Wise Free

Just as we are hearing that the surge must continue well into 2008, we are simultaneously hearing that military force alone cannot provide the answers in Iraq.

Petraeus: More needed to end Iraq unrest

I suppose its one of those, see how well you can somehow keep two conflicting statements in balance in your mind, type of pronouncements.

I can understand why the surge must continue at least through 2008. It certainly gives political cover for Bush. He gets a screen from the military while he shoots brick after brick.

Scooter Libby is now a four time convicted felon. Libby is viewed as the fall guy for Cheney. Both Cheney and Libby are leading neo-conservatives, along with others in the Bush administration like Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Bolton.

We still know that the neo-conservatives were the igniting force behind going to war with Iraq. We also know that in the first Bush administration (1988-1992), the neo-conservatives were regarded as the "crazies" by members of the GHW Bush administration itself.

We also know that GHW Bush, George W's dad, helped to get the Iraq Study Group together to find a way out of Iraq for Bush Junior And we know that Bush Junior wanted no part of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

So what comes forth is perhaps two distinct wings of the Republicans, the old school GHW Bush group (a few were members of the Iraq Study Group), and the neo-conservative school GW Bush group.

OK, a few questions come to mind here:

Why did GW Bush, Bush Junior decide to throw his hat into the ring with the neo-conservatives when he entered office, as opposed to going with the old school Republicans of his father? Why go with the extremists?

As the neo-conservative movement implodes, especially now with the conviction of Libby, how does Bush Junior's choice of going with the neo-conservatives hold up, i.e. how wise a choice was it to bring in the "crazies"?

What benefits, if any, has the reliance on the neo-conservatives brought to the country?

to be continued...