The authors STEPHEN BIDDLE, MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK published an Op-Ed in today's NYT which argues that we are Not Quite Ready to Go Home.

They argue it would be morally incorrect to leave Iraq in the timeframe that Obama and al Maliki prefer. Essentially, they rely upon Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" meme: "You broke it, you own it".

I disagree. And I explain why below the fold.

Oil on Federal lands belongs to the people of this country, not to the oil companies who extract it and then sell it to the highest bidder, anywhere in the world.

Cross the fold for a proposal to rectify the present situation

What Dummkopfs appeared today on ABC's "This Week" show, talking across the round table about Pastor Wright and Obama's inevitable great demise.

George Will proclaimed, with all his over-rehearsed sounding wisdom, that Obama should have headed this off earlier. "He knew this would be a problem at least one year ago. Why did he wait until it was too late?"

And everyone put on a blank stare and agreed with him, -- especially Mark Halperin and George Ossifiedopolis.

But below the fold you'll see why the timing was perfect.

To Wesley Clark, (Someone please forward a copy of this to him if you know his address)

I would have voted for you in 2004. But your advocacy for Senator Clinton convinces me that you have no idea where the real threat to this country comes from. It is not from the outside: this uber-emphasis on being Commander-in-Chief is misguided.

We are rotting from the inside out. Our federal share of the public national debt is about to exceed its previous all time high as a fraction of GDP: it is approaching 90% with a federal public income at less than 25%. That was the way it last was in 1946, immediately after the second world war. At that time there was a state of mobilization of the population, suitably positioned to counter the precarious situation our country had found itself in.

In a general election I'll probably not vote for Hillary, ... but I'll especially not vote for her if she wins the nomination and convinces Obama to run as VP. The country will be much better off if his talents remain as a strong force in the senate. I would vote against such a ticket particularly in order to save him from destroying his career. There is nothing useful that he can do or she will let him do as VP anyhow.

Between Obama and Clinton there ain't a dime's worth of difference on health care. It's a shame that Hillary cannot understand that her Health Care proposal differs from Obama's in so minuscule a manner, that either one can be morphed into the other by adding or subtracting a few paragraphs.

As and example, to get Clinton's plan with respect to mandating health insurance for adults add the following paragraph to Obama's plan:

A branch of the National Organization for Women recently accused Senator Kennedy of "the greatest betrayal!". They say "He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one)".

I am a progressive white male but I totally disagree ...

The Vietnam war ended as a tragic, futile exercise for all concerned. A Democratic congress prevailed upon an unpopular president by using the power of the purse to starve the war of its necessary resources. Polls showed that Americans were bent on disengaging from the war but there was never hard evidence in the form of a complete, unequivocal ballot box thrashing that assigned blame to one party or the other.

Consequently the public battle never settled the legitimacy of that war nor the question of using war at all to change the behavior of others. And the ghosts of Vietnam still echo in political parlors every time we argue the pros and cons of the Iraq war. That's why slogans like "cut and run", "stay the course", "nothing less than total victory", and "a bloodbath will follow" keep their currency.

I bring this history up because I do not want it to be repeated.

In a previous diary, Who Pays for War, I described a "War Expenses Surtax" and talked about it in pragmatic, ethics centered terms. In this diary I rename it the "Bush War Surtax" and my purpose is to encourage a national referendum on the Iraq war. I'd like to help turn the 2008 election into such a referendum, using the surtax described here to put pressure on candidates to pledge opposition or support for the war. And for future elections I'd like to help issues of war and peace become more intelligently discussed than they are at present.

I may propose this idea to my own and other influential members of congress but I feel the need to bounce your ideas and others' against it first. I will submit a poll at the bottom of this diary to get some hint of how people think about the most important questions I want answered. You may wish to read that poll now to have a sense of those issues as you read further, but please don't answer the poll until you understand the Bush Surtax proposal I will present and how I think it might induce a referendum on war in 2008. If you think of related issues your comments are welcome.

The bosses are sleeping! Wake them up!

When the government of a democracy decides to fight a war all citizens eligible to vote are  complicit in that decision. Monies spent on war should not be deferred, forcing future taxpayers to pay the bill. They will not have had a say in the matter. More importantly, transferring war expenditures onto the public debt turns voters into enablers. They are telling politicians that it is OK that no immediate consequences of war decisions will be felt by anyone except the precious few who pledged in advance to bear them: our soldiers, their families and their friends.  

Shame on the bosses! Wake them up!

This diary is both a justification and a plea to wake up the voting aged citizens of the United States by putting a question to them directly: "Do you want this war?" --- and putting teeth into the question.

If they want it they will pay for it.