Democrats & Liberals: Archives

What we need is a call to arms from this Administration. What War has happened where the Dear Leader does not summon his Citizens to fight? Recruiters are never enough for this. The people must see their Leader motivate us. We need Evangelical Pastors to stand proud in their pulpits and declare we are in a Holy War. We need Conservative Congressmen urging their constituents to enlist. We need our Radio Hosts to put out the call for all Republicans to Serve!!!

This War is still winnable!!! We just need a few good Conservative Men!!!

Bush wants YOU!!!!

Stephen, I know and you know why there is no timeline. Your rhetorical question is not going to get any devout Bush followers to see any “light,” but it was a nice try.

Stephen,
A couple of Iraqi political deadlines will dictate any possible withdrawals of US troops.

1) August 15 is the date by which the current Iraqi government is supposed to finish a constitution.

2) October 15 is the date when Iraqis will vote in a referendum on that constitution. This will be the critical vote. If 2/3 of voters from any 3 provinces vote against it, the constitution will have to be redrawn. This is a distinct possibility, and this date will be the real nexus of events in Iraq.

3) Should the constitution pass the referendum, an election will be held at year’s end.

In addition, the US midterm elections in November 2006 will also provide another major deadline.

It seems a reasonable guess that the Iraqi insurgency will percolate along at the current rate going into the October 15 2005 referendum.

However, support for the war in the US is dropping, as reflected in polls. The Bush administration has resorted to the same playbook, claiming that we’re winning, but that we can’t set a deadline, and the public is not buying that anymore.

Sensing that the public is not buying it, the Bush administration is becoming desparate.

Instilling fear won’t work anymore. Most people have noticed there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11; this, despite the shortcomings with Homeland Security, and the supposedly inadequate spending on domestic security. In fact, with only a few terrorist cells having been discovered in the US (mostly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11), it’s difficult to make a political case for continuing the so-called ‘War on Terror’ at current levels.

The next phase in the US is likely to become extremely ugly. In desparation, the Bush adminsitration will seek to blame someone else for the Invasion of Iraq. Guess who? It’s predictable, it’s inevitable, and it could tear the country apart.

I always opposed the Invasion of Iraq, not because of the usual reasons, but because I believed the removal of Saddam would result in civil war between the Shias & Sunnis. We’re already fighting that war as a proxy for the Sunnis. When the Shias & Sunnis have a clear shot at each other, Katie bar the door. It will be a bloodbath.

Whether the Bush adminstration wants deadlines or not, public opposition to continued occupation may force withdrawal, and the resulting bloodbath will beggar description, while demanding that blame be placed.

So let’s ask the question now, answer it, and get it over with:

Who lost Iraq?

Bush.

Correction, we’re fighting the Sunnis as a proxy for the Shias.

Just a few thoughts from on the ground here in Iraq. Just to be upfront, I am a conservative, not necessarily Republican.

The reasons we don’t want to set a timeline are that it gives the Insurgents (Iraqis fighting against “occupation”) and Foreign Fighters (those coming from other areas to fight in Iraq)hope that if they can just last until a predetermined date, then they can renew attacks in support of their goals without having to face the military superiority of the US. Also, we have an obligation to help clean up the mess we helped in creating. That is just my own view, but I like to think that most people, regardless of whether they support the reasons for the war or not, whether they support President Bush or not, will realize that we can’t just leave without having a government or country that can defend itself. Again, just my view from on the ground.

2.

Bryan said:

That is just my own view, but I like to think that most people, regardless of whether they support the reasons for the war or not, whether they support President Bush or not, will realize that we can’t just leave without having a government or country that can defend itself. Again, just my view from on the ground.

Bryan, this is exactly the same argument American Presidents used in defense of the perpetuation of the Viet Nam War. In the end, that war did not save the S. Vietnamese government. In the end, all we accomplished was horribly dividing our nation and the killing of 52 thousand American GI’s, needlessly.

Dawn has an excellent article in the Red Column, Stop Kidding Yourself-Its a Holy War, which produced a debate of immense importance regarding the longevity of the current war on terrorism. It is foolish in the extreme for anyone to believe that this war on terror will not drag on for decades, if not generations. But our war in Iraq need not drag on as long, killing our youth, if we choose wisely and learn from our history.

What would be prudent is to put the Iraqi people on notice, give them a date certain at which time we begin pulling out, and a date certain when the last American leaves. This will give the Iraqi people a timetable by which they can conform their efforts to save their own nation with their own resources, or fail.

All we owe Iraq, is the opportunity to succeed. WE DO NOT OWE THEM A GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS. And the reason we don’t owe them a gurantee of success is precisely because such a guarantee cannot be fulfilled in reality. If the Iraqis manage it badly, why should we pay the price? NO! We don’t owe them any guarantee of success.

And they need to have the pressure put upon them of knowing how long they have to get it right and marshall their own internal strengths and capacities to defend their own nation against those who would tear it apart. It is idiocy in the extreme for the United States to walk down that same path of allowing an unpopularly supported war to tear her own country apart, yet again.

The war on Iraq is a cover up to mask the Israel/Palestinian war.

Bush should mind his own business and start taking care of the homeless/sick/elderly HERE..

OOps I forget, we don’t have the oil in Los Angeles or in the Chicago projects.

I agree with Bryan. If we leave Iraq, it will devastate America’s status in the world.

There was a North Korean Defector a few years ago who said that their analysis states America “does not have the stomach for a long war”. Clearly, if America’s enemies need only kill 2,000 GIs to make the US leave, we would be a world of hurt next time.

We need to stay in Iraq however long it takes. If we need a Draft, so be it.

David,

I have read the column on the conservative side and there are some good points made on both sides. I was just a kid during the last part of Vietnam so I won’t claim any firsthand knowledge about hoe it was. From my own reading, subject to my own personal filter (perspective) there were many contributing factors to our leaving Vietnam. One large one is that there was a bias against the war in the media which at that time consisted of the big 3 networks and not much else. Militarily, we won overwhelmingly, but due to political handcuffs placed on troops and military commanders we weren’t allowed to “win the peace”. I think that to a certain extent it is still going on today in Iraq. If we could get infrastructure projects going with international support, I will guarantee that most of the Iraqi element of the fighting will go away, because the lack of necessities that we take for granted are limited or missing for the majority of Iraqis. That then only leaves the foreign fighters to deal with. Not a particularly easy task, but much more manageable than trying to fight multiple groups at the same time.
I agree that we should not be the guarantors of success, but we must be the guarantors of the possibility of success. Therefore, we must give the Iraqi government every tool and opportunity for success.
Again, just one man’s view from the ground

Bryan, considering the immense resources we are putting into Iraq, why would you believe it would be in the Iraqi’s interests to relieve us of that obligation to pour money and infrastructure and American security into their nation rather than they assume the responsibility themselves?

In other words, without setting a date certain by which we will pull out, where is the incentive for Iraqi’s to assume independence? Remember Democrat’s welfare programs of the last century? Iraqi’s are not stupid, you know. Nor are they different from any other people, who put self interest above other’s interests. It is in Iraqi’s self interest to achieve a balance of dependence upon the US that gives them enough autonomy to make their own decisions but not so much autonomy that they lose the American and multi-national investments they don’t have to work for.

Conservatives really have to get consistent on whether they believe in hand outs, or merit. Currently they are promoting handouts in Iraq in return for American strategic interests. If they want Iraqi’s to merit independence, we must give them a date when that independence must be achieved, otherwise, it is in their self interest to prolong their dependence upon the American handouts.

