Of course . . . NOT!

This is an excerpt from an editorial piece by WaPo's Colbert King, "Stay the course in Iraq? What course?", which I found at the Raleigh News & Observer this morning:
Far from the cheering crowds, this is the word in the Nation's Capital: Forget all that prewar talk about a secular, modern and united Iraq emerging after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Get ready instead for some form of Islamic republic in Iraq that gives special status to clerics and majority ethnic groups, and less deference to women's rights. A new Iraq free of violence and divisions? Oops, never mind.

Which brings us back to the troops who are doing the suffering and dying. Are their sacrifices worth it?

• • •

Consider the Iraq now unfolding on the ground.

What's the value of Americans giving their lives so that cleric-dominated Shiites and northern Kurds can get their hands on political power and oil revenue?

Why are American women and men sacrificing lives and limbs in a country where women may have to settle for less?

Stay the course. What course? So religious-based militia can divvy up the northern and southern portions of the country? So Islam can be enshrined as a principal source of new Iraqi legislation?

Are any of those things worth dying for? Do any of those likely outcomes represent an American victory? They certainly aren't why Bush said we went over there.

OK, the Bush folks also promised us weapons of mass destruction, and greetings with rice and rose water, and Iraqi oil money to pay for reconstruction, and a model new democracy in the Middle East, none of which has happened.

But this is different.

The president is out selling a vision of victory in Iraq while U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad are resigned to settling for less. Bush can't make good on his original promise, and they know it. They also know that more Americans are going to die in Iraq for what may end up as a theocracy-tinged spoils system.

When those carrying the burden of this war realize what they have sacrificed and died for, the worst days of George W. Bush will have just begun.
Sorta sound like what I wrote here the other day. Do I get the scoop on that?

In light of the mainstream media finally feeling it's safe to tell the truth about Iraq once in awhile, doesn't it seem reasonable that the anti-war movement would be turning the heat way, way up? So I visited some anti-way sites . . .

MoveOn: this site's about Cindy Sheehan. Think they'll run her for president. Whatever happened to Barbara Boxer? Oh, yeah, I forgot . . . they're not really anti-war.

A.N.S.W.E.R.: nothing worthwhile here until September 24.

Antiwar.com: actually some timely stuff here, especially "The War Party Unhinged" by Justin Raimondo. A slice:
These people really believed that it was possible to integrate Iraq into the American Commonwealth in all but the formal sense, and transform it – by force of arms – into an outpost of Empire no more alien than Puerto Rico or Guam. They are shocked – shocked! – that, after decades of repression by Saddam Hussein, the 60 percent Shi'ite Muslim majority is now asserting itself. How dare the Iraqis take seriously our trumpeting of the Iraqi elections as a "watershed" fated to transform the region: rather than violate their own sense of how Iraq ought to be governed, Freedom House and the fundies would rather nullify that much-vaunted exercise in the export of "democracy" – by force, presumably, since that is what such a radical reversal would require . . .
War Resisters League: Cindy Sheehan and September 24.

United for Peace and Justice: ditto.

I'm not impressed. I guess we're just gonna let the Doubleduh-Cheney Gang destroy themselves, then pick up the pieces. Yeah, right! In case you missed it, read this.