Democrats & Liberals: Archives

American Pundit:

“It’s debatable whether the Iraqi police will ever be capable of controlling this level of violence”

Hell, we can’t even do it.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 25, 2005 12:18 PM

Not with the inadequate number of troops there right now, no.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 12:33 PM

I have said it once and I will never stop saying it…

We need more Republicans to volunteer to fight. There are 61,000,000 of them. Surely a few thousand won’t be missed? Bush and his Evangelical WingNuts must call for their Supperters to send their children!!! They have a Duty to fight the Terrorists over there so WE don’t fight them here. They must Spread Freedom and crush these deadenders in Iraq.

Maybe they are waiting for Pat Robertson to promise them Paradise and Virgins for their Lives? Worked for other Religious nuts…

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 12:53 PM

“So long as I am president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism.”

“We will stay the course.”

“As they stand up, we will stand down.”

Where’s the strategy, Mr. President? Winning a war requires one, yet all you can do is state the same, tired lines.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 25, 2005 01:10 PM

And that’s the source of America’s frustration with President Bush’s handling of Iraq, isn’t it Mr. Magoo. It’s obvious that Iraq is not secure, yet President Bush tells us everything is fine; the insurgents are on their last legs; victory is just around the corner.

All we need to do is hunker down in the Green Zone and wait until the Iraqis kick us out. Mission accomplished.

Bullshit.

Iraq must be secured. If we continue to allow al Qaeda terrorists to train in Iraq like they did in Afghanistan, they’ll be targeting the US soon, just like Iraqi-trained al Qaeda operatives shot rockets at our ships in Jordan the other day.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 01:22 PM

wipekedia the free online encyclopedia vs Bush speech

PRESIDENT: Your service is needed in these dangerous times. We remain a nation at war. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And since then, they’ve continued to kill — in Madrid, in Istanbul, in Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, Baghdad, London, Sharm el-Sheikh and elsewhere.

By FRANK RICH

Published: August 14, 2005

These are the tea leaves that all Republicans, not just Chuck Hagel, are reading now. Newt Gingrich called the Hackett near-victory “a wake-up call.” The resolutely pro-war New York Post editorial page begged Mr. Bush (to no avail) to “show some leadership” by showing up in Ohio to salute the fallen and their families. A Bush loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as “a matter of courtesy and decency.” Or, to translate his Washingtonese, as a matter of politics. Only someone as adrift from reality as Mr. Bush would need to be told that a vacationing president can’t win a standoff with a grief-stricken parent commandeering TV cameras and the blogosphere 24/7.

At Fox News Bill O’Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O’Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration’s prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.’s. (On this sinking ship, it’s hard to know which rat to root for.)

“the central front in the war on terror,” as Mr. Bush keeps reminding us, as if that might

make us forget he’s the one who recklessly created it.

PRESS: One old man, with a group carrying a coffin, turned on the police. ?All of you are cowards,? he shouted. ?Why don?t you protect the people? Why are the Shia being killed? What have they done?? Others cursed the Iraqi Government and Prime Minister, blaming them for the carnage. A lone policeman sobbed as he looked at the bodies laid out in the courtyard.

These nauseating examples need to be put into a context. They follow the media’s open pushing of the Iraq War before the invasion and refusal to question what they knew were pre-war lies. They also come as polls show Americans oppose the war, want an exit strategy, and believe the entire mess is endangering U.S. national security. And they come even as Iraq War veterans themselves say they understand that criticism of the war is not criticism of U.S. troops

PRESIDENT; Our enemies murder because they despise our freedom and our way of life. We believe in human rights, and the human dignity of every man, woman and child on this Earth. The terrorists believe that all human life is expendable. They share a hateful ideology that rejects tolerance and crushes all dissent. They envision a world where women are beaten, children are indoctrinated, and all who reject our ideology of violence and extremism are murdered.

In the second case, if the Defense Department withheld critical information on this matter, it?s almost impossible to imagine the intensity of the bloodletting that will follow.

