By that metric Bush has been pretty good in a number of arenas, in particular when it comes to rewarding supporters, lobbyists, political operatives, children of political operatives, Republican businesses, industries like drug or natural resource extraction, wealthy estates, etc.

The Conservative movement came to power based on a 50% + 1 tactic. To hold onto power they had to reward and nurture their supporters for the long run. Fiscal responsibility would certainly have cutoff the payoffs, so ideological concerns about budget deficits fell by the wayside the first year.

You mean DURING MY ARMY SERVICE?  Damn right I did.

Remember, you can't be against the war and for the troops. That is oure nonsense.

It is so because you can form a sentence that says it is so?  Your threshhold of evidence is somewhere in the minus figures.  You could not be more wrong if you spent a week trying to be.

Anyone who continues to support a war based on lies long after the lies have been exposed does not "support the troops."  As a vet I identify with those being killed and maimed for no good reason, so I support them by wanting them out of harm's way and wanting the fools, cowards and morons who sent them there put on trial.

BTD notes with some approval the observation that Americans are not psychologically ready to call it quits in Iraq. He calls that a "game" that the Administration is playing and that, in reality, "Iraq is lost."

BTD does NOT say that Democrats should run on that message, but Edger, Pnuematikon, and scribe, seem to. My sarcasm arose because we have on the one hand BTD and Josh Marshall, observing that Americans aren't ready to call it quits and Edger, Pnuematikon, and scribe on the other positively begging for Democrats to take to the streets with just that message.

That seems like a recipe for electoral defeat. Hence, my "disingenuous advice" comment. From a purely political standpoint, entirely divorced from questions of whether Iraq is lost or not, I think that is a bad strategy.

Now, you're asking for what I actually believe with respect to the Great Iraq Adventure, and that's an entirely different story from my electoral considerations above. I'm almost afraid that this thread will turn into a debate about "willful blindness" or "just plain evil" if I share my own beliefs, but--since you asked--here is what I think. Consider it fairly representative of a rather large group of voters (maybe it will help with the electoral calculations I talked about above).

What is your opinion of this?  Simply to disagree with undisputed fact?

For one thing, I don't start from the premise that the Iraq War was flawed even before it started. I don't have it in me to think of anyone or anything as EVIL, and therefore everyone gets a fair hearing with me. Everyone gets to start at zero and move up or down from there.

Also, I don't believe the "failure" is quite the undisputed fact that you do. I'm a young guy, but I'm not so naive as to believe that things will either be all good or all bad. Mixed results are to be expected, especially when war and death are the means to our end.

Another reason (and these are just off the top of my head, mind you) is that I believe the stakes are quite high. Y'know, if this were just some failed skirmish with no geopolitical consequences I'd be more willing to say "It's not worth the money or the death." Democrats understand this concept intimately; it's why we are bombarded by assertions that Iraq really is of no consequence, they cannot (or couldn't) hurt us or our interests, etc. Conversely (and in contradictory fashion), Democrats tell us that we're making things worse by creating more enemies and making ourselves more vulnerable.

In short, here is my thought process:

(1) Will the situation be made better or worse by continuing? If "better" goto (2).
(2) How can this be made better?
     a. Status quo.
     b. Increase troops/change tactics.
     c. Decrease troops/change tactics.
     d. Complete withdrawal.

I know you're giving the benefit of the doubt to people who either wouldn't want to believe that, don't believe it, or are simply unable psychologically to believe it. And you know, I think most people still grow up being taught and really believing that their president and their "leaders" are good, trustworthy, and honest men or women who selflessly and altruistically enter politics with the desire and intention of "serving" their country and trying to improve the lot of all people in it. With the idea Clinton spoke of the other day: the "Common Good" foremost in their minds.

Contrast that meme with that simple and probably universally accepted belief that you'll find if you ask almost anyone in passing if gthey trust politicians, and I think you'll find most of them will answer "are you nuts?". Many of them rather vehemently.

A case in point is some of the discussions about Barack Obama here lately, and the commonly expressed belief that Obama is for Obama. I think most people think that way about most politicians.

Bush is for Bush, I think, and Cheney is for Cheney, etc. etc. etc. I think anyone would be hard pressed to show instances and compelling evidence and actions that would show that the people in power now care a whit for anyone but themselves.

However, I think there may be some other psychological factors at play in war supporters who refuse to admit that the war has become a disaster for which there is no hope of success. (Let me insert here that I'm using the phrase "war supporters" as shorthand for "those who supported the Iraq War." It should not be taken to mean anything so broad as "supporters of the activity of war in general.")