Good point, David, except that the difference between welfare in America and reconstruction in Iraq is that opportunity exists in America for people to better themselves without government intervention. That is the direction that we should and, I believe that we are pushing the Iraqi Government. I absolutely believe in merit and personal responsibility. There is truth in your statement about the Iraqis. By our standards, they, in general, are very lazy, but by their own, they have been working hard to improve the country. One of the most important things we need to do in order to be able to leave is instill a better work ethic and reduce corruption. That takes time, but it will also provide the some of the necessary underpinnings of a successful country. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I know that we should leave Iraq better than it was when we got here. It is nice to get another point of view without the sarcasm and vitriol that can all too often ruin a good debate and exchange of ideas. Kudos

Bryan said: “but I know that we should leave Iraq better than it was when we got here.”

At what cost to us? There are a great many things I believe I deserve, and should have, but, alas, a majority of them I cannot afford. How much cost in American lives and how many more years of deficit spending and escalating national debt and sacrifice of taxpayer dollars should we spend on leaving Iraq better than it was when we got there?

As far as I am concerned, we removed Saddam Hussien from power and that alone constitutes making Iraq better off than than when we got there. I am reminded of the analogy in the Wall Street Journal recently of a teenager who was given a no limit American Express Card by his parents who forgot to relate to him what his spending limit was. Needless to say, his parents are no longer very wealthy.

America needs to define what her spending limit is in Iraq, and stick to her budget. (yeah, I know, let the jokes begin about Americans sticking to a budget).

If we leave, what price do we pay? I say we stay. Cheney already said the Insurgency is in its death throes. We should have a reduction in violence soon.

Look at the statistics. The number of attacks have decreased. We just need to stay a few more years to get the job done.

While we are taking the time to allow the Iraqis to develop a better work ethic, etc. the insurgents are ever building in strength. Do we feel guilty perhaps that we should have never been over there in the first place? Are we as concerned with re-building Afghanistan or of helping their citizens achieve their own independence? We bombed the hell out of them as well and their government is far from stable. But, most Americans were okay with going into Afghanistan. We had more of a purpose in sending our troops into harm’s way - to fight the real war on terror. There are other countries in this world that have evil dictators and oppressed conditions other than Iraq. Yet, most of our troops were taken from Afghanistan and re-deployed in Iraq. I can vaguely recall that we were hunting for the man (Osama) that took credit for ‘911’ I remember that we may have even been trying to eradicate the real threat - Al Qaida. We have not and can not now save face for our invasion of Iraq and to try is ludicrous. Intelligence tells us that Osama is in Iran. Yet, the claim is that we won’t invade a sovereign state to go after him. Bull! Iraq was a sovereign state when we went in there. Is it just me or is anyone else concerned that we have lost sight of our main objective. Shouldn’t we be expending our energies to continue the war on terror rather than on letting our troops die in increasing insurgent activities in a country that doesn’t even appreciate our efforts to help them? I personally don’t have any family member in Iraq, but if someone I loved was killed in a car bomb or while trying to help re-build their war torn country, I think I would rather they would have died fighting one of our real enemies. At least then, their death would have some meaning.

Who comes up with the idea of timelines?

Why is it that only democrat started wars/conflicts have no time limits.

Clinton got us into Bosnia, when are we getting out ? Some one remind me, what threat was Bosnia to the US national security again ?

Carter sent out troops to Egypt. Most of you fools don’t even know that we still have troops in Egypt…do you ?!?

Kennedy got us into Vietnam. Oh yeah, we’re not there anymore…hey? who got us out ?

Truman sent our troops into Korea, that ended in 1953 !!! We’re still there !!

What about Truman sending us to Germany and Japan 60 years ago. We’re still there ! You worried about the 84 billion in Iraq ? How much have we pumped into Germany over the last 60 years?

Why is it, in the last 30 years, democrats have only sent tropps to help white people (isreal and bosnia) and the republicans have sent troops to help people of color? (grenada, panama, elsavador, somalia, kuwait, iraq) Democrats must be racist ?

Who’s is leading this “time limit” debate. Ted Kennedy. Now there’s a great military mind. The only conflict he’s ever been involved in is he (allegedly) raped and killed a girl in the back seat of his car, then threw her and the car off the bridge.

Let the generals run this one will ya? I knew Abazaid personally, he’s a good soldier.

They almost have a constitution in place and they are almost on their way to a bright future. It took the USA 11 years to get a contitution (1787).

10,000 people were murdered in France during 1946 and 1947. (terror exists in the aftermath of war)

Over 15,000 people were murdered in the US last year. Should we pull out ?

Bryan-
The central point of my post is this: Bush is both giving us a rosy picture of our progress in Iraq, and by not giving us a timeline proving the contradictory point: that we are nowhere near victory against the insurgents.

My assertion, furthermore, is that we could set a timeline, if we were truly winning this war. The insurgents could endure, but they’d be living on borrowed time, and the successfully set up police and military forces could mop them up for us. We cannot set a timeline because we are not in position to control the country.

I believe the rush to war, both before and after limited our options, and makes the task of leaving, after all this time, a much longer term goal than it should have been.

I think the president has unfortunately played political games with the transitions, using them to demonstrate progress, so that he and his folks could claim things are chugging along nicely. The problem is that he has not made strategic progress to go with the political. His progress is greater in his propaganda than it is on the ground.

This places him in a bind. He can’t admit problems he’s already told us we’ve moved past. He can’t start talking sense now, because he’s covering for yesterday’s dishonesty with todays. He can’t start changing strategies to do what he has to because that would be admitting the lie.

Regardless of the consequences, he should admit there’s a problem. What killed us in Vietnam is that no one admitted there was a problem with the war effort until years into the war. By that time, we had no options for redeeming that war. I do not want history to repeat itself here. Only by facing the reality of where we stand on this war, can we properly muster the resources, strategies, and manpower to win.

Otherwise, we will continue to win on paper and lose on the ground.

Stephan,

You entire argument, and it sometimes seems you entire thought process about everything, is based on the premise that Bush is dishonest. I believe it is a false premise. Please don’t bring up any f-ing memos either. I’m sure the idiots you vote for have figured out how to use the correct typewritter this time so the forgery will be more difficult to detect this time.

We lost Vietnam because we were not allowed to attack the North.

Actually if you want to really look at Vietnam. We lost Vietnam because after FDR gave guns to Ho Chi Min to fight the Japanese and Ho and his people helped us win the war, FDR died, Truman, probably not really liking short dark skinned people, gave Vietnam back to the French after the war was over, so they (the French) could continue raping the country of rubber and anything they could steal. Ho said F-that and started kicking some butt.

James said: “We lost Vietnam because we were not allowed to attack the North.”

Your ignorance of history is overwhelming. We bombed the hell out of Hanoi, to no avail.

David,

The airforce alone cannot win a war. We needed a ground war in North Korea. If you know anything about the air war in Vietnam and how we “bombed the hell out of Hanoi” (your ignorant words not mine) you wouldn’t have made that stupid statement. We used the same avenues of ingress and degress for all air missions (meaning the enemy had a 30 minute warning before each mission. Why do you think they were able to shoot down so many pilots? Then, we weren’t allowed to hit any real targets.

Think about this, if our country was attacked on a daily basis and everyday our enemy attacked Washington DC, would that hurt us miltarilly ?

Giving a time line on a war is about as effective as telling employees when you’re going to drug test, and telling school kids when there will be locker searches!

James-
German and Japan? Cold War security, both downsized after the conclusion of the Cold War. Additionally both countries were converted into democracies with minimal resistance. Same cannot be said for Iraq.

Bosnia? There is always that little World War that got started in the Balkans. But in the main, the reasons for intervention were humanitarian, and such reasons were given as the main reason for the war not only after our intervention, but before it as well.

Vietnam? We all know how that ended. That is the end to our Iraq campaign that we are desperately, as a country, trying to avoid. Kennedy intervened militarily only because the Conservatives in Post-Eisenhower America were complaining that we were about to lose another country to the communists. He couldn’t refuse and preserve his anti-commie credentials.