That bloodletting will partly be because of who was commanding officer of SOCOM at the time that Able Danger was in operation:

The current Chief of Staff of the US Army is Gen. Peter Schoomaker. He rose through the ranks of Special Operations Command, and was in charge of that command at MacDill Air Force Base at the time Able Danger did its work. If the

Pentagon is reticent to confirm Lt Col Shaffer?s story, you have two data points to consider as reasons why. One, the likely involvement of NSA, the most secretive and most effective (largely because it?s so secretive) intel agency we have. They stay out of the limelight and generally because of that run rings around the CIA. Anything that puts a spotlight on NSA is bad, so that in and of itself could be a reason to pour cold water on Able Danger. The second data point is that it could boomerang around on the Army Chief of Staff if he was in any way involved in bottling up Able Danger in his old command. The Pentagon does not want this scandal, not now and not ever. So I?ll be surprised if they say anything interesting anytime in the next hundred years about Able Danger.

‘Able Danger’ Could Rewrite History

Friday, August 12, 2005

WASHINGTON ? The federal commission that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told twice about “Able Danger,” a military intelligence unit that had identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers a year before the attacks, a congressman close to the investigation said Wednesday.

Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., a champion of integrated intelligence-sharing among U.S. agencies, wrote to the former chairman and vice-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission late Wednesday, telling them that their staff had received two briefings on the military intelligence unit ? once in October 2003 and again in July 2004.

“Here’s the problem,” said Majid Sari, an adviser in the Iraqi Defense Ministry in Basra, who travels with a security detail of 25 handpicked Iraqi soldiers. “They’re taking money from the state, they’re taking clothes from the state, they’re taking vehicles from the state, but their loyalty is to the parties.” Whoever disagrees, he said, “the next day you’ll find them dead in the street.”

Karen McLuskie, a British spokeswoman. “We are raising our concerns with the Iraqi authorities at the highest level.”

?There is no law, there is no order?
“My rights were violated. From whom am I supposed to get them back?” he said last week. “The Americans? The Americans are the ones who gave the Kurds the opportunity to do this.“‘The parties have become businessmen,” said Khazaal, the Basra party leader.

Desperate to restore order, the U.S. military brought in the battle-hardened Kurdish militia, the pesh merga, under the auspices of the new Iraqi army

Habeeb, who refused to be interviewed, told the party that he could halt the distribution only if he received an order from “a higher authority” ? either the provincial government in Mosul or the central government in Baghdad.

Fifteen minutes later, five pick-up trucks filled with militiamen pulled up, according to witnesses. The fighters dragged the paunchy, 53-year-old Habeeb from his chair and beat him with their fists and rifle butts, the witnesses said. The soldiers placed him facedown in the bed of a pickup, pushed their boots into his back and legs and drove him around “to show everybody what they had done,” said a witness who asked not to be identified out of fear of retribution.

“There is an absence of law,” said a 40-year-old Transportation Ministry official who was detained for five days in Dahuk last month. The official said a Kurdish officer had accused him of “writing against the Kurds on the Internet.”

“‘Freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are only words in ink on a piece of paper,” he said. “The law now, it’s the big fish eats the small fish.”

Fainaru reported from Qaraqosh.

PRESS: Every day the occupation increases tension and makes people’s lives worse, fuelling the violence. Creating a client regime in Baghdad, backed by permanent bases, is the route that US strategists followed in Vietnam. As in Vietnam, popular resistance in Iraq and the wider Middle East will not go away but will grow stronger, until it eventually unites to force a US-British withdrawal.

How many more Iraqis, Americans and Britons have to die before Bush and Blair admit the occupation is the problem and not part of any democratic solution in Iraq ? ”

Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

The Iraq war ?gave a boost to the al-Qaeda network?s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for al-Qaeda-linked terrorists and deflected resources and assistance that could have been used to … bring (Osama) bin Laden to justice,? it said.

72 HOURS OF VIOLENCE

CIA Officers Warn of Iraq Civil War, Contradicting Bush’s Optimism

PRESIDENT: Since September the 11th, we’ve followed a clear strategy to defeat the terrorists and protect our people. First, we are defending the homeland.

FACT; CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY

Chertoff’s Israel Connections [ Post 293273250 ]

Category: News & Opinion (General) Topic: Miscellaneous

Synopsis: “She was the first airline hostess for El Al Airlines”

Source: The Star-Ledger Newark, NJ

Published: December 21, 1998 Author: Staff

For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.

From the The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ obit for Chertoff’s mother:

Livia Chertoff, 73, El Al flight attendant

21 December 1998
The Star-Ledger Newark, NJ
FINAL
OBITUARY Services for Mrs. Livia Chertoff, 73, of Delray Beach, Fla., mother of former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Michael Chertoff, will be held at 1 p.m. today in the Kreitzman’s Memorial Home, 1500 Morris Ave., Union.

