Steve, it's not even the impeachment comments. He wants Bush out of office and if he thinks he engaged in official misconduct, then he can make his case.

However, saying Bush, Cheney, Rumsefld and Wolfowitz 'killed' 600 troops is beyond the pale. Oliver is one of my favorite, if not my favorite liberal blogger. I expect that kind of tripe from Atrios, Hesiod and others, but not him.

Except, Stephen, Bush is more along the Enron types who tells Andersen to set the books up a certain way -- and when the real financials come in, pretends that that was the plan all along.

Same crap, new whipped cream. "Catastrophic incompetence"? We collapsed the Iraqi army, captured and killed its leaders, and have occupied and run it for over a year with 600 deaths despite the best efforts of the Saddam Hussein regieme and an influx of international terrorists.

This is a brilliant victory unparalleled in military history and twits like Willis want to impeach Bush because some small time thug scores a very minor, very temporary victory.

The source article is underwhelming and quietly sets aside any facts that would get in the way of Fallow's conclusions. As much as Fallow's desperately wants to find failure in Iraq, he still can't make the case without resorting to tired one sided cliches and totally ignoring all positive developments of the last year. A wasted effort that can be debunked in a fraction of its cumbersome column space.

Read a history book. Better yet, read the news and see what the Marines are doing to these "insurgents". Don't humiliate yourself with pathetic half-baked arguments about topics you obviously know precious little about.

Or do...we all need a good laugh now and then.

Seriously, Mike m.

If 600 troops - not all of whom have died in combat - had been killed WITHOUT ACCOMPLISHING ONE THING, then perhaps I could see the point, without necessarily agreeing.

But it seems that in order to make a rhetorical point, a number of people are taking one number - our dead in Iraq - and treating that as if it's a singular, isolated activity, as if we randomly selected 600 people, put 'em in a quarry, and gunned them down.

There's no doubt that there was and continues to be immense risk in this endeavor (or, if it's your preference, "adventure"), but we're still some time off before we can really assess whether it's been successful. What galls me are people who dismiss all of it out of hand before the results are in ... to say nothing of having less-than-perfect knowledge of what's really happening in that part of the world right now. Unless al Jazeera is an accurate barometer, of course.

How funny is it when a guy says:

This is a brilliant victory unparalleled in military history.

And further along he tells a blogger to:

Read a history book.

Pretty funny.

I don't get it. Could you explain the joke?

wrapper, read slowly. if you crack the book, you will see that the swift victory is unprecented in military history.

Swift victories are not unprecedented in military history.

No, but no one has ever invaded a country, overthrown the government, established an interim government, occupied and policed the country, and established a handover plan in less than two years with only 600 casualties.

I assure you it's never happened before. Must we educate you on every point raised on this board?

I'm just going by your own words about brilliant and unprecedented.

If you wanna segue into that other stuff concerning occupation, AFTER that happens you gotta point. A different point, but........

I'll defend any charges you make against my point, wrapper. I just find it funny that you have yet to cite a single historical fact, comparison, or example as to why our mission in Iraq is not the most successful violent invasion and occupation of a hostile country in military history.

This should be easy for you. After all, I've put a "failure" against all previous military actions in world history. Just find one little example. Surely someone, somewhere has conquered and occupied another country faster and with fewer combat deaths.

See, you're mixing up occupation and combat deaths with your original assertion. There has yet to be a successful occupation of Iraq, and combat deaths are not relevant to a vital interest, or so say war supporters. So let's throw that out.

I think Clive conquered India pretty fast and with few troops. Germany over Denmark was quick, Brits removing Argentina from the Falklands was impressive, Germany over Belgium, Netherlands and France was a good one,
General Lee at Second Manassas was particularly brilliant, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is very notable, McArthur skipping New Britain and taking the Admiralty Islands was excellent, oh well , I'm getting tired.

Wrapper, did you actually look anything up? Because your examples certainly don't qualify.

Clive in India? It took decades for England to fully swallow India and at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. That's not even a serious comparison.

