Pelosi Warns of "Spill Over"

The spineless Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and Sen. Leahy finally take a stand, "There's far too much voter input for our tastes these days. It's time for some Democrats to get with the program and start rolling over so they can fit in with the rest of us."

I think Speaker Pelosi is right. The Democratic Party is split into two roughly even segments supporting the two candidates. I think the majority of party members have either voted, or have decided who they are going to vote for, and they are going to be hearing their candidate talking for months and months about all the bad qualities the opposing candidate has (liar, inexperienced, unelectable, etc.). When the final candidate is chosen, the supporters of the losing candidate are going to need a lot more than just a press conference saying "Ignore what I've been saying for the past 6 months. Now that I'm out of the race, I endorse my opponent". The longer this race goes on, the more the negativity will become solidied in voters' minds, and the less time the party members will have to coalesce in support of the nominee.

Obviously, "very interesting" is highly relative.

Say, Jay Newton Small, do you have a hobby or any sort of knowledge of some field that others don't have?

Could you use that knowledge of that field to examine the various statements from the candidates relating to how they'd actually rule us in an effort to discover hidden assumptions, flaws, misleading statements, and the like?

And, could you then try to ask the candidates those questions?

I have to believe that - just on the law of averages alone - there has to be some reporter somewhere who knows something about something.

It’s one step away from calling for an end to the race before it starts to seriously harm the party.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, Jay? I mean really. One step away? That's a very weak and unsubstantiated conclusion on your part, based on, what?

I got the email, it is a standard pitch for money at the end of the quarter.

If Real Clear politics says it, it must be true. What do Red State and Free Republic have to say? How about Michelle Malkin?

What?

Jay Newton-Small:

Do you not see many fundraiser emails?

There's absolutely zero significance to this at all...

Does Polosi has short-term memory problem?

She was the one that throw her weight publicly on how SDs should vote. She interjected herself into the race and helped create this resentment among HRC supporters. She made out-of-bound comment that divide the party and now she has the nerve to warn us against the spill over.

It's too late Mam. The rock that you threw already crated the spill.

Does Polosi has short-term memory problem?

She was the one that throw her weight publicly on how SDs should vote. She interjected herself into the race and helped create this resentment among HRC supporters. She made out-of-bound comment that divide the party and now she has the nerve to warn us against the spill over.

It's too late Mam. The rock that you threw already crated the spill.

I have to post here for the sole reason of adding the rest of McCain's quote...

100 years in Iraq, if Americans aren't getting hurt, maimed, or killed.

But you won't hear any Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi add that important corollary. It would seriously weaken their soundbite case.

I'll give you that Yoshi.

I have to post this for the sole ignorance of thinking the rest of McCain's quote actually makes a shed of difference.

Most defending McCain and his 100/1000/10000 year statement like to mention the fact that we are still in places like Germany and S. Korea.

But you won't hear any of those supporters mention the fact that the situations leading to our continued shared military occupation/operations in places such as Germany and S. Korea do not include interfering with warring "RELIGIOUS" factions that have been at this for centuries upon centuries. What makes you think the U.S. now having a military presence in said Middle Eastern state would equate to no Americans "getting hurt, maimed, or killed?"

Yoshi--

Hahahahaha

And Kerry's voted for it before he voted against it was actually a perfectly sensible, prudent pair of votes. We saw Krauthammer try that one yesterday as well. Focus groups must be saying that it's sticking. You're gonna see that quote, the hug and "bomb bomb bomb iran" so much you're gonna dream about it. Face it, the guy's a terrible candidate. No discipline. No understanding of policy beyond kneejerk reaction. And no ability to stay on message.

But if you're going to be a stickler for accuracy, the reference should be to other occupations that are like the Iraqi occupation, like the Philippines--you know an unending conflict with nationalists elements opposed to the imposition of a (has to be English speaking) puppet.

As Allawi pointed out in an interview with Dexter Filkins:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E1DE123EF934A35753C1A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=6 Filkins

''It was doomed,'' Allawi told me. ''What was doomed was the attempt to refashion Iraq in a sort of civilizational makeover, using American power in an alliance with a supposedly grateful Iraqi public, led by a Westernized middle class. The assumption turned out to be false. And it was compounded by a series of disastrous decisions.''

