WE SHOULDN'T BE OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY

Today's NY Times online edition has an interesting OpEd-- a video clip by documentary filmmakers Molly Bingham and Steve Connors. They show clearly what many of us knew from Day One-- and why we are still so angry not just at Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, McConnell and the usual clueless, bloodthirsty suspects but at collaborationist Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden who should have known better-- that the occupation was utterly doomed from the start. Watch it at that link.

It is powerful and concise and it is clear. The American involvement in Iraq was a really bad idea, a bad idea that has, predictably, grown worse with time. If the two insider establishment parties offer you two candidates for office, any office, and neither is genuinely incensed about the immoral and catastrophic occupation of a foreign country, you don't have a candidate to vote for.

In 2005 eight members of the House founded the Out of Iraq Caucus:

Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Jan Schakowssky (D-IL)
William Delahunt (D-MA)
John Lewis (D-GA)

Since then another 65 members have joined and membership spans the political spectrum, from good government progressives like Hilda Solis (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Pete Stark (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) to conservatives like Nick Rahall (D-WV), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Al Wynn (D-MD) and William Jefferson (D-LA).

So while the inept and ineffectual Condoleeza Rice tries to deal with the vicious mercenary army (perhaps better termed "gang of murderous thugs") big time Republican campaign contributor Erik Prince has let loose on that rightfully pissed-off nation, the Establishment mass media, especially Insider the hated Beltway is still debating with itself if and when we should remove our troops. Today David Ignatius at the Washington Post thinks we should move up the timetable for transfering security to the effectively nonexistent Green Zone puppet government. Unfortunately his argument makes certain absurd assumptions, one of which is that we can ever expect truth or good will from the venal gangsters in control of the White House. It's their war and they're not giving up on it. Period.

The biggest argument against accelerating the handover is that violence is down now only because of the surge of U.S. firepower. But in coming weeks, commanders will be exploring whether it's possible to maintain the same combat "tooth" with less of a "tail" of logistical support.

Politically, the Iraq debate has a markedly different tone than it did a few months ago. At the White House, the sense of political free fall is over. Officials feel they are on a stable glide path toward a reduced but still substantial troop presence when President Bush leaves office. It's not exactly a military victory, with marching bands and flying flags, but it's not a defeat either.

The mood has changed on Capitol Hill as well. Congressional pressure for a quick pullout has eased, in part because Democratic leaders know they don't have the votes. Meanwhile, the top two Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both said they expect that U.S. troops will still be in Iraq when the next president takes office, and they have discussed what role this residual U.S. force should play.

The one certainty about Iraq is that a large U.S. troop presence isn't acceptable over the long run, for Iraqis or Americans. So U.S. military commanders are wise to examine how to use the remarkable success of recent months to create alternatives that rely less on U.S. firepower. That's really the challenge now in Ira-- how to seize the moment, rather than maintain the status quo.

A far less reasonable voice is still squawking for "victory" and painting a false and rosy picture for Wall Street Journal, future war crimes defendant Michael Ledeen. He insists the U.S. occupation (which includes Blackwater) can still win the war of hearts and minds. Apparently these are today's Neocon talking points. They should take a look at the Times video we started with-- and try, for once, to face reality.