Korea? Eisenhower negotiated the end to that, ran on this line “I will go to Korea.”

As for the time limit debate, I think your potshot at Ted Kennedy shows just how badly you don’t want to face the growing discontent with the war. Of course, the debate could only be lead by an immoral liberal elitist. It couldn’t possiblty be something that the average person on the street is asking. Which it is.

As for letting the Generals run this war, I hardly think that’s what’s going on. General Abizaid is the one on Capitol Hill telling America exactly what I’m telling you. People like him are the ones telling us that they don’t have the men to do the job. People like him are the ones telling us they need more armor.

Frankly, I don’t want this war to drag on any more than necessary, or end before it properly can. I don’t want to be in Iraq for 11 years before we get a self-sustainable government. As for the murder rate in France, post war, are those Nazis doing the killings, or is it a matter of the poverty, destruction, and chaos the war the war created raising the crime rate?

As for the fifteen thousand murder victims here, I doubt that there are thousands of terror victims are among that tally.

Bryan~

Thank-you for all that you have done for me, your service is well respected!

I have found in these blogs that they don’t practicularly care about the soldiers(who’s actual lives are on the line) point of view! It sounds much more dramatic to scream that our soldiers have been taken against their will.

Since you are an actual soldier, I would like your point of view on something…does it feel personal when people claim that the prisoners that our soldiers have captured are innocent?

Replying to Stephen’s original post…. He talks about the people of this country wanting honesty in government. Of course they do, all people everywhere want honesty. And in the past the presidents we’ve had have tried to be as honest as possible (unless caught with their pants down). THIS president seems to be completely divorsed from the truth. EVERYTHING he says either has a RUSH LIMBAUGH spin to it or it’s just an outright lie. But most of his followers just keep right on beleiving his BS. This war is only just the worst of his many lies. When will the public get smart and realize that if they can impeach a president for lying about oral sex (pathetic) then they have excellent grounds to impeach a president for lying and being responsible for the deaths of many thousands of human beings. Wake up all of you so called christians, your leader is a fake.

Stephen-

Although I think you misunderstood James’ comment about the origin of the wars and not who ended them, are you really going to stand on that “the conservatives made me do it” argument on behalf of Kennedy? Kennedy wanted to nuke China in the early part of his administration; he really didn’t need conservatives to push him.

Dane-

Thank you for weaving all of the liberal talking points into one short paragraph; brevity is a welcome attribute!

Stephan,

Germany and Japan ? Cold War ? When did hte wall come down ? Why are we there ? (has it been 15 or 20 years)

Bosnia, Humanitarian ? It was Christian persecution. When the Moslems were killing Christians there was no problem. When the Christians got the upper hand, Clinton needed to put a stop to that.

My shot at Ted Kennedy ? It seems the whole family, including brothers and cousins, has problems with treating women with respect. But the real point was he has no experience, credibilty or the any ability to wage or critique a war.

The murders in France were political faction in fighting. Thourghout history most of Framce’s changes of power were bloody.

I don’t know everything, but I have stood on the Dam at Dahok, and I believe if we would use FDR’s techniques of media and information control it would make the soldier’s job easier.

When the Moslems were killing Christians there was no problem.

Yes, it is telling that Clinton didn’t order aerial bombardment of the area during the years before 1914.

Thourghout history most of Framce’s changes of power were bloody.

No more so than any other European country.

Stephan

We still have troops in Germany with no “Cold War”. Try to remember that Bush put a timeline for closing the bases there and people had a fit. Damn that quagmire in Germany

We still have troops in SK with no “Cold War” Some of current their politician ran and won on the “Get US out” banner. When Bush made overtures to get them out, he got “sorry didn’t mean it”.

We still have troops going to Japan.

So WWII and the Cold War must be a losing situation cause we sit have troops there and don’t have a timeline.

Stephen Daugherty:

“As for the murder rate in France, post war, are those Nazis doing the killings, or is it a matter of the poverty, destruction, and chaos the war the war created raising the crime rate?”

I’m not sure if this is a rhetorical question, so at the risk of stating the already known, the post war murder rate in France was due in large part to repatriated citizens going after Nazi sympathizers and killing them openly. Another contributing factor was, since the French economy was nearly non-existent at wars end, the French people were at best desperate to even provide for a meal a day to their families. Clearly, this level of desperation would contribute to a spike in the murder rate.

Back to the topic:

I believe before we set a timeline, we actually need to develope a strategy to “win”. What is going to define winning? At what level of training do we feel confident in the Iraqi army/security force taking over? Once we have the strategy set, then I think we can talk about a timeline/deadline. Realistically, IMO it will be a 5 year plan.

David R. Remer, I am not sure that I agree that having Saddam out is enough to say that we would leave the country better off enough to leave now. I did not fully agree with going there in the first place, but now I think we have to finish what we started. I want this country to be good for its word again (which will take considerable rebuilding given the last couple of presidents). It is painful for me to endure the deaths of American troops. Aldous, I am a conservative who actually served in the military, and would again, but am too old now. So cut the crap and grow up. The same old childish antic is getting old. How many times did you say “I know you are but what am I” in the last month?

I’ve only been reading here for a week, I’m retired military and conservative too, but have voted for dems in the past and I’m tired of aldous with the same drive by “republicans don’t send their kids to the military”

If only 1-2% of the country is “rich” then the miltary and the republican party must have more than a few “non rich”

Traci said:

Giving a time line on a war is about as effective as telling employees when you’re going to drug test, and telling school kids when there will be locker searches!

Right. But you are missing the whole point. Setting a time line in Iraq does not say terrorists can have free rein after we are gone. What it will say is, Iraq, if you want security and a unified nation, you have this long to get your act together to take over the job. After that, it is up to you whether you succeed or fail, not the USA.

James,

It seems you have drawn the ire of some here on this blog. How DARE you mention Germany and Japan and our continued presence there? How DARE you mention France? How DARE you mention…etc., etc., etc.

But did you notice that absolutely NO ONE took umbrance to your reference about helping white people instead of persons of color?

Perhaps they don’t want to be reminded that while we (the U.S.) sent the 1st Armored Division to help the Bosnians (white folks), 800,000 Tutsi tribespeople were slaughtered. And we didn’t even send them so much as a Boy Scout with a pocket knife.

Perhaps they don’t want to be reminded that while we sent everything that could fly to bomb Serbia to help the Kosovars, 2 MILLION Sudanese were being murdered…4 MILLION displaced…and that didn’t even rate a “mention” on the nightly news.

But did you notice that absolutely NO ONE took umbrance to your reference about helping white people instead of persons of color?

Some rhetoric is not worthy of a response.

LawnBoy,

It’s not rhetoric. It’s called foreign policy.

It’s not rhetoric. It’s called fact.

It’s not rhetoric. It’s called political expediency.

It’s not rhetoric. It’s called making a conscious, deliberate choice.

Most people miss the point.

It doesn’t matter to the Iraqi Sunnis whether the country becomes a democracy, constitutional monarchy, or dictatorship; this is an ethnic conflict. Regardless of what form government takes, the Sunnis will not submit to Shia rule.

Wonder why the Shias & Kurds refuse to integrate their forces into government? Wonder why Iraqis won’t fight for ‘Iraq,’ or ‘freedom,’ or ‘democracy’? It’s because their primary loyalties are to their clans, tribes, ethnic groups, and religion.

Iraq is a creation of western colonialism. For most of its history, Mesopotamia has consisted of three provinces, organized around three major cities: Mosul, Bagdhad, & Basra.

Governmental structure organized into three countries, centered on Mosul, Bagdhad, & Basra would stand a good chance of succeeding.

Keeping these three united requires brute force, as Saddam demonstrated, and as we are belatedly discovering.