I sat with Allawi for two hours, sharing coffee and chocolate pastries. It was a deeply depressing experience. Allawi tried as hard as any Iraqi to make a go of the new Iraq, and he is thoroughly disillusioned. He says he is resigned to the likelihood that Iraq will end up a sort of protectorate of the United States for the next several decades, not unlike the Philippines was for much of the 20th century -- dependent, violent, crippled. ''The history of the Philippines,'' he noted, ''is not a happy one.''

JNS--

WTF?

I've heard any number of people, including myself, express exactly this sentiment. The issue is not one candidate or the other. The issue is that the presidentials absorb so much oxygen, money and passion that the Congressional and Senate races get secondary status.

Ever since this came down to these candidates, the Senate and the Congress were far more important than which of these two get nominate. There is a potential tsunami here.

I don't whether this naivite is put on or real, but there is nothing here beyond what it says.

Howard Dean was a great more pointed, and a great deal clearer. If you want to talk about the party leadership wanting to put an end to the pie-fighting, you should look to his July 1 deadline.

Goodness what a bunch of nothing out of nothing.
An unremarkable fundraising letter and JNS (with the help of RCP because honestly who expects an "unstolen" thought from JNS) tries to show how it is bad for Democrats.
That script is well beyond the Sell By date.

Yes I will agree this time, the Party of the Democrats seems to be at a historical cross-roads. The liberal far left extremists pitted against the more moderate middle base. The question is who will prevail, and how deep will the divide be?

What I see from my vantage point are various groups who are split into their most important agendas. While Obama feebly attempted to bring a real issue to the forefront of this primary, the topic of race. He has come off as being racist himself. He speaks a good game, but then totally railroads himself by making off-color remarks like "Punjab" and "Typical White". Is this indicative of some deep rooted psychological character flaw related to his biracial makeup? I believe we shall see more of this to come.

For Hillary, her quest is plainly personal. She does have an entitlement attitude, with the sole agenda of becoming America's first woman president. This albeit lofty goal will not be hers, at least not this time.

John McCain with his maverick persona, making many on the right question his real motives. But, of the three, I have to place my bets and money that his trial by fire is one to truly make a difference for this county. I will admit at times he seems to float at 50,000 feet above the crowd, and not in a good way. But, he also sees the larger picture from 50,000 feet which puts personal quests to the side, and brings to the forefront what is best for all, and not just a few.

I know the swamplanders will have fun, poke fun, and ridicule this and I say have fun. But, I think if you really give it some thought you will see through your rose colored glasses.

JNS - look at it this way. You're getting fairly constructive criticism along with the other stuff- sort of your own personalized online composition course. cheers.

Maricopa County, you mean?

Seriously, he's a terrible candidate. Bob Dole with more arrogance, worse memory and less discipline. Old, ignorant, out of date, and unable to stay on any message. The only framing problem the democrats are facing is which one to focus on. There are so many....

While Obama feebly attempted to bring a real issue to the forefront of this primary, the topic of race

Of course the people most likely to refer to it as "a real issue" are the real racists.

Shoe, meet Rusty....

Jay, I implore you. Find a good, experienced, ethical journo who you trust and run your stuff by him/her before you post like this. It's no shame to do that, almost all excellent writers do. A good, smart, ethical journo can help you improve both the substance and the style of your work. Don't trust the hacks at RCP, they are not your friends. Obviously, Carney and company aren't, either.

We want to like you, we really do, and it must be so painful for you to be (rightly) criticized like this every day.

"Bob Dole with more arrogance, worse memory and less discipline. Old, ignorant, out of date, and unable to stay on any message "

I don't know if you have ever seen King of the Hill Jay but Ms PNNTO pointed out last night that McCain and Hank's father Cotton Hill are very similar.

It's great to see clowns like Yoshi, who spent the entirety of the 2004 election distorting Kerry's quotes and smearing his service, develop a newfound love for putting quotes in their proper context.

Yes I will agree this time, the Party of the Democrats seems to be at a historical cross-roads. The liberal far left extremists pitted against the more moderate middle base. The question is who will prevail, and how deep will the divide be?