Mrs. Chertoff died Saturday in the Ashbrook Nursing Home, Scotch Plains.

She was the first airline hostess for El Al Airlines and participated in Operation Magic Carpet, the famous airlift of Yemenite Jews to Israel.

Mrs. Chertoff also operated L’Artigue, an art gallery in Elizabeth.

Her son, Michael, served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1983 through 1987 and as First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987 through 1990. He was U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1990 through 1994 and during the Whitewater investigation in 1995 and 1996, he was counsel for the Senate Banking Committee.

Born in Poland, Mrs. Chertoff lived in Palestine and Elizabeth before moving to Florida several years ago.
Also surviving are three sisters, a brother and two grandchildren.

Secretary Chertoff: He is a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. He also did some fundraising for George W. Bush and other Republicans during the 2000 election

From 2001 to 2003, he headed the criminal division of the Department of Justice, leading the prosecutions case against terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui and against accounting firm Arthur Andersen for destroying documents relating to the Enron collapse.

As it is, Bush Sr. first appointed Chertoff to the Newark US Attorney’s Office in 1990.

Chertoff? He lets Israelis off. He’ll hammer the occasional American Jew so he seems ‘fair’.

How long have you been defending dual-citizens?

“With money in hand, you can demand.” — Old Yiddish folk saying.

“Every nation has the government it deserves.” ~ Joseph de Maistre

He released hundreds of Israeli spies, while at the same time locking up hundreds of Americans and visitors for no reason other than to perpetuate the Jewish war against Arabs here in America.

USA Today reported this month that the Department of Homeland Security, having failed miserably to secure American ports and air transportation from potential Al Qaeda attacks, has nonetheless shelled out $100,000-plus to hire “a Hollywood liaison”: Bobbie Faye Ferguson, an actress whose credits include the movie “The Bermuda Triangle” and guest shots on television schlock like “Designing Women” and “The Dukes of Hazzard.” She will “work with moviemakers and scriptwriters” to give us homeland security infotainment - which is to actual homeland security what the movie “Independence Day” is to an actual terrorist attack.

PRESIDENT; And the third part of our strategy is this: We’re spreading the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. In the long run, the only way to defeat the terrorists is by offering an alternative to their ideology of hatred and fear. So a key component of our strategy is to spread freedom. History has proven that free nations are peaceful nations, that democracies do not fight their neighbors. (Applause.) And so, by advancing the cause of liberty and freedom in the Middle East, we’re bringing hope to millions, and security to our own citizens.

We’re using all elements of our national power to achieve our objectives — military power, diplomatic power, financial, intelligence and law enforcement. We’re fighting the enemy on many fronts —

One of the most important battlefronts in this war on terror is Iraq. Terrorists have converged on Iraq. See, they’re coming into Iraq because they fear the march of freedom. Their most prominent leader is a Jordanian named Zarqawi, who has declared his allegiance with Osama bin Laden. The ranks of these folks are filled with foreign fighters who come from places like Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran and Egypt and Sudan and Yemen and Libya.

The main source of the divide is over the suicide bombings that have inflicted heavy Iraqi civilian casualties, along with

disagreements about whether to cooperate with the Shi’a and their insurgency. However, the publicity given to Zarqawi has ensured that he has become an iconic figure to various Sunni Islamist groups, regardless of the actual scope of his influence, by much the same process that has made Osama bin Laden a symbol of the causes of various Islamist groups following the events of September 11th, 2001.

They lack popular support so they’re targeting innocent Iraqis with car bombs and suicide attacks. They know the only way they can prevail is to break our will and the will of the Iraqi people before democracy takes hold. They are going to fail. (Applause.) understand that. (Applause.) But what’s important is that the Iraqis are resolving these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of

gun. (Applause.) And we admire their thoughtful deliberations, and we salute the determination of the Iraqi leaders to lay the foundation of a lasting democracy amid the ruins of a brutal dictatorship. (Applause.)

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Bush Sr. Gets ‘New World Order’ Gun?

Free Press International
1.27.2005

In 1991, Special Desert Storm pistols were made with the words ‘new world order’ on them and were suppose to be sent to:

George Bush, Commander-in-Chief

The battle lines in Iraq are now clearly drawn for the world to see, and there is no middle ground.

Karen McLuskie, a British spokeswoman. “We are raising our concerns with the Iraqi authorities at the highest level.”