Even now, here in a liberal blog column, people don’t get it. In our desire to exhibit patriotism, and out of fear of an essentially non-existent threat of terrorism within US borders, we remain blind to the nature of the war in Iraq. We’re screwed, liberals & conservatives alike, but-

- but… we just don’t understand why.

It’s an expensive lesson for us; costly in terms of lives, money, standing in the world, and self-image.

phx8:

The historcal perspective is not lost on me. I appreciate it—and agree that the three countries theory may work better. How would the oil income/wells be divided? If I understand it correctly, the largest oil reserves lie in the south/southwest region.

I agree in principle, but I’m not sure how the lines should be drawn.

I didn’t realise half the US army was still in France or Germany facing daily attacks from the insurgents. I’ll tell you what, next time nearly 2000 bodybags come back from Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Diego Garcia, Australia, Japan, Korea and god knows where else there are bases, then we can talk about whether to get out of those places. Until then I reckon the military wants to keep them there, otherwise it would’ve pulled them out by now.

As for not helping “people of colour” - it’s nothing to do with racism. It’s just that no one gives a damn about Africa. There is no money to be made in Africa and as long as we continue getting our oil and minerals we just don’t care. Besides, looking at Africa just highlights how ridiculous the whole nation-building-at-the-point-of-a-gun thing is. Once we’ve recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan in 10 or so years time, then we can go Africa building. Shall we start at the top or the bottom? Either way we won’t have to worry about the Congo for a long, long time…

Guys,

The problem in Iraq is that we didn’t go in there with the attitude that we were going to “win the war”. The objective seemed only to dethrone Saddam.
You do remember the “Mission Accomplished” speech right?
We have fiddle farted around long enough.
We need to get serious or get out.

This is from a Iraqi blog I have found.

“What people find particularly frustrating is the fact that while Baghdad seems to be falling apart in so many ways with roads broken and pitted, buildings blasted and burnt out and residential areas often swimming in sewage, the Green Zone is flourishing. The walls surrounding restricted areas housing Americans and Puppets have gotten higher- as if vying with the tallest of date palms for height. The concrete reinforcements and road blocks designed to slow and impede traffic are now a part of everyday scenery- the road, the trees, the shops, the earth, the sky? and the ugly concrete slabs sometimes wound insidiously with barbed wire.

The price of building materials has gone up unbelievably, in spite of the fact that major reconstruction has not yet begun. I assumed it was because so much of the concrete and other building materials was going to reinforce the restricted areas. A friend who recently got involved working with an Iraqi subcontractor who takes projects inside of the Green Zone explained that it was more than that. The Green Zone, he told us, is a city in itself. He came back awed, and more than a little bit upset. He talked of designs and plans being made for everything from the future US Embassy and the housing complex that will surround it, to restaurants, shops, fitness centers, gasoline stations, constant electricity and water- a virtual country inside of a country with its own rules, regulations and government. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Republic of the Green Zone, also known as the Green Republic.

?The Americans won?t be out in less than ten years.? Is how the argument often begins with the friend who has entered the Green Republic. ?How can you say that?? Is usually my answer- and I begin to throw around numbers- 2007, 2008 maximum? Could they possibly want to be here longer? Can they afford to be here longer? At this, T. shakes his head- if you could see the bases they are planning to build- if you could see what already has been built- you?d know that they are going to be here for quite a while.”

Doesn’t look like we intend to leave there any time soon.

Sorry the site is;

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Chi Chi,
Oil resources are located in the south as well as the north.

Partition makes sense in the long-term, but comes with its own difficulties.

Turkey would be extremely unhappy to see an independent Kurdistan. While the Kurds and the Turks were quite happy working together on the Armenian genocide early in the last century, for the past few decades they’ve been going at each other- hardly any Armenians left in those areas, you know. Still, the US could intervene with a friendly Turkey & Kurdistan to keep them at arms length. The chances of succeeding with that surely seem better than the chances of succeeding with a unified Iraq.

The southern Shia region has a chance of becoming a successfully functioning government & US ally. With the removal of the Sunnis from the Shia political equation, the Shias could help the US repair its relations with the Iranian Shias. Despite the Bush administration’s bumbling diplomacy, a longer term perspective for a friendly, democratic Iran, southern Iraq is at least a possibility.

Finally, how to work with the Sunnis of central Iraq? They will lack oil resources, but they will possess one great advantage: the city of Bagdhad. If the US provides a guarantee of security- not occupying troops, but security- and economic help through a genuinely Sunni government- not a puppet subservient to the Shias- there is some hope. The ‘dead enders’ and Baathists would no longer have a need to fight the US. It would be a tough road, given the horrendously bad decision to suppress insurgency in the first place, but it’s the best hope we have.

There is a good chance the Iraqi constitutional referendum, if held on 10/15, will result in defeat. This could be the opportunity we need to pull success in Iraq from the jaws of defeat.

If the US chooses to ‘stay the course,’ we will end up exactly where we are headed, with an ignominious defeat.

I feel that whether we like Bush or not; or if we even agree with the war or not; we must support our troops.The way the liberal pinkos are talking will lead the nation into another vietnan return for our militery.I feel we must support our troops and stop trying to demoralize them by making it sound the nation is not behind them.The enamy is doing enough about making it hard on out militery. We do not need our own people doing it also.I am fed up with it and ready to join myself if they would take a 52 year old veteran back.

If we pull out 2000 troops would have died for nothing. Good can still be done.

I believe before the war began Bush told us we were in this for the long hall. I don’t ever even now remember him saying otherwise. Why do you think he does not want a timeline?

It is a mistake to believe that opposition to a policy that sends our troops into harm’s way unnecessarily and unprepared to win and get them out, is a failure to support our troops.

I was an enlistee in the Army when I called for bringing my comrades in arms home from Viet Nam since we were not prepared to get them out in any other way.

So far, Bush et. al, have not demonstrated any concrete plan for getting our troops out. In fact the evidence is mounting that they plan on keeping troops in Iraq in perpetuity much as we have in Germany and Japan. That is like putting a bullseye on our troops uniforms and telling them to stand still while our enemies take their shots at them for as many decades as they choose, as far as I am concerned.

Supporting our troops means taking every measure to insure their success, AND removing them from harm’s way in the shortest possible time. I have not seen any such support forthcoming from this administration. In fact, this story broke just this morning:

Funds for Health Care of Veterans $1 Billion Short. Call this supporting our troops. As a veteran, I don’t.

What do you cal training an Iraqi military to defend themselves so we can leave. That seems like a good plan for exit to me.

David R. Remer:

Funds for Health Care of Veterans $1 Billion Short. Call this supporting our troops. As a veteran, I don’t.

I agree. And with the number of wounded/disabled coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I can see it getting much, much worse. At the very least, if these men are being asked to fight this war, they should be able to rest assured they will be taken care of if wounded or disabled in line of duty.

Is there reason to believe they won’t be taking care of the wounded? From my understanding there are more wounded in Iraq because they are being taken care of. Less are dieing, more are living with wounds. This is not Vietnam. There we lost hundreds of thousands of men. We have lost under 2000. Where is the evidence that this war is going as badly as you all say it is.

The wounded are not paying any medical bills and will live on a rather nice pention. granted nothing will pay them pack for their sacrifice, but I wouldn’t say they are not being taken care of.

Tony,
Training Iraqi troops to replace US troops is an excellent plan. It’s been the plan for some time. There’s just one problem:

The plan doesn’t work.

Iraqis will enlist in order to collect paychecks- the unemployment rate is somewhere between 30% - 40% - but the desertion rate is high. They won’t fight.

The Shia militias number @ 12,000. Those troops are highly motivated, but poorly trained. The Shias have made it quite clear their militias will not be incorporated into an Iraqi military.