What the f**k are you talking about? What's going on in this election is really quite interesting, in that the more liberal of the two candidates (Obama) also seems to have more appeal to self-described centrists.

Rusty -- you're an idiot and you should never write anything longer than a paragraph or two. The more you write, the dumber you look.

Still vacationing KT here--

I disagree with commenters who see this a just a garden variety fundraising letter. It looks to me to be a very clever pushback against the Clinton donors who sent Pelosi that not-so-veiled threat regarding their future contributions if she did not back off her contention that superdelegates should follow the will of the voters. It also comes after MoveOn has come to Pelosi's defense. It will be very interesting to see what kind of contributions this letter generates.

KT be on vacation for goodness sake! :)
Interesting and perhaps accurate take on it and one I would suggest that is quite different from the "a down ticket worry for Democrats if this presidential race drags on. " that JNS posted.
Again, she may be a younger writer but she has the old CW of everything being bad news for Democrats.

Thanks, Karen. That's a very interesting take on it. I suspect you're right.

Here's a very-well written take on the dust-up between Pat Leahy and former Vt. Governor Madeleine Kunin over Leahy's remarks. Relevance for this discussion and the general gender conversation. An excerpt below, and the complete column can be read at:

http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=903

"To our mind, certain things have become undeniable over the last 14 months or so:

1) After having sold herself as the candidate of experience and competence, Clinton has seen her campaign outmaneuvered at every step of the game. The fact that she finds herself in the rear-guard position here in March has far less to do with lingering sexism than it has to do with strategic malpractice.

Her hard-boiled strategists, with names that capture perfectly the qualities they were thought to bring to the table — Wolfson, Ickes, etc. — have been at a complete loss for how to respond to a movement-based campaign. As a result, they’ve opted to co-opt Obama’s message; when that didn’t work, they attempted to hobble the messenger.

2) Clinton has run a campaign marked by consistent and methodical attempts to deny even the most commonly accepted facts on the ground. The spin from her spokespeople has become the stuff of Sunday editorial cartoonists for good reason. Her camp has campaigned more or less as Bush has governed, as though from a gated enclave far from the reality-based community."

Karen,

Go rest!!!

Surely you would admit that this:
It’s one step away from calling for an end to the race before it starts to seriously harm the party.

is overstated and a highly speculative, inflammatory leap of logic for which your colleague presented absolutely no evidence. A flat declaration like that requires at the *minimum* some context and reasoning.

I mean really! "one step away from calling for an end to the race"? Jesus! There's a big, big difference between that and your "it looks to me like a pushback ..." C'mon Karen.

Even so, I get stuff like this all the time and think nothing of it at all.

This kind of baseless speculation so irritating when you take into account your other colleague's soft-soaping of McCain's speech as "kinda vague" without a shred of information or analysis, plus his daily pushing of McCain propaganda, with cute little observations about the bass notes of the speaker and NOTHING of substance.

So, on the one hand, baseless speculation in an unflattering light on the Democrats, on the other hand gushing, cutesy wanking about the Joys of McCain blogging. You people are so biased and in the tank you don't even bother to hide it any more.

I read it again, KT, and I still don't see it.

I had very much the same conversation with Joan Mcwhorter, mcjoan of DKos (mp3 file) both before and during an interview with her a week ago Thursday.

Many progressives are concerned about missing this opportunity in the House and Senate, not because this close contest is causing a rift in the party, but because it is distracting people from other more important races.

In fact, the close, even though hard-fought, race has dovetailed very well with Dean's 50 state strategy, driving registrations and interest that would not have taken place if the race had been over earlier.

The most compelling response to the threat from Saban and his co-signatories came from the blogosphere--that those donors, and their influence on the party's direction does as much harm as good, and that Obama's grassroots fundraising methods make those self-important donors of decreasing importance.

It is worth thinking not about Pelosi's note here, but about AdNag's piece in today's NYT. He writes that superdelegates are afraid to commit to Obama because of possible retaliation from the Clintonistas. I actually think that is whom the Saban et al letter was actually aimed at--not Pelosi or the DCCC per se.