?There is no law, there is no order?
“My rights were violated. From whom am I supposed to get them back?” he said last week. “The Americans? The Americans are the ones who gave the Kurds the opportunity to do this.“‘The parties have become businessmen,” said Khazaal, the Basra party leader.

PRESIDENT: The battle lines in Iraq are now clearly drawn for the world to see, and there is no middle ground. Transforming a country that was ruled by an oppressive dictator who sponsored terror into a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror will take more time, more sacrifice, and continued resolve. Terrorists will emerge from Iraq one of two ways: emboldened or defeated. Every nation — every free nation — has a stake in the success of the Iraqi people. If the terrorists were to win in Iraq, the free world would be more vulnerable to attacks on innocent civilians. And that is why, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, the terrorists will be defeated. (Applause.)

Talking Wounded

Terry Rodgers Came Back From Iraq a Changed Man, and Not Just Because of the Bomb

By Peter CarlsonWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page C01

Like the rest of the 13,877 Americans wounded in Iraq, Rodgers has a story to tell.

“The Humvee finally comes to a stop and the right side is just torn apart and I hear my squad leader screaming, ‘I think I lost my arm!’ And my best friend Maida was in the

front passenger seat where the bomb went off and he was screaming, ‘Where’s help? Where’s help?’ And then he went quiet.

“I started patting myself down and that’s when I noticed that my face took some shrapnel,” he says. “It was all swollen on this side, so when I’m patting myself down, my middle finger went, like, this deep into my cheek where the shrapnel went in.”

He points to a spot about halfway down his finger, showing how far it went into the shrapnel wound behind his right eye, which is still pretty much blind, unable to see anything but bright light.

“Then I started checking out my leg. I knew my femur was broken, but at that time I didn’t know my calf was missing,” he says. “And that’s when I hear my best friend Maida and he started heaving.”

Rodgers takes a few loud, quick breaths to show what Mark Maida sounded like.

“And he breathes like that for a few seconds and then he just stops. And that’s when he died.”

And the first guys that showed up saw Maida in the front seat, leaning against the windshield and all I heard was, ‘Sir, we lost Maida

And then they helped my squad leader, who lost his right arm, and then they came over and helped me. They bandaged us up … and when the helicopter finally showed up, they loaded me and Maida into the chopper and flew us to Baghdad.

I didn’t have a political view,” he says. “I’m not into politics.”

He did his basic training at Fort Benning, Ga. Then his outfit — the 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment — was assigned to Fort Irwin, Calif., in the Mojave Desert, where they played the bad guys in warfare training exercises.

“Basically we would just play laser tag in the desert,” he says. “It was kind of fun.”

They deployed to Iraq this January, assigned to a town about 30 miles south of Baghdad

PRESIDENT; And that is why, for the sake our children and our grandchildren, the terrorists will be defeated. (Applause.)

Yet, the administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq?directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq?a COUNTRY

that was not a serious menace before invasion. Of course, it is those troops who have it the worst. Our

women in uniform are bogged down in a quagmire, forced

down life and limb for a lie. To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for

these deceptions

PRESIDENT; In the end, the terrorists will fail because they have nothing positive to offer. The terrorist Zarqawi sums up their appeal this way: Anyone who stands in the way of our struggle is our enemy and target of the swords. That’s the sum of his grim vision. They’re brutal, but nothing more. They seek to exploit a great religion, but in truth, they are animated by nothing but their own lust for power and their desire for dominion over others. And while they may sow death and destruction for a time, the history of the last half- century is clear — the will to power cannot withstand the will to live in freedom. (Applause.)

Conflict and tactics

Non-military targets

Some analysts suspect that the aim of these attacks is to sow chaos and sectarian discord. There have been attacks on non-military and civilian targets, beginning in earnest in August 2003 and steadily increasing since then. Armed and unarmed Iraqi police and security forces are targeted. The assassination of Iraqis cooperating with the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Governing Council have also occured.

Washington - Republican Senator Chuck Hagel slammed the George Bush administration’s Iraq policy as “disconnected from reality”, a report said on Sunday, in some of the harshest comments to date about the war from a member of the president’s own party.
Hagel, a top Senate Republican said to have presidential aspirations, said US troops are “losing” the Iraq war, and that “things aren’t getting better, they’re getting worse”.

“The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq,” said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view

PRESIDENT: We mourn the loss of every life. We pray for their loved ones. These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country, and now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission. (Applause.)