The Kurdish Pesh Merga consists of @50,000 troops. These are the best armed, best equipped, most effective fighters in Iraq. The Kurds have also made it clear the Pesh Merga will not be incorporated into the Iraqi military.

In short, the Kurds will fight for themselves, the Sunni insurgents for themselves, and the Shia militias for themselves. Few Iraqis will fight for an Iraqi national government. Sending the Pesh Merga in to fight the Sunnis doesn’t work. The Pesh Merga show, let us say, excessive zeal, when it comes to killing Sunnis.

This has nothing to do with the US supporting its own troops.

Understand? It’s not about us. It’s not about liberals & conservatives. It’s not about the US, & supporting our troops.

This is about the Iraqis.

The only way the major Iraqi ethnic groups will fight is if they fight for their own clan/tribe/ethnic group/religion.

Partition the country, and these groups will be willing to defend themselves.

Best of all, they will also reject foreign jihadists, who will become utterly irrelevant.

Well if it’s only about the Iraq’s not us then why would you have us pull out. These problems that you mention are the reason we have not pulled out yet. You say you care about american troops wich is the reason for pulling out. how do you know these problems can’t be fixed.

Tony,
The heart of the problem is that we are fighting a civil war for the Shias against the Sunnis. The insurgency will continue regardless of what we do, because the Sunnis do not want to be ruled by the Shias.

Phase in withdrawal, leave a token force to guarantee security, partition the country, and the Sunni insurgency will stop. Who knows? Given self-rule, they might even develop enthusiasm for democracy. But occupy the country, and impose Shia rule over the Sunnis, and the insurgency will continue.

If the US seeks to aid Iraqis in achieving democracy & freedom, partition makes sense.

Tony,

I believe before the war began Bush told us we were in this for the long hall. I don’t ever even now remember him saying otherwise. Why do you think he does not want a timeline?

This is a bit of a stretch. Bush was talking about the war on terror, not the war in Iraq, and he was primarily referring to the nonconventional aspects of the “war” on terror (gathering intelligence, cutting terrorist funding, etc). Also, being in it for the long haul does not mean that you can’t set a timeline (it’s called planning).

James-
And who was it that supported the French against the Vietnamese? Eisenhower. History isn’t the one note melodrama the talk radio hosts make it out to be.

On the memo question, it seems you misunderstand. I got a great deal of my information from an authorized inside look at the Bush White House: Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.

Yes, we do maintain bases in and around our former adversaries after the cold war. Our presence isn’t as great though. The emphasis has shifted from those regions to CENTCOM’s region of interest.

Bosnia- There were freaking concentration camps, the Serbs were emptying entire villages of their men, and your response is that sort of moral relativism? Even worse, you try and make this out to be some kind of anti-Christian thing. God. There was nothing Christian about what those people did. Milosevic was a former communist for crying out loud.

As for Ted Kennedy, he’s not the only person calling for a more defined time line on these things, and his is not the only experience backing this up. I don’t want a timeline if we can’t back down the insurgents, but if we’re having problems with them, I want president to have the guts to admit to our lack of progress. We will not improve our troop’s morale by ignorantly sending them with great cheer into a warzone reeking of the Pentagon’s desperation and incompetence

JimT-
We should have intervened in Rwanda, and that’s the truth. That said, you must remember that it took years for America to take action on the Yugoslav situation, as it was. It was 1995 before we went there in force. to give you an idea of the range of years it took, recall that Bush Senior had to deal with jokes about him only intervening there if they found oil.

Part of it is a Eurocentric point of view in American foreign policy, another part of it is that Clinton experienced his greatest military humiliation sending soldier into the political Chaos that was Somalia. It is also relevant to note that so far Bush 43 has yet to send anything more than harsh words towards The Sudan. If you want to push that there, you have my agreement.

david-
The question is not whether we Liberals are supporting our troops, but whether the Bush administration is. Our soldiers can be doing the best damn job in the world, but if our President uses them unwisely, their lives will be wasted in unproductive carnage.

The only thing that is making our criticism of the policy sound like a criticism of the troops is the divisive rhetoric of those who have lumped the interests of the politicians, the defense contractors, and the bureaucrats in with the interests of our soldiers, to where even if what we’re criticizing is the underuse of our soldiers, the ill-equipping of them, the lack of real armor between them and the enemy, we are still accused of conspiring against the interests of the men and women in uniform.

What I want is my President to do is stop hiding behind brave folks like you and take responsibility for his actions. I believe he has been putting his politics ahead of your fellow soldier, and as the grandson of two men who served their country during the war, I find this to be abominable. My surviving grandfather, who dropped into Normandy as part of the 82nd Airborne, has written letters to our representatives in congress over the ammunition shortages. He’s not happy with this war at all.

You’ve got to stop seeing an enemy when you see a person from the Blue Column. We’re more like you than you know.

Tony-
You are right about certain things, wrong about others. There were hundreds of thousands wounded in Vietnam, only about fifty thousand dead. The number of dead, if one takes account of our more advanced medicine is actually comparable to that of the early years of Vietnam.

But that’s not the only measure of the problem of how this war is going. The quesiton is, are we getting the job done. That’s the central assertion of my entry: if we’re truly winning Like Bush’s people say, wouldn’t we have enough control over the situation to risk giving a timeline?

My basic point is this: if we were truly winning the war, we could execute a timeline for withdrawal with impunity.

Stephen, I have no argument with anything you said in your reply to me. Except for saying the Democratic Party is more like me than I know. The fact is, the Democrats in Congress abdicated their legal obligation to represent our soldiers and the American people when they voted to give Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq without doing their own homework and investigation of the premises for the invasion.

This is Bush’s war, but, it also occured with near unanimity by Congress on pretenses that were never checked out or verified. Democrats have as much G.I. blood on their hands in Iraq as Republicans.

And while Democrats talk a great game about pay as you go, Republicans seem always to get enough Democrat votes to jack these deficits and national debt to the heavens.

Lastly, acquiring and maintaning power is job 1 with Democrats just like it is with Republicans and we, the American people are a secondary priority.

So, no, Democrats don’t have as much in common with me as you think they do. Not for a long time now.

David R. Remer-
I was addressing another “david”, actually.

All things considered, I think there were reasons to trust Bush then that we don’t have now. A lot of people thought what Bush was saying was true, though probably not because they adhered to Laurie Mylroie’s theories on Saddam being the Professor Moriarty of Terrorism.

Honestly? I think the Bush administration purposefully kept our ground presence in Afghanistan small and the war mainly an ground war by proxy so he could go for Iraq. Instead of satisfying the American thirst for revenge on Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden, he directed it against Saddam Hussein, an old familiar target and Hitler analogue, and Iraq.

This misdirected unity and strength of morale stands among my greatest frustrations with the war, but it’s understandable if you remember the context of the event, not even two years after 9/11, with Afghanistan having barely quenched the American thirst for retribution.

The Democrats on Capitol hill trusted the president to a certain extent to lead us against an enemy who was real. Americans were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they knew one regime had already struck at America by proxy, without much warning from the intelligence community, why not another attack from another similary hostile nation.

Also recall that we did not have the legislative power to oppose Bush at that point, had we wanted to. Bush’s unfortunately successful political campaign in 2002 to pack the legislature with like-minded folks had made sure of that.

I guess the strength of Democrat hatred comes from a trio of betrayals- of the post-9/11 unity, of our trust of a strong leader, in a time of war, and of our trust that the wars we waged would be competently executed. Don’t condemn the Democrats, go after the man who decieved us all.

Traci asked:
“Since you are an actual soldier, I would like your point of view on something…does it feel personal when people claim that the prisoners that our soldiers have captured are innocent?”

