Whiskey Bar: Going to Tehran: "Perhaps the neocons believe they've locked us into perpetual war in the Middle East so tightly that no subsequent administration will be able to get us out -- no matter what the voters want. They're certainly arrogant enough, and stupid enough, to believe it.
Or does the gang have a contingency plan for coping with an outbreak of democracy in America -- and not just in Iran and Iraq? You never know. Real men may decide they can't afford to let the voters stand in their way. Not if they want to get to Tehran.
That doesn't mean they'll ever get there, of course. Certainly not with this army. But it does suggest that unless they are stopped, the Cheney administration and its titular head will pursue their march of folly to the bitter end -- no matter what road it takes them down or where it may end."
The Downing Street Memos and the course of events in Iraq are beginning the process of asking a truly critical question, "Why are we in Iraq?" Why did Bush lead us in this direction?
Since his announced intentions have proven to be illusory at best, and lies at worst, we are free to speculate, based on outcomes and current trends. Condi Rice's little lie about "generational committments" could not come at a better time, for critics, because it supports the very real possilibility that the Republicans wanted a permanent presence in the Middle East.
Personally, I tend to think Georgie just wanted the political capital, which a President gains in war, and was too much of a moron, to anticipate the risks or plan for the foreseeable consequences. Cheney, Rumsfeld and others associated with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) were primed to believe in a positive outcome from such a "manly" assertion of power, and too stupid to apply the lessons of history.