I like the New York Times. In a classic case of serendipitous synchronicity, the last few days have brought us a virtual flood of excellent opinionating. I wanted to bring it to your attention, in case you don't read it yourself.

This delightful deluge ranges over (in no particular order) the mortgage crisis, derivatives markets, financial regulations, the Bush administration, Wall Street, the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, Barney Frank, the Federal Housing Administration, Larry Kudlow, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Glass-Steagall Act, the Iraq war, Sunnis and Shiites, foreign policy, Ronald Reagan, domestic policy, tax policy, budgets, earmarks, comedy writing, the press, public speaking, acting, Dwight Eisenhower, the Justice Department, Congressional hearings, waterboarding, the Central Intelligence Agency, partisanship, foreign relations, The Wizard of Oz, March Madness, YouTube, the Harvard Law Review, conspiracy theories, ignorance, anti-intellectualism, insults, education, Sinbad, Bosnia, propoganda stunts, viral politics, the Iraq occupation, Moktada al-Sadr, Nuri al-Maliki, Abdul al-Hakim, Basra, Baghdad, Iraqi elections, international trade, Iran, and much much more.

Continued below...

You might think my title is a reference to John McCain's claim that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years.  That would, after all be a reasonable assumption.  But no, the idea that we must stay in  Iraq for the indefinite future at a cost of thousands of lives and billions (trillions?) of tax dollars is not solely limited to Republicans, right wing crazies and Bush/Cheney dead enders.  It's also the rallying cry of prominent news reporters and self described Middle Eastern experts like Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times, who today in a column/report castigates Democrats for daring to talk about pulling our military forces out of Iraq:

(cont.)

The most agonizing question: Is it moral to leave Iraq, knowing that the civil war will most certainly become worse, since we are responsible for what has happened there? On what facts do we base the answer? Can we now trust those facts?

Though Bush/Cheney/Neocons/Republicons et al were the "INITIATORS,"  the "Deciders" to go to war, along with lots of Democrats, our nation as a whole is responsible for our government's actions, and that means me, too. Even though intelligence was fudged and lies were made. Yes, sadly, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR LYING LEADERS AND THEIR ACTIONS! AND OUR LEADERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR LIES AND MISSTEPS.

The carnage unleashed was the cause of a small group of people who made the terrible decisions about what happened after toppling Saddam, and they are culpable for the unending trail of lies, errors, miscalculations, stupidity, more lies and hubris that brought about unique and vast horrors. But.

After watching Markos on Charlie Rose, I stayed awake long enough to hear Anthony H. Cordesman.  His recent report on his trip to Iraq has gained attention in the MSM primarily because he has been cast as a "different" voice from that of his travel companions.  If you have not been following this too closely, you can check out the Washington Post coverage here  or read Cordesman's entire report The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq: A Trip Report here.

Several days ago I diaried a book review You must read this book of Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA.  In that review I tried to capture in a few hundred words the appaling incompetence of the various insiders appointed to effect US foreign policy using the blunt instruments gathered in a fog of ideological psychosis.

In a diary yesterday titled Police & Puppeteers: New Mission for US Military in Iraq, I analyzed the August 8th Rand Corporation report, "US Policy Options for Iraq: a Reassessment" commissioned by the USAF.  Please read that diary in conjunction with today's.

Today I'll analyze what Anthony H. Cordesman has to say in his report on his recent trip to Iraq, coincidentally released the same day as the Rand Corporation's report.  In a nutshell, Cordesman offers,

From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence.  Synopsis: Trip Report

The Baltimore Sun is running an op-ed today that is taken from the testimony  of Anthony Cordesman, the former National Security Assistant to John McCain perhaps best known for his poo-poohing of the Lancet Study on Iraqi Civilian casualties. Cordesman's testimony must have slipped under my radar screen, because it is so egregiously wrong I'm more than a little ashamed that this man is actually allowed a place in the public discourse on anything.

In the piece, Cordesman makes the Iraq=Vietnam connection, but in a very twisted way. His testimony begins in a truthful enough manner, when he talks about the dangers of the administration overrating the achievements of the Iraqis in terms of their own domestic police and military accomplishments. But here is where he veers wildly off the path of reason, by comparing the Vietnam and Iraqi political situations.

By this time I imagine just about everyone at Dkos feels they are smarter than the people who run our government. The new army counter-insurgency manual, for instance, makes a big deal of saying that killing civilians is counter productive. Ya think?! Last year we were treated to a national intellegence (stupidity?) estimate that claimed that the American occupation of Iraq was fueling terrorism world wide. Really?? You mean they paid people to come to this conclusion? I could have given it to them for free!

Of course, the punditry is just as bad, if not worse. How many Friedmans are we into the war BTW?

Well, here is another example of head-up-your-ass commentary by a supposed "expert" on why talk about war with Iran is all wet. . . .

Yesterday, in Kos' front page story on how Bush called McCain's bluff in ordering more troops to Iraq, I posted a quick comment on how Bush's Strategery for Victory 5.0 was not consistent with the American Enterprise Institute's January 5, 2007 proposal, which is supposedly the basis for Bush's escalation plan.  However, I couldn't confirm it because I couldn't get the pdf of the AEI report -- entitled "Choosing Victory: A Plan For Success In Iraq, Phase I Report" and authored by Neocon shill Fred Kagan -- to open.  I read it after the office techies managed to open it for me.  Although I don't agree with its analysis or its recommendations, its a somewhat more thoughtful piece of work than I would have predicted based on the interim draft posted on the AEI website last month (which was really just a slide show of talking points and exhortations to victory.)

The latest  Newsweek dated for Dec 11 2006,   informative and revealing, brings up the obvious Commission report inspired preemptive strike  of bush's latest charades at diplomacy.  
It gives a clarifying view of Baker's role with Bush 41 and Bush 43 as the neo-con to the rescue.  And it rips into Bush's position as a Bull in the China Shop blaming the China Shop for breaking!  
Is there any doubt?

An attack against Iran has most likely gone from possible to probable. It is not so much a matter of if as it is of when.

Pat Buchanan points out that Bush's legacy virtually demands an attack on Iran.