a venture in which we are all invested.

^ In both instances, American forces received inadequate military direction for the first several years of the war as the enemy utilized brutal terrorist techniques.

^ Our ineptitude at “telling our story” has cost us dearly on the global stage, as our rivals for global influence scheme and try to take advantage of our distraction.

^ The massacres in Southeast Asia that followed our pullout would be mirrored on a horrific scale in Iraq – additionally, our global prestige and deterrent threat would take an immense beating by pulling out of Iraq in defeat the same as in the Vietnam aftermath.

Differences

^ Without a military draft, opposition to the Iraq War is not as visceral because nobody can be sent involuntarily.

^ The North Vietnamese and Vietcong were never going to follow us to America and continue the war here after winning. The jihadists in Iraq want to kill Americans wherever they can and prefer a 9/11 type of attack on our soil.

^ Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were, for better or for worse, guided in Vietnam by knowledge of war they obtained firsthand in the military in World War II. George Bush’s military experience, such as it was, during the Vietnam era, did not infuse him with any battlefield lessons for the Iraq War.

Was the surge a good idea – and should we stay with it?

Yes and yes. This goes back to the unfortunate initial point about how one’s conclusions about whether we should have gone to war initially color people’s perceptions about what to do now. Regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not, we as a country own this war and the successes and failures, not merely George Bush and Dick Cheney. The surge of American forces has been successful enough that it’s possible to state with some confidence that if it were applied four years ago that it might have brought the war to an end in a reasonable period of time. The immense danger evident if we leave in allowing Iraq to devolve into an unchecked terrorist breeding ground and de facto satellite of Iran (in Gulf-bordering part of the country) justified our decision earlier this year to “double down” and try to salvage something from the disaster of the previous few years. Even after years of our sleepy inaction that allowed Iraq to spiral downward, we have still made great success in retaking key parts of the country and lethally countering terrorist networks. True, we can’t sustain the surge forever with our manpower limitations, but we can and must build on our progress for at least another six months so that we can try to ensure the situation we leave behind is not a festering sore.

Is Iraq legitimately a part of the Global War on Terror?

It is now. While it probably wasn’t involved to a critical degree before our invasion, it certainly is at the moment given Al Qaeda’s vast efforts to rebuild their network to full strength using Iraq as the main focus. Our battles against jihadists there are the same as any we fight around the globe, covertly or otherwise. Distinctions that politicians seek to make between terrorists in Iraq and others around the globe are artificial and a deliberate attempt to confuse the stakes we face so that our defeat might seem more palatable.

Can we still win in Iraq?

If by “win,” we mean leaving behind a country that is not a completely failed state and not a threat to its neighbors or us via terrorism, then the answer is yes. If by “win,” we mean leaving behind the vision of flourishing Jeffersonian democracy previously preached by George Bush and his neoconservative missionaries, then the answer is no. Fortunately, our military and civilian leadership seems to have pulled its collective head out of its collective posterior, so we now have a realistic chance to salvage the aforementioned modest definition of success from our years of hell in the sand.

Have people forgotten? Uh, yes.

By Rick Morris

(EDITED TO CORRECT TYPO)

While there are other subjects certainly worthy of comment on The FDH Lounge blog right now, it would be unseemly not to save them for another day. It is September 11, the day which so many of us vowed we would not forget in the awful autumn of 2001, but which too many of us certainly have. And while there are legitimate doubts as to whether this country has consistently acted in its own best interests since then (and I have said that I firmly believe we have not), nobody thinking with a clear head can pretend that we are not engaged in a brutal struggle worldwide with the jihadists who want to replicate 9/11 on a grander scale on our soil -- and nobody thinking with a clear head can pretend that a humiliating end in Iraq will be George Bush's failure alone and not something that all of us will be haunted for for generations. It's one matter to want to hold people accountable for our mistakes -- it's another altogether to pretend like so many pinko blogs that our successes and our failures as a people are not something that we ALL own.

So today, it 0nly seems fitting to post the lyrics from Daryl Worley's song "Have You Forgotten?" -- because the majority of us are back trying to live in a September 10 world.

I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start preaching
Let me ask you this my friend

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it every day
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet they remember
Just what they're fighting for

CHORUS 2
Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?

Turning the tide in Anbar

By Rick Morris

Michael Yon is one of the foremost milbloggers writing today. Having written extensively from the front lines in Iraq over the past few years, he is greatly qualified to assess how our civilian leadership and their followers at the top of the military failed us in the years prior to 2007 and what are our remaining chances for success -- which must now be defined in the narrow sense of not leaving behind an Afghanistan-like Disney World for terrorists. In Part I of his new series, The Ghosts of Anbar, he sets the stage for his latest trip to Anbar by narrating the events of the past few years. It's great writing by one of the few journalists anywhere truly qualified to opine about the state of the war and I recommend it highly.