Depends upon what "it" is

Well...the Bubble Boy gave his set Iraqi speech for the umpteenth time to another military audience. He doesn't dare speak to a general audience because someone might actually ask him a question he can't answer. One of those questions, I guess, is what "it" is? That is, in today's speech he apparently said that once we attain "complete victory" it will be "worth it" (I have to confess that I did not actually listen to his speech, I pick up what he apparently said by listening to reviews of what he said. If I were to actually listen to him, and have to watch him, I would almost surely become so overtaken by rage as to have a heart attack). What does he mean by this? What would complete victory entail? Is complete victory even possible against terrorists (of course not). Try to imagine what from his point of view victory in Iraq might mean. I guess it would mean that we would have successfully installed a puppet government that would do our bidding, let us control their oil, and otherwise cooperate completely with our desires in the area. Apparently he would consider this the spreading of democracy to the Middle East. Of course he doesn't care if it's a democracy or not, as long as we control their "government" (and their resources). Thus whoever is elected in Iraq has to be "our" man, otherwise I guess it would not be worth it? There is no doubt the election will be fixed and apparently we have our candidate in mind. If we lose what happens? If we win what happens? What happens in either case is that we will withdraw some troops, retain some troops, keep some troops in other parts of the Middle East, and make sure that things go our way. No one, absolutely no one, is suggesting that we will not maintain a military presence in that part of the world. While I admire Barbara Boxer, when she suggests we proclaim we will not maintain a permanent presence, I don't know if she is being serious or just naive.

How is it that everyone now is speaking about about either getting out of or staying in Iraq but no one ever mentions oil? Indeed, Hillary apparently sent out an email discussing what was wrong and needed to be done in the our country without even mentioning Iraq, let alone oil. Kerry has finally flunked out as a public speaker. Lieberman continues to shill for the President and Republicans, grandpa Rumsfeld got put in his place over torture, Spector made a fool of himself over football, and the Republican idiocy just continues.

Our senior Senator, Craig (who apparently believes we are still going to find WMD's) inserted a rider in some bill that would eliminate money for the Fish Passage Center. He claims they are biased. As it is a small group, with a small budget, and basically does nothing but count the number of salmon in the system, it is somewhat difficult to see where they might be biased (he thinks they don't know how to count right?) Actually it is much simpler than that. He represents the energy industry and they do not like having the fish counted because it might actually prove that something more needs to be done to save the salmon. Senator Craig should stick to telling us about how bad New Orleans is (as he knows even less about that than anything else). Senator Craig is an idiot and an embarrassment to the State of Idaho (but of course most Idahoans think he is wonderful).