Moreover, I'd argue that their attempt at intimidation is not that dissimilar from the desperation that Clinton has displayed, as they see their access to the levers of power perhaps slipping away.

I think it may be worth noting that KT today, and AMC yesterday, felt the need to come into comments (which we all appreciate) and defend JNS on her post.
After JNS's work last weekend -editing her posts, irresponsible conclusions, etc- it might be that her readers would be better served with JNS writing for the dead tree where an editor could have a look before anything gets published.

KT, hope you are enjoying your vacation! I see you have become hooked on teh awesome blogworld.

You may be right about Pelosi's hidden message with the letter but I think she also meant what she said. And soon we will have an exciting presidential nominee who will make our entire party proud.

She or he will lead our energized and united Democratic Party in the larger fight against John McCain, and his plan for 100 more years of war in Iraq. I agree with that.

Living in PA we thought we would have no say in the process since our primary was so late. We are very excited now. I live in a historically Republican suburb of Philadelphia and was registered R because that was the only way I could have a voice in my local officials. I changed my registration, this time permanently, because I decided I could no longer stand to be affiliated with a party whose every policy position I disagreed with. A friend who has been registered independent since they moved to PA over 20 years ago, just changed her registration to Democrat. I think the numbers of new voters are exciting and that most will listen to Ed Rendell who said, after it's over I'll give the supporters of the other candidate ten days to sulk and pout and then you need to get out and get moving to elect the Democratic nominee.

Jayack: But doesn't your contention that the Saban et al letter was aimed at the superdelegates bolster Karen's point that this was pushback? Pelosi says very clearly "I will do whatever it takes to protect our candidates and make sure their campaigns to drive change forward don't skip a beat." The donors were implicitly threatening to withhold cash, but Pelosi has it in her power to bring an end to Clinton's candidacy. This letter is an effective way of saying "back off. I can do an end run around you; you can't do an end run around me." N'est-ce pas?

I guess that's one way to look at it, KathyR, but you have to read pretty far into to get there. If you're suggesting, when you say "Pelosi has it in her power", that she's threatening to do things like withhold committee assignments or something, well, yeah, then she has that power. But that seems like a real stretch to me.

Dean actually has more power here than she does (unless she engages in divisive hardball like threatening committee assignments), and he's the one who has been making the strong, clear statements.

Moreover this is part of a grassroots fundraising campaign, not directed at big donors. *I* got the email (didn't remember getting it and hadn't read it, but it was there when I looked.) I got mail from "Paul Begala" today, working on the same DCCC fundraising campaign.

However I would add one thing that's different about it:

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Sent Wirelessly Via Blackberry

is how it's signed. So there was some spur of the moment stuff going on here.

Jayackroyd: - actually, I wasn't thinking of committee assignments. I was thinking that if Pelosi signaled to the "50 or so" superdelegates that were rumored to be poised to endorse Obama if he won Texas that it was time to move forward en masse, then Clinton would probably not get past the news and the math.

I think it may be worth noting that KT today, and AMC yesterday, felt the need to come into comments (which we all appreciate) and defend JNS on her post.

It's painful. But KT and Cox shouldn't be *defending* such irresponsible speculation stated as fact. It affects their own credibility when they do. They should be mentoring Jay *before* she posts this kind of irresponsible, baseless speculation.

And of course, Time editors like Priscilla Painton may not be the way to improve Jay's work. As a matter of fact, editors like Painton and Carney may be one of the major problems here. Has there ever been a time when Time Magazine and Time.com demanded excellence from their staff? That's a sincere question. Certainly not in the Stengel era.

Thanks for the correction James. I have a romantic idea of editors actually reading and pulling out the red pencil as my father did.
I think you are more right than I am on this topic.

Well, Paul-NNTO, call me an old soft-hearted optimist if you will, but I still believe there are editors out there, and journos too, even in DC, that could help Jay improve her product if she asked.

Actually, I'm pretty positive that the editors at the LA Times bureau still pull out the stern ole sharpened red pencil, and at AFP and Bloomberg as well.

Sorry guys, blogging isn't edited. That's part of the point. That's one reason why errors and corrections are treated much more lightly--errors noted in comments or upon review are to be expected, and corrected publicly.