Well,Traci, that depends on who is doing the talking. If it is the normal headline-seeking, hysteria creating far left with which we have all become too familiar, and personified by Howard Dean, then I just tend to dismiss it as garbage, which it is, and I have no recourse anyway. That man is in love with the sound of his own voice, and from talking with many of my friends who tend to vote Dem., he doesn’t even represent them.
Now, if I hear this from someone who can approach a sensitive issue with the proper attitude, instead of mud-slinging, I will, of course say that we hear the same thing from people in our own prisons, and that I can’t see the logic in taking the word of a criminal or terrorist over that of men and women who have put their lives on the line, whether or not they agree wit the justification for this war. It honestly does not come up very much, except on the political talk shows, and we all know that various shows slant their agendas for their particular audience.

I am sure that we have inadvertantly caught some innocents up in our raids and operations, but there is a thorough screening process that will allow those with no reason to be held to be released. We do the best we can, given the situation at the time, and if we make a mistake it is usually quickly rectified. We are not perfect, but we act on the best information we have and try to limit non-combatant involvement. That’s all we can do.
Thanks for asking, and your support

Bryan~

Thank- you for the response! I will add you to my prayers, please tell all around you that “Traci in Michigan” applaudes each and every one of them and wishes for their safe return!

So, Traci, do you accept Bryan’s answer that we do capture innocents, that we do err in our roundups, and that despite our best intended efforts by our troops, mistakes happen, and most, but, probably not each and every one, is rectified as quickly as possible? Because if you accept his answer, you must accept that charges of innocents being apprehended is true.

Bryan-
Here on the homefront, I have spent the almost four years since 9/11 watching as things deteriorate. I remember the splendor of seeing Americans of all kind, of all political persuasions dropping their petty quarrels-

Only to see the President who was supposed to lead a unified nation turn on us and make my party the scapegoats for the security lapses of 9/11. Not only that, but after dividing a once united country to firm up his legislative majorities, he then takes attention from a war all could agree was part of the war on terrorism, and takes us into Iraq.

He browbeats the nation for the next year, before during, and after the 2002 elections, trying to convince us all that Iraq is the next terrorist threat. Then, to satisfy the skeptics, and legitimize his war, he puts together this case. There’s enough scary stuff in there that many liberals and Democrats reconsider their position. Myself included. Then we invade, and we find that just about everything he told us about this supposed threat is false.

If that wasn’t bad enough, his military strategy goes catastrophically wrong. The taking of Baghdad and deposing of Saddam was supposed to end the war.

Instead, it only begins it. In the two years since, we have continually heard and spoken of what is going wrong with the war, and this President and his advisors have basically told us repeatedly that they know what they are doing, and that we are winning the war, that victory is just around the corner.

We’re not questioning your integrity as soldiers. We’re questioning an administration that does not seem to want to be straight with us. We’re frustrated that this president continues to claim he’s on the right track, but doesn’t even acknowledge the lack of improvement in the situation.

The last people who are being blamed for this are the soldiers. Some Republicans try to make it out as if it’s you we don’t trust, but that’s just rhetorical garbage. We’ve argued repeatedly for reinforcements for your ranks, armor for your vehicles, clear moral and strategic guidance from your superiors, and above all, the right war to set you loose on the bastards who brought down our buildings. Nothing would make me happier than to see Osama Bin Laden lead out of a cave at the point of your guns. But we need a government that doesn’t waste America’s strength on seductively righteous, but strategically worthless wars.

We also need a government that acknowledges, like you and many Americans, that torture and indiscriminate imprisonment are not to be defended, but instead our capacity to deal with fighters and killers that do not use traditional means of warfare to strike at us. We need to strike the balance between our need to handle this threat, and our need to remain American in our conduct.

David~

Glad you asked!

Never stated that I knew each and everyone were absolutely guilty!

But I still don’t believe it’s enough to debunk the whole system or get crazy and start carrying a torch, and defame people over it!

I recognize what the left is saying, as I think most Reps do, but there is a time and place for everything! And I believe it is the forums in which they are done rather than the message that upsets people!

I may be speaking for others here, but the anger that comes, from my point of view, is watching the news and seeing that second wind that the opposition gets everytime they see Americans opposing their own military!
Now, w/ that said, that does not mean they don’t have the right, but like I said: a time and a place!
It may be frustrating and I get that…..but w/ each word said they are more empowered. And that makes our men and women lose their lives.
Stop fighting hate w/ hate.
Ya know, I could really go either way w/ the way politics are nowadays, but the left has just not convinced me of their “tolerant” ways, so I’ll stick w/ the right for now since they reflect my lifestyle more fiscally!
You win more people over w/ actions, not w/ words. I think the left would benefit more if they could just “plow the coarse” and stick to their viewpoints offensively istead of defensively!

Mother Theresa is an example of that…she just”plowed the coarse”, and people were drawn to her. Had she screamed, yelled, and ranted, it would have been a turn-off and the message would have been lost!
Most would consider her lifestyle “liberal” so to say! And guess what…the “religious right” love her!!!

I always tell my son, “If you hit, people WILL hit you back”! But because I know he has hit on occassion, I don’t take it real seriously when he tattles on someone for their actions.

I hope you can kind of see my point in all these ramblings. My brain works much faster than my fingers so they tend to jumble!

The insurgency, even if weakened, must be overcome. If you give them a timetable for departure, instead of fighting themselves out, they’ll simply wait until withdrawal day then start fighting to disrupt the new Iraqi government. That’s why South Vietnam fell…instead of fighting a full-scale war to defeat the North we lost our resolve and allowed them to hang on long enough until we left.

Editor- The personal name-calling that framed this message has been deleted. Your point is made well enough by itself, and the policy of this blog is made clear in the title.

Just a thought….

When it comes to politics, one party over another will not get elected or un-elected on a single “win” or “loss” senerio played out by the opposition.

I think most voters enter the polls thinking on an “over all” type basis.

Sadly I don’t even really think the war in Iraq is going to play much into the next election…..hope I’m wrong…..but in most discussions I’ve heard I think it will come down to who has a workable plan for boarder control.

Traci-
We’re not opposing our own military, we’re opposing our Commander in Chief. I think the terrorists glean more value by our president showing himself to be overly authoritarian and oblivious (purposefully or not) to the real level of mayhem in Iraq than they gain from people like us wanting our president to be reasonable. Remember that the terrorists we’re dealing with formed under the pretext of opposing authoritarian governments hostile to the traditions and values of the people. Bush is their prime target. The more they can get him to act like the stereotypical power-mad western colonialist, the more they can gain credibility at our expense.

There’s a difference between tolerance, and apathy, tolerance, and the willingness to stand aside and let the wrong things be done. The GOP has being striking at us since the 1994 elections, and since 9/11 it’s only gotten worse. Were you in our shoes, and you had a president flouting his responsibilities, would you sit still in the name of tolerance?

Stephen~

I have actually!

I hated just about everything Clinton did and said, and felt he made us lose credability around the globe!
You can argue my statements if you want, but it really dosn’t change how I felt does it?

BUT……I suffered through and at no point did it ever make me want to run off on a tangin and burn some flags.

(Also…I was pointing out how things can be construed, NOT stating that you are opposed to the military)!

There was an interesting newspiece yeaterday in my viewing area detailing how since the suicide bomb “insurgents/terrorists” were primarilly from other areas/countries, a massive recruitment was under way to get actual Iraqis to become suicide bombers.

I was led to believe in a follow up report that the Iraqi turnout was extremely low.

In any event I began to wonder that while we are at war with Iraq and, our reasons for this position are under scrutiny by our Democratic and/or Liberal friends, is this insurgancy being forced upon the Iraqi people by one or more other countries with their own agenda.

Steve,
I believe the suicide bombings are being committed by foreign jihadists. According to an Arab internet site listing dead bombers, over half come from Saudi Arabia. These are currently occurring at a rate of 30/week. General Abazaid just testified that more foreign jihadists are entering Iraq than just six months ago, before the Iraqi election.

