Moving On
I have to make mention of Vanity Fair's expose of Neocons who have buyers' remorse (or should I say, architects' regrets?) pertaining to Bush's un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI). It turns out that in doing their interviews with VF's writer, David Rose, they had been assured that nothing of substance would appear before this election. You can imagine their outrage when VF chose to actually practice timely journalism and out these shadowy figures' loose-lips talk in time to better inform our voting.
Reading the Rose article, and reading through the indignation of the incriminated, I am even more persuaded of the wisdom of Congressional investigations into how the UULUIUOI came about. 
These architects of the UULUIUOI are unreconstructed, unapologetic, unrepentant and incorrigible ideologues committed to remaking the Middle East through force of arms. Not to subject them to the scrutiny of sworn testimony before Congressional committees leaves them unrestrained and unchained to resume or enlarge further their misadventures vis-a-vis Iran or Syria.
At the very least, this means in the House that Congressman Henry A. Waxman will be able to lead his Committee on Government Reform into taking up his short list of overdue subjects. In the Senate, that means - at the very least - dusting off Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the UULUIUOI's marketing. Actually, what remains covered up is the final phase of Phase II.
The argument of some that we should look forward and not backward is based on their own complicity in supporting Bush's UULUIUOI. It's their pretense that we all are to blame for believing in a Hussein-bin Laden connection, in Saddam's Nukes, in Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) and thus in Bush's obsession. In fact, that is not the case. In fact we were all not all wrong on Iraq. In fact, we were just not heard.
But comforting the consciences of those fooled by Bush and Cheney 
is beside the point. What's at stake is that we wrench the truth out from the most clandestine, secretive, and fallible administration in the American experience. We cannot relegate for historians what it is our job to know as an informed citizenry, in time to do something about it. Severe and real problems face our nation domestically and internationally, now. We simply cannot go forward without trusting in our leaders' competency, honesty, and motivation.
Announce the hearings. Issue the subpoenas.
Rumsfeld is now gone, along with the Republican majority that provided President Bush with insulation from effective criticism.
The tone, tenor and very nature of the Occupation of Iraq will now change. The people of Iraq are rightfully frightened. This day was bound to come.
How I wish the damage already done by the Invasion could be magically undone. It cannot.
How much more damage will now be done trying to unwind the past?
the Wizard……
Wizard:
I’m not sure the past is to be unwound. I think by that you mean undone? Not sure who seeks that. But for the past to be uncovered and understood – I can see the merits of that. Why don’t you specify what you wouldn’t want to see investigated?
I mean if there is evidence that the President and all of the president’s men connived and conspired to twist, invent and cherry-pick the intelligence in order to market an unnecessary war, wouldn’t that be relevant, going forward?
In one poll (recent) a majority of the respondents said the president should be impeached if it could be proven that he lied to get us into war. You want to turn your back on the people who believe that? You don’t want to dig deeper than the rubber-stamp Republican majority has been willing to do up until now?
Parallels with Vietnam:
Michael Beshlov said on the news Hour tonight, that during the Vietnam War, LBJ was intellectually dwarfed by Robert McNamara because he was one of JFK’s Best and Brightest. But eventually soured on him.
In the winter of 1967 Robert F. Kennedy approached Lyndon Johnson and demanded that LBJ appoint an independent commission to study Vietnam War. Johnson afraid of what was going to be discovered, and refused. Kennedy ran.
Mess2008, you raise good questions. Extremely valid.
Emily: your post is interesting and informative, but what point are you making? Maybe, that the stakes in such inquiries are high?
Every single one of them should show their confidence in their design of this war by sending at least one of their children or siblings to fight it. Right? After all, if it’s morally and militarily sound, as we all say World War II was, why not proudly and patriotically sign them up to fight it, as many did back in the 40’s? Let’s see which of them will put their loved ones where their designs have put other people’s loved ones.
I can’t even bother to hide my contempt.
E, let’s acknowledge that our Chickenhawk-in-Chief will finally be making his way to Vietnam this week.