This isn't an error; some of us disagree with JNS' central point. You simply cannot blog and also get edited. Wrong tempo. It's one of things that makes it harder than it looks.

My point jay was that she needs an editor and probably shouldn't be blogging on a TIME Magazine sanctioned.
For the reasons you point out.

Right jay. I'm just suggesting that Jay run her stuff by some decent journo that she trusts in order to avoid the kind of withering criticism here that she (rightly) deserves. Nothing wrong with that. She's young, and it just has to hurt.

Paul-NNTO suggested she confine herself to the dead-tree when she can get some good editing, then I suggested that *good* editing is non-existent at Time Magazine in the Stengel era, providing, of course, links to substantiate my assertions. You can also look at Priscilla Painton's wikipedia entry and Somerby has a piece on Carney and Painton as well.

However, I do know that there is *some* editing of this Swampland blog. Just not the right kind, apparently.

Sink or swim is the only way. Look how much better Joe has gotten. Lately he's been adding relevant links that enhance the posts.

Most people who blog start out getting the stylistic elements right by making comments. It's not easy to start out on the front page.

You're a cruel, cruel man, jay.

"If Obama were to lose to McCain in November, some large number of Democrats will hold Clinton at least partially accountable for the reasons noted above: the damage to Obama caused by the long, nasty nomination campaign and the lack of time to effectively campaign against McCain. Democrats will be big time pissed at Hillary Clinton and she'll lack any reasonable amount of support from Democratic voters in the 2012 primaries.

She really is, at this point, betting the farm. If not successful, which seems increasingly likely, she will ruin whatever opportunities she has going forward."

from http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Sigh...

I have to agree with some of the other commentators that JNS' post was a bit exaggerated on "It’s one step away from calling for an end to the race before it starts to seriously harm the party." Although I can see an undercurrent of "we should unite" in Pelosi's letter, I don't agree with this assumption. However: JNS is not some sort of brain-dead journalistic robot as some other commentators are suggesting. This is the internet, but we don't have to be rude.

MB:

"I have to post this for the sole ignorance of thinking the rest of McCain's quote actually makes a shed of difference."

Can you not snarkily dismiss me as a Rushbot?

I'm well aware, and so is McCain, that Iraq is far from a safe place for ANY American right now. I'm also well aware of the analysis contained in the rest of your post. Nobody is saying that Iraq is easy to handle, just that with better management, we can alleviate much distress in the country and leave without a tacit announcement of "right now, we don't give much of a crap about you guys." Iraq is deep in a humanitarian crisis, a sectarian crisis, and an Iranian crisis. It seems to me that if we're doing things better, we should build on our gains and help them out.

TomT:

"It's great to see clowns like Yoshi, who spent the entirety of the 2004 election distorting Kerry's quotes and smearing his service, develop a newfound love for putting quotes in their proper context."

Why must you assume that all McCain supporters embody the worst attributes of the Republican party? Should I assume that all Obama supporters are Code Pink Berkeley hippies?

I never believed the crap that was going on with Kerry the swiftboaters. It was rather obvious that he had fought for his country, and fought well (in other words, he deserved the medals and the recognition, if you want me to be very specific). I did, however, disagree with many of the policies of his campaign.

Jayackroyd:

Yes, McCain has a tendency to blast out ill-thought, jerky remarks. He has strong footing with independents and the general public, however, because he knows how to connect at town-hall meetings and other like venues, and because he has and continues to walk the walk (his son is a Marine, a fact which he nevertheless rarely mentions on the trail).

As for his Iraq position, while S. Korea and Germany are ideals rather than realities, he was a major proponent of the surge and...I guess I'll refer you to my reply to MB.

This thread's conversations are excellent.

I do not see what those gains are, in your response to MB. Joe Galloway, in January 2005 wrote that 1400 Americans, the best Army soldiers and Marines he had seen in 30 years of reporting (which included the only civilian Bronze star), were not worth what had been accomplished.

More than three years later, nothing more has been accomplished.

Just because you can imagine a certain future doesn't mean that is among the possible futures of the next couple of decades. You can imagine a manned trip to Mars, but that's impossible. You can put wings on pigs, but they won't fly.