My undertanding is that the IED’s, mortar attacks, and assassinations are being committed by Iraqi insurgents. Some are former members of the Baathist regime. Others are fairly ordinary Iraqi Sunnis who dislike being occupation. I don’t know the percentages- doubt anyone does.

The different methods of attack repressent different motivations. Foreign jihadists are primarily motivated by religion. Iraqi insurgents are motivated by secular concerns; loyalty to a Sunni-led nationalism, ethnocentrism, and hatred of Shias.

These groups, the foreign jihadists and Iraqi insurgents, claim to be allied. Personally, I doubt it. Nothing about the two major forms of attacks suggest coordination.

Finally, there is a third hybrid group- religiously motivated jihadists from within Iraq, led by Zarqawi. They use both methods of attack, but their calling card is beheading. Decapitation carries a special meaning to the Iraqis- while Americans recoil from the beheadings, Zarqawi quotes well-known Arabic prose to make his meaning & political intentions abundantly clear to Iraqis. The cultural overtones of this grisly methodology of death are lost on Americans… and maybe that’s just as well.

Sorry, Stephen, I can’t accept your apologetic and defensive answer for Democrats. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees both have Democratic members, and these Committees did not do the investigation of allegations the President was making. They simply did not do the job for which they were elected and appointed to those committees for.

Look, the first time I heard that we were rattling sabers against Saddam and Iraq, I went to the internet got information about Saddam Hussein. And guess what, it was clear as the nose on my face from a lot of that information that Saddam was a shrewd, calculating survivor of a very strict and abusive upbringing. I told my wife and friends back then, that it was very unlikely that a survivor of numerous attempts to take him down, like Saddam, was not the psychological profile of a person who would leave condemning WMD laying around for inspectors to find and use in justification for removing him from power.

He was a shrewed and capable survivor. I have worked with federal prisoners of similar profiles. They don’t let their bravado or power dictate actions that will bring them down. These people are what the lay public would call paranoid. And if the potential of a threat is visible, as was the case with weapons inspectors, they would eliminate the source of the threat. Since he could not get rid of the UN or the US, it was highly likely that he got rid of the WMD so the pretext for removing him from power was eliminated.

Now, I know the CIA does psychological profiles in just the same manner as I did, and some if not many, came to the same conclusions about Saddam. The intelligence committees did not review the intelligence for accuracy or even content and advise their collegues prior to voting to give Bush war making authority and budget to invade Iraq.

Thus, I can’t accept your answer that Democrats trusted Bush. They weren’t elected to trust Bush. They were elected to protect the interests of the American people - and they failed, miserably.

David,
Agreed, the ‘get along, go along’ Democrats, led by Daschle during the first term of the Bush administration, let the American people down. It’s worth noting the liberal wing of the Democrats did oppose Iraq, and they have been proved right to do so.

Under Reid’s leadership, the Democrats have been more assertive. However, given Republican majorities in the Legislature, Democrats cannot push investigations through committee. Questions about “fixing” intelligence around the decision to invade, about $8.8 billion disappearing from the CPA, etc., can and are being blocked by Republicans.

Stephen,
One internal US timeline has not received attention. During the televised hearings Thursday, it was mentioned in passing that the volunteer military will break down in less than a year, due to stress on the deployed troops, and the lack of new volunteers. People are vaguely aware of the problem, but if the insurgency continues at the current rate, the position of the volunteer US military will become critical.

The problem is US citizens are unwilling to volunteer and fight for Iraqi democracy, when the Sunni Iraqis seem unwilling to fight for themselves. And the Sunni Iraqis are unwilling to fight for democracy, because democracy means domination by their arch enemies, the Shias.

phx8, I hope you are correct in your implied assessment of the Dem’s learning their lesson. It is hoped the Dem. party will take this experience of being the minority party to heart and learn the lesson that needs to be learned. Specifically, that governing a nation as large and complex as the U.S. requires prioritizing issues and sticking to those priorities. More specifically, prioritizing first those issues and policies that are needed for the benefit of the most people in the U.S. and preservation of the union. And dispense with small minority issues which neither threaten the union and will carry a cost to the majority if pursued.

It is a hard lesson and I still have doubts the leadership in the Party even has a clue as to what I am talking about, especially Dean and Pelosi.

Of course, the Republicans have the same problem and have displayed the same propensity to repeat the D’ parties tremendous errors in this regard. This is precisely why the number of Independents and third party well wishers are growing as a percentage of the population.

I was amazed to learn that here in my “heavily” Republican county, that voter registrations showed the Republicans numbers were almost equal with Independents. Independents have not found a unifying candidate or issue, but, if they ever do, the two Big Parties will be doomed for that race.

First of all, the groups that oppose the new Iraqi government can be broadly broken down into 2 groups. First, there are the Insurgents, these are Iraqis who reject the new system put into place after the fall of Saddam. It includes both Shi’a and Sunni, although, since the election, many of the Shi’a groupings have come to see the benefit of participating in the political process. Muqtada al-Sadr ( the one who directed the fighting in Fallujah last fall) is one of these. Since the election he has seen that he can benefit more from being a politician than from being a rejectionist. Also, some of the Sunni groups, including the Muslim Ulema Council, one of the most influential Sunni bodies, that refused to participate in the election have now begun to ask for the ability to participate in the government because, intheir own words, they made a mistake in staying away from the polls in Jan. So, that leaves the other category, the foreign fighters. These comprise only a small portion of the fighters, however, they are the most dangerous because in order to win their goal they will do anything, including kidnapping families of Iraqis in order to force them to cooperate in such activities as IEDs and car bombs. The FF have also been known to tie a person into a car, cut the brake lines, and send the car, loaded eith explosives into a convoy. So you have to be careful of what you hear on the news, any news, about the Iraqis rejecting the new government, or large percentages of Iraqis helping out those who are fighting against the Government here. Most of those who are actively fighting right now are either from some other country or are being coerced into doing so for the sake of their families. Does that say much good about the security, by itself no, but when you look at it in context, it does. Despite what is shown on the news back in the US, the level of violence has gone down, what has gone up is the number of attacks against normal Iraqis as they go about their daily lives. As sad as that is, it has also helped in that every day more people give tips on where the enemy is hiding, what their plans are, etc. This also is a sign that the FF are becoming more desperate in their fight against the US forces and the Iraqi Government. Make no mistake, they will not be satisfied until they have either converted or killed everyone. That is why WE must not have a hard timeline for withdrawal. They are cruel, not stupid. If we say that we are going to leave in Aug of 2006, for instance, then they will simply try to wait until Sep to strike hard at the Iraqis after we have gone. Timeline is a bad idea. I noticed that someone said that the religiously motivted Iraqis are led by Zarqawi. That is incorrect, he leads the FF that are the jihadist/extremist. The religious Iraqi elements are mostly Shi’a, who are in power at the moment; their overall leader is Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who has consistently called for the Shi’a to be peaceful, and in large part, they have listened to him.

Quick note for Steven Daugherty:
According to your logic, we should do away with welfare since it isn’t 100% accurate and people abus the system. I know as well as you the faults and shortcomings that we have, but since we are human, mistakes are made. Given the choice between making sure one of my friends and fellow soldiers doesn’t get killed and possibly killing an innocent, I will err on the side of fellow sodiers every time.

Bryan,
Good post.

I don’t think al-Sadr was involved in events in Fallujah. Al-Sadr is a Shia. The people in Fallujah were Sunnis.

Zarqawi represents a hybrid of the foreign jihadists and Iraqi fundamentalists. If you’ll note, several of his lieutenants have been captured in the past few months, and they are Iraqis.