Denmark surrendered to Germany and did not resist the occupation. They sent their army home and let the Germans roll in at their will.

The Falklands War was not an invasion or occupation of Argentina, it was a territorial dispute.

Germany's invasion of the Low Country in WWII? Try 27,000 combat deaths and another 100,000 wounded. Not even close.

All your other examples are individual battles and are not even related to the topic.

You still haven't made a relevant challenge to my point, which is that our action in Iraq is an unprecedented success...so far...(if you must have that disclaimer). You have also failed to defend Willis, whose hysterical defeatism was the whole point of my original post. Do you have anything useful to say or shall I just keep burying you in an avalanche of facts?

Ok mike, have it your way, never before has the U.S. invaded and conquered Iraq so fast.

To: Mike M

Want another historic first?

Never before has there been a large-scale armed uprising in a country in such a short time after being conquered and occupied by a large enemy army.

It's all got to do with modern technology and communications, you know. Never before have armies and messages travelled so fast over large distances. If you want to make a big thing out of it, do it. There will always be historic firsts like these.

Large-scale armed uprising?

Large-scale??? There are 25 million Iraqis, possibly 40K Iranians, plus a few thousand other outsiders mixed in. Sunni- want power and money back - Muqty - funded by Iran with some manpower. They bagged 2 Iranians w/papers. We've got Sauds, Paleos, Sudanese, Syrians, and the lot. It can't even be considered a "large-scale" ME uprising.

I really don't think "large-scale" qualifies, unless you're talking land mass.

What are they telling you in Merry Olde Europe?

I mean, have we lost 100 in the past week?

I would think w/"large-scale uprising" we'd be looking at a lot more American dead.

Do you guys even try to make an argument or are you just engaged in contrarianism? Come on, TEO...you'd be slightly clever if your arguments were remotely grounded in reality. There's never been a large scale uprising in an occupied country? First, there have been plenty. Second, Sadr is a small time thug about to get mulched by thousands of Marines. He's toast.

What I'd like to know is why you are so intent on portraying this war as a failure when all the facts so obviously show it as a resounding success? Did you put money on Saddam? Are you working for the Kerry campaign? Really...I can't come up with any other reasons for your streams of nonsensical arguments. Help me out.

To Mike M:
"There's never been a large scale uprising in an occupied country?"

Read my post.

Do you think chanting the mantra "progress in Iraq" is enough to make positive things happen there?

If you want a check with reality ask your local commanders whether they like what they are in right now.

Uh, no. The fact that more than 70% of the people not only support us but want us to stay, and all the work that is being done on the infrastructure and government of the country qualifies as progress. Don't blame me if you refuse to look at the big picture.

Commanders outside of the few areas where uprisings are occuring would probably say things are just fine...and the ones in Tikrit and Najaf are probably eager to end the conflict once and for all. Re-enlistment rates have been highest in areas that have seen the most terrorist and insurgent activity. Oops...sorry, there are those facts again.

Got any more? This is fun.

"The fact that more than 70% of the people not only support us but want us to stay, and all the work that is being done on the infrastructure and government of the country qualifies as progress."

Don't know where you get that figure from. Possibly the same source that sees Bush still ahead in the polls in the US?

"... and the ones in Tikrit and Najaf are probably eager to end the conflict once and for all. ..."

I understand they are eager to end it. I also thought the war in Iraq was already over - the fastest victory in the world, you remember - and that the mission was already accomplished.

As the president says there are only a few annoying thugs and armed robber bands in a few places in Iraq left that are keeping a 130.000 people army busy and its commander asking for reinforcements.

Ugh. Bush is cooperating with an axis of evil state: Iran. And he is cooperating with the incompetent people at the UN, who will save his ass in Iraq in finding a "government" to appear at the transfer of sovereignty ceremony on 30th June.

Line of the day:
(for people who still praise the fastest victory in the world)

"I guess the Iraqis didn't get the memo that the war is over."

Sgt. James Amyett on the Road to Najaf

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13038-2004Apr14.html)