This is worse than Vietnam, because there is no "insurgency." There is no Ho Chi Minh. The US has done nothing to stabilize anything--if anything, things are worse than they were 3 years ago, and there is no end in sight.

The Iraqis want the US gone. Isn't it time the US listened?

Why must you assume that all McCain supporters embody the worst attributes of the Republican party?

The fact that I address you as a moron and a clown, and not as a monster, shows that I do not think you embody the worst attributes of God's Own Party.

Do yourself a favor and head over to Red State where you can smear yourself with your own feces and wail about Islamofascism with others of your kind.

Yoshi,

Iraq is deep in a humanitarian crisis, a sectarian crisis, and an Iranian crisis. It seems to me that if we're doing things better, we should build on our gains and help them out.

You appear to be a Republican of somewhat good will. I would strongly urge you to go watch, right now, the entirety of Frontline's "Bush's War." Take the time. You can watch it online. It is one of the finest pieces of journalism produced in this country in 50 years. Please especially pay close attention to the entirety of Part Two. When you finish watching Part Two of Bush's War, perhaps you will understand why the US cannot solve the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. The damage we have done there is irreparable. And too, you will realize that there is not a single person in the Bush Administration who is competent in any conceivable way to even begin the process of alleviating the catastrophe that is Iraq.

This piece of journalism isn't at all an anti-Bush documentary. It is an analysis of all of the players and a history of how we ended up here, today. It presents all sides, interviews most of the major players and many of the secondary and third level players. If you believe you understand the history of Iraq, you probably only realize the bare bones of it all. Now go watch this masterpiece and come back, and then let's talk.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/#

Jayackroyd:

I accept that we created a self-deteriorating situation because of horrible, horrible execution. Rumsfeld's leaner, more high-tech army and willful ignorance of the need for many more troops were the main contributors to this IMO (not to say there weren't lesser). Security is needed for the freedom of expression central to democracy. We didn't, and still don't, have security. But our current movements seem to be along the right direction.

TomT:

Are you interested in civility?

James:

I will watch the documentary.

Are you interested in civility?

No, I'm interested in the truth and the well-being of the country, two things you and your fellow-travelers have no interest in.

Yoshi,

This will require three responses. Since you write of 'execution,' these responses ignore the fact that by the time of the UN report of March 2003, it was absolutely clear that Saddam's Iraq represented no threat to the US, or to the region, had on involvement with al qeada, and the no-fly zones had ended the oppression of southern Arab Shi-ites and Northern Sunni Kurds.

First, Mark Danner's pre-war view.

What Danner said was that it is perfectly possible to do what the administration was saying they were going to do. However, he thought there was absolutely no possibility that the American taxpayer would pay for such an effort, and he did not believe the administration understood the scope involved.

The way you do this kind of thing invading with overwhelming force, winning quickly, and then imposing a ruthless regime of martial law for as long as necessary to establish an orderly, functional society, with rebuilt infrastructure and personal security. This takes an enormous force--Shinseki's 350,000 troops was probably a lower bound in a society as divided and as well armed as the Iraqis. After a couple of years of putting things back together, you then start on the nation-building part of the job.

This is especially difficult, Danner pointed out, in societies constructed in a Stalinist, cult-of-personality style, where the preservation of the power of dictator is subordinated to all other social needs. People are so powerless in such societies, and so unused to taking responsibility or decision-making (they've learned that doing so entails serious risk) that it takes a very long time to create a set of operational local councils.

Once you have that, say about five years in, you start building out from there. Local councils serve as a source for regional leadership, which in turn lead to provincial organization, and then, after about a decade if things go well, national governing bodies.

If things go poorly (see Mozambique), it takes about 20-30 years.

The US has engaged in such nation-building, in Germany and Japan.

However, if the US did recognize that this was the course--that is, if the Bush administration had welcomed the views of people experienced in the Balkans, and of Tom Warrick and the state department, who had been contingency planning this rebuilding effort for years--then the US would have had to increase their military staffing 2-3 times the current levels, would have had to plan on a 15 year timeline and would have had to plan to spend on the order of a 750 billion dollars.