According the the testimony of generals on C-Span Thursday, Iraqi attacks against US troops average 60-80, the same level as six months ago. Iraqi attacks against Iraqis have increased.

I’d have to agree, setting a timeline isn’t a good idea. Like Stephen noted, if the situation looked good, we could set such a date with impunity. But as I remarked in earlier posts, several dates will drive the process, particularly the referendum on the Constitution on October 15.

Some Sunnis are indicating a willingness to participate. I hope that’s true. But I’m also suspicious that it is US propaganda, along the lines of the stories about how Zarqawi’s fighters suffer from ‘low morale.’ That was a PsyOp campaign if I’ve ever seen one. Though I suppose a suicide car bomber could have a bad attitude at the moment of detonation…

Dane,

While I disagree quite a bit with your posts, you do make some interesting points.

The comparison of the Clinton impeachment for lying about oral sex (pathetic) being justification for impeaching Bush for lying and being responsible for the deaths of many thousands puts things into perspective.

The commanality of the two examples rests with one fact LYING. The fact that someone, anyone lies about SOMETHING, invites the possibility that he has or will lie about ANYTHING.

Don’t come flying back with the typical liberal response that I am suggesting that lying resulting in death is any less harmful or equal to lying about sex because that is untrue. I am making the point that the character flaw of lying has existed in politics at the highest level since George Washington.

The problem is that lies become compounded from administration to administration and, from party to party. We may very well today be living with situations resulting from lies passed on from Kennedy or before.

“Wake up all of you so called christians, your leader is a fake.”

I am a Christian and my leader is GOD. As a result I am offended by your comment, as will be many other Christians. I know you are exercising your right of free speech and, there is no way to apologize for what I believe is blasphemy.

I am a Christian and my leader is GOD. As a result I am offended by your comment, as will be many other Christians.

With all due respect…please GIVE IT A REST! You have every right to express offense at Dane’s comment, but you don’t have to twist it out of context to call him a blasphemer. You are a citizen of the United States (I assume), therefore Bush is your leader. I’m sure you understood that Bush is the leader Dane was referring to, even if you happen to have other leaders as well (eg, GOD).

Charles Wager,

I respect your right to express an opinion and, your right to express that opinion on behalf of someone else. As is the case in your post.

To be honest any combination of the words Christian, leader and fake in the same sentence will elicit the response that I rendered.

Thank you however for your concern.

I did not get the clear impression that Dane was referering to Bush in the context of his statement. After all his post was somewhat vague in it’s message to begin with.

Steve,

I did not get the clear impression that Dane was referering to Bush in the context of his statement. After all his post was somewhat vague in it’s message to begin with.

I’ll agree with you on that—I found the message confusing as well. I’m also not surprised you took offense at the comment…I just thought “blasphemey” was a bit harsh, and I don’t like to see anyone get jumped on for something they didn’t really say.

Charles,

I will back off on my sensitivity and respectfully withdraw the term blasyphmey.

If you agree I would suggest that this issue be retired.

Someone way up in an earlier post said something about Ted Kennedy raping a girl and throwing her into the water?If it’s the story I think you are refering to,what really happened was he was having an affair with the girl,and there was an accident where the car went off the road, and when they pulled the woman out of the water and did an autopsy,she turned out to be pregnant.When being questioned later,Ted K.seemed to have conveniently waited too long to get help,spawning a scandal.The Kennedys have been plagued by a lot of scandals,this among others.A whole lot of politicians lie,from both parties.

Clinton lied, too, and since I am not only a democrat but also reasonable,I will freely admit it.I don’t like the fact that he let all those people die in Rwanda at all.I am especially upset about the fact that he ruined our party’s reputation,and I’m not talking about people who usually vote republican,but the swing voters, who obviously also voted republican in 2004.And why would you trust any of them,like with Cheney saying the war in Iraq is going just fine,??But neither Ted Kennedy nor Clinton or even Dean should be considered for representing ALL of our party,and I resent that.The truth is most dems stand for things Bush doesn’t,such as dumping the poor off and sending jobs overseas,and yeah he did cut off benefits to vets.I would say those would be moral values but that’s just me.I want to correct somebody up there about how the democrats lost,it was because the republicans based their campaign on fear,and they had it all planned,too,and a lot of people fell for it.And now they’re busy chipping away at America and what it stands for.

I think Bush thought he could get a lot of oil revenue out of Iraq and the plan backfired.Instead he is pouring money INTO Iraq.It seems to me he must have some reason for doing that,and it must be awfully important.Let me tell you these politicians are all about money,and I mean both parties.Even Kerry said he”married up”.Right now the Saudis are contributing a lot of money to America, and I mean A LOT.Like maybe 500 billon dollars.I read somewhere before the Iraq war that they didn’t like Saddam having so much power and soveriegnity over the oil market so maybe they pressured Bush into getting him.

But I fully agree that Saddam had PLENTY of time to get rid of those weapons!And he probably did.

Blaming liberals and dems for the war not going well,because of so-called non support,is rediculous because the problems with the Iraq war are mostly Bush’s fault.We simply like to question things and not follow like sheep.

Bush could have gotten a lot more help then he did before going in there,and if he couldn’t get it he shouldn’t have gone in there yet.But he doesn’t plan anything out well,and there have been instances where he has said the wrong thing to make matters worse.Like when he was asked about why he backed out of the Kyoto treaty,he blamed the Chinese for global warming.Listen other presidents before him of both parties took a lot of time and effort to become on good terms with China and he goes and says stuff like that.

As far as pulling out now, and expecting Iraq to be able to take care of themselves,you know that is just ridiculous and dangerous.They are a tiny country and they are sitting in the middle of all these Islamic theocracies,do you think the other countries are going to let them be a peaceful democracy?When the current powers such as the Kurds are torturing their captors,in the insurgency?They are going to remember that,and they will remember that they sided with the Americans,it looks like an easy thing to us but to them you have to realize how their world is set up.EVERYONE is Islamic,women don’t vote,they are extremely hostile to openly sexual referations and they think our society is sinful and all Christians are going to Hell.It just won’t work.And Saddam was a monster,so he had to go,but we just didn’t have enough back-up going in there.If we would have,we might be out of there by now.Now,it seems the only way is the draft.And you can just bet that will happen.Because yeah we have other soldiers in other countries but they’re wearing thin.And if some certain dictators think those countries are more vulnerable,such as South Korea for instance,and they see we are struggling with Iraq,they just might see it as a good opportunity to invade someone.Maybe us,and Bush should stop talking so much or he’s going to get us in more trouble.

And now we can’t get along with each other,and do you know who I think is laughing about that?Yeah.Bin Laden.He has successfully divided our country.

As far as what someone said up there about the left being angry,well I have news for you,we will get angrier and you can bet on that.It may get to the point where a lot of people simply won’t put up with it anymore.Luckily there is the pendulum theory,where if the pendulem swings way to one end,it will start to come back the other way.It has been happening in politics for centuries.

If there is one thing Clinton was good for,tho,it was turning all those areas of America into national parks,like for instance the California redwoods.Loggers have been trying to cut those all down for years,since they obviously don’t give a crap about America’s beauty and scenery.Those trees are ancient and I’m saying this even tho I know the right people won’t think they were worth saving.

whitebear3, I don’t agree with all of your views, but, I do respect your rationale and reasoned approach. I hope we will hear your views on more issues here at WatchBlog. Debate with you should be an enjoyable challenge.

Do you think Iraq’s future is any brighter with America as its protector and defender? Do you think America’s future is brighter in that role?

whitebear3,

Bin Laden won the minute the Patriot Act went into effect.

Not the war, Rocky, but a battle, for sure!

David, I don’t know if you will read this so I will try to work it in on one of your posts.

When the patriot act went into effect and our leaders changed American life forever, Bin Ladin got what he wanted.