brainrow

More hard-hitting political cartoons via Daily Kos and Bob Geiger.

Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin:

One of President Bush’s most emotional arguments against cutting our losses in Iraq and coming home is that doing so would be a betrayal of those soldiers who have already made the ultimate sacrifice there.

For instance, at his October 25 press conference, Bush spoke of having met “too many wives and husbands who have lost their partners in life, too many children who won’t ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm’s way to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.”

…

Bush is certainly far from alone in being moved by the sacrifices of those in uniform. And nobody wants to believe that soldiers have died in vain.

But if they have, sending more soldiers to die after them doesn’t make it better — it only makes it worse.

And according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, even this potent attempt to pull on American heartstrings isn’t enough to overcome the public’s profound distaste for the current effort.

The poll asked: “Do you think the United States has an obligation to American soldiers who have been killed or wounded in Iraq to remain in Iraq until the mission there is completed, or not?”

A stunning 53 percent of respondents said the U.S. has no such obligation, compared to 39 percent who say it does.

We’ve all heard how Bush’s religious conversion freed him from his drinking problem. Could we get someone to talk to him about his gambling problem?

You don’t keep raising the bet when you’re holding a hopeless hand, especially when you’re playing with people’s lives.

A few years ago, I got a very formal-looking letter from Marquis Who’s Who, the publishers of the famous directories of prominent people.

They were considering me for inclusion in Who’s Who in America, the letter said, and they sent along a little questionnaire to help fill out my biographical details.

“They must have the wrong guy,” I thought. But I do have an elevated opinion of myself, so for a while I wracked my brain, trying to think just what I had done to merit consideration for Who’s Who. I had a pretty good job, high enough in the pecking order that my boss’s boss would surely have been in Who’s Who. But me? I just couldn’t see it.

Near the end of the letter, Marquis explained how I could buy my own copy of Who’s Who in America. (I had been freeloading for years, using the library’s copy.) The price might have been chump change to a prominent person, but I certainly wasn’t prominent enough. “Oh, I get it,” I said. “It’s a profit deal!”

I was reminded of this when I learned that I have been named TIME magazine’s “Person of the Year.” I’ll bet you’re jealous, huh?

It’s a great honor, of course, but it’s not going to make me buy the magazine. Not when I can just go down to the library and make photocopies.