People who tiptoed up to a smaller scope, like Shinseki and Lindsay (and Warrick, even though Garner wanted him badly) were removed from decision-making authority. Instead TSFMITW, Doug Feith, was put in charge.

Back to Danner. His point was not, as I may have implied in that last sentence, that Bush was stupid, incompetent and short-sighted. His point was that US interests, and those interests communicated to American taxpayers, did not justify this kind of commitment. Hence this kind of commitment would not be made, and the result would be disaster.

This has all come to pass.

My comment on this is there could only have been two points of view in among the people "planning" the war and its aftermath. The first is a group who believed that America, greeted as liberators, could install as leader an exile, a CIA asset with no base of support in Iraq. The other point of view is instability in Iraq would provide a continuing justification for American occupation of permanent bases. Feith has been quoted as saying both of these things.

Yoshi,

The second response is to note that this "plan" had been on the table in each Administration, starting with Reagan, and was rejected as b*tsh*t crazy. Sops were thrown in the form of funding Chalabi's organizations, and toothless symbolic legislation was passed, but that was it.

The moment in time when this "plan" could have been implemented at the lowest marginal cost was after the expulsion of Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Damage to Iraqi infrastructure as a result of that expulsion was enormous. Glenn Greenwald posted a video interview done by Charlie Rose with two Iraqis who were there at the time:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/26/iraq_debate/index.html

Yet Bush I also chose not to follow the neo-con "plan." He did not because his realist advisers, and he himself, recognized that the result would be a quagmire. (He also had promised his allies that he wouldn't go to Baghdad--but he wouldn't have agreed to that condition if he and Scowcroft hadn't thought it would be a mistake.)

The justification for such an attack was also much greater at that time. Saddad did have a nuclear arms program that was more advanced than US intelligence had realized. He did have CBW. But rather than engage in the military equivalent of a trip to Mars, Bush chose instead the much more sensible plan of defanging Saddam's internal security forces, and (reprehensibly) encouraging a shi-ite uprising.

The resulting sanctions and inspection regime eliminate Iraq as a threat to American and regional security.

These same realists, advisers to the Bush and Reagan administration, like Danner, said an invasion would be a mistake--because the execution was beyond US capability.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E0DA143DF935A2575BC0A9649C8B63&scp=7&sq=Brent+scowcroft+iraq&st=nyt

Kissinger expressly raised the issue of the magnitude of the commitment:

In an opinion article published on Monday in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument about the international complications of any military campaign, writing that American policy ''will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically,'' a statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.

''Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed,'' he added.

This view, from the right differs very little from Danner's view--and came from people who were intimately acquainted with US intelligence and capability.

Yoshi--

The third response was my own view at the time, which was expressed more clearly by the blogger Tristero.

The way I looked at this plan was as a Bayesian decision tree. Over the course of the conflict, and the establishment of an independent, sovereign state with an elected government and the preservation of rights across gender and ethnic group, it was certain there would be junctures that would increase or decrease the probability of that successful end state.

Because of the number of parties involved, the complexity of their relationships, the tensions of the region and, of course, the oil, the sequence of events that had to go right was quite long. If you were to analyze the various paths that events could follow, you'd find that very few of those paths ended in some subset of the characteristics of the promised resulting democratic state with women's rights allied with the US in its support of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and its opposition to Iran.

The probability of anything approaching "success" was in the low single digits. This is consistent with Kanan Makiya's assessment in his advocacy of the invasion, variously quoted at five or ten percent.

This was clearly folly, folly as clear as planning a trip to Mars in 2012 or building a Biosphere 2, a self-sustaining independent ecosystem that involves people. As I said, the ability to imagine a good outcome does not mean that such an outcome was ever possible.

It was not a matter of execution. People who could have executed this properly refused to get involved, because they recognized that the resource commitment would not be made prosectively, that even if it was, the result would likely be a disaster and that the odds of having everything go well enough to get to a good state were very close to zero.

Clearly it is time for Obama to do the right thing and step aside for the good of the party so he doesn't drag everyone down with him as his ship keeps sinking. Now is the time to support Hillary and under her, we will win so many more seats in Congress it will be 100 years before the repigs have another go at it!