The first of these is "determination." That is, the setting of a worthy goal. Democratic commentators have often insisted that the mission objectives in Iraq were not a worthy goals in 2003 and certainly aren't in 2006. But war supporters disagreed and fixed that goal in their minds as something that should be done.

The second of these is "fortitude." That is, a desire or ability to push past a painful thing in order to accomplish a worthy goal. Some commentators mistakenly view war supporter fortitude for willful or even nefarious disregard for the losses endured. But war supporters still have that goal in mind; they knew that pain and loss was coming and know that there is still more between our current position and success.

A third psychological factor that may be influencing war supporters is "confidence." Specifically, confidence that the United States has the power and will to succeed at attaining the worthy goal (this may be a version of the nationalism that you mentioned). Commentators have exclaimed that the worthy goal is beyond our reach and argue that it is ghastly waste to pursue it. On the other hand, war supporters, familiar with such facts as America's "oversized" military and gigantic "war industry" believe that, as the only global superpower, enough might and will can be brought to bear to win.

I isolated these three traits because they identify the three main objections made by those who oppose the war, and explain (I hope) why war supporters find them unpersuasive. The three main arguments that I've seen are:

(1) The war had no worthy goal. Iraq was no threat, there was no value to be had, etc.
(2) The losses outweigh the benefit. It has cost too much in lives and money for whatever small goal existed.
(3) Even if there is a worthy goal it is a bridge too far. We cannot solve the Iraq Problem.

I associated each of these arguments with a character trait. Please don't misunderstand me; those three arguments are based to a large degree on facts, facts that can be (and have been) discovered. But they are also based on valuations: What does "worthy" mean? How much is "too much?" How each of us, as individuals, measure worth has a lot to do with our character traits.

And that, to some degree, is what is separating war supporters from opponents. War supporters have determination, fortitude, and confidence when it comes to the war, for whatever reason. War opponents do not, again, for a multitude of reasons.

And as long as commentators mistake determination for imperial desire, fortitude for willful neglect, and confidence for willful ignorance we will keep having the same arguments over and over again. For this reason, and many others, I cannot hope for a quick enough end to this war.

Mixed results are to be expected, especially when war and death are the means to our end.

Second, war and death are means to an end. They are not, as some have suggested, ends in themselves. As merely means, they should never be resorted to without a legitimate end. In other words, just war theory is founded on the idea that war is never a legitimate end in itself. A similar proposition should apply to the infliction of death on a person.

There are a few things NOT to take from my comment. The most important of these is the idea that I "have no real understanding of what war creates -- things that CAN'T be fixed or won or replaced or anything but remain destroyed forever." To be certain, I've never been in a war. But I've had just as much opportunity as everyone else who hasn't to see and hear and touch the result. I know war is hell. That's why it should only be a means to a legitimate end.

Second, I am all for "sucking it up" at admitting our failures. And when it comes to the war, that includes planning and execution and PR, to some degree at least. But I'm not for calling it quits. As I wrote earlier, I do not believe that the situation in Iraq has escaped all possibility of success by some measure. And I believe the stakes are high enough to warrant every effort we can make.

Finally, you asked about failure as a fact. Obviously I disagree with the idea. You enumerate the failures which have presumably led up to the Failure in Iraq:

going into Iraq for no good reason with no viable military strategy, with absolutely no conceptual understanding of the war you were getting into?

I disagree with each individual claim. First, there were very good reasons for going into Iraq. The official reasons, which included the ongoing conflict with Saddam Hussein, his support for terrorists, his attempts to get and keep weapons of mass destruction, his stockpiles of weapons and his weapons programs (which we now know cannot be found), his attacks on his own population, and his aggressive stance toward his neighbors were all good reasons.

I also tend to think that some "unofficial" reasons played a role. Among them was the need to establish a new presence in the Middle East. After all, Osama bin Laden attacked us in part because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. It also demonstrated to hostile governments that the United States was willing to use more than just economic and soft power approaches to international misbehavior. (See for example, Libya.)

Second, we had a viable and ultimately successful military strategy for the invasion of Iraq. What we didn't have was a clear idea of what to do after we beat Saddam Hussein and his government. That is a failure. But it's not a catastrophic one.

Third, we knew what we were getting into. War is chaos; the winners are those who adapt the quickest. And the techniques and mechanics of war in Iraq have evolved at a fatal rate. Our failure was not that we didn't "conceptually understand what we were getting into." It was that we haven't been adapting quickly enough to the shifting tactics of insurgents and terrorists. As proponents of the de-centralized system, I'd think that most of the commenters around here would be familiar with its strengths.