.” The resolutely pro-war New York Post editorial page begged Mr. Bush (to no avail) to “show some leadership” by showing up in Ohio to salute the fallen and their families. A Bush loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as “a matter of courtesy and decency.”

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Bush Sr. in business with bin Laden family conglemerate through Carlyle Group

Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least

The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq,” said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view.

This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President?s father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible

PRESIDENT: We have been a part of history.” The citizen soldiers of Idaho are making history. You’re fighting to ensure that our freedom, like the state of Idaho, may endure forever. Americans are grateful for your devotion to duty and your courage under fire may endure forever. We live in freedom and peace because of your determination to prevail.

The White House still refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing, and instead resorts to the classic two-step feint, citing sources but conveniently refusing to acknowledge those sources ? critical faults. For instance, Cheney began pointing reporters to an article in the right-wing Weekly Standard as the ? best source ? of evidence backing the Saddam-al Qaeda claim, even though the Pentagon had previously discredited the story.

Conclusion: They knew they were misleading America

December 14, 2001 | Page 12

GEORGE W. BUSH rammed “fast track” free-trade legislation through the House of Representatives by one vote. Outrageously, he used the “war on terror” as an excuse for “trade promotion authority.”

One picture shows grinning CPA officials standing in front of a pile of cash said to be worth $2-million (about R13,5-million) to be paid to a security contractor.
Citing documents from the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York, Waxman said the US had flown in nearly $12bn overall in US currency to Iraq from the US between May 2003 and June 2004.

This money was used to pay for Iraqi salaries, fund Iraqi ministries and also to pay some US contractors.

In total, more than 281 million individual bills, including more than 107 million $100 bills, had been shipped to Iraq, the report said. - Reuters
This article was originally published on page 4 of Cape Argus on June 22, 2005

Even after the invasion, when troops failed to uncover any evidence of nuclear weapons, the White House refused to admit the truth. In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS?s Gwen Ifill that the administration?s nuclear assertions were ?absolutely supportable.? That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: ?There?s a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.?The double-hulled giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, named several years ago in honor of Rice when she was a Chevron board member and stockholder. “From a public relations standpoint, they’re desperately hoping this is one tanker that doesn’t run aground,” said Lewis. “That could be a problem.”“She Condoleezza(is) going to be dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron across the globe — and you can’t recuse yourself from everything.” “It does underscore that there’s never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry — in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry,” said Chuck Lewis, who heads the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity,

Lewis said that while some have written off the Condoleezza Rice as a small and humorous footnote to the Bush administration, the danger exists that it could turn into more.

Posted by: Annie at August 25, 2005 01:34 PM

I recently returned from Iraq in January 2005 and can tell anyone first hand that we are not winning or securing anything in Iraq. I am a proud Army veteran and served in Operation Desert Storm as well but from my perspective we are not winning the war on terrorism. I was located on a Kurdish Military Traing Base (KMTB) in Iraq for 11 months and remember an entire graduating class of newly trained Iraqi police getting ambushed, stripped of there clothing and shot in the back of the head as they all layed face down on the ground. The untold story is not pretty. We train them and then they die.

Posted by: Neal at August 25, 2005 01:36 PM

Neal:

Thank you for your service and your insight!! It helps a lot to hear from you folks.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 25, 2005 01:45 PM

Annie, please, you don’t need to post the entire article. Just follow the “HTML Formatting Tips” and include a link. Thanks!

Neal, everytime I hear people say the best way to train these guys is by throwing them into combat, it makes me ill.

I blogged on the training here previously,

…by the end of last year there were only two Iraqi officers at the 20-week Infantry Officers’ Advanced Course at Fort Benning in Georgia and only one Iraqi officer was sent to the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas last year.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 02:01 PM

Let’s get a few things straight.

Bush will NEVER conceed this war. If we are getting out of Iraq, it won’t be during his watch although if another Republican replaces him, it might still happen because there ARE some who want us out of there.

Bush is the front runner on this thing; he started it, continues to support it, and has vowed not to leave until it is to his agenda (whatever that truely is).

Everyone who has a problem with that might as well get use to it.

Posted by: cnw at August 25, 2005 03:14 PM

Annie, you have too much time on your hands.

AP, Where are these large numbers of troops suppposed to come from. Aldous recruiting efforts are coming up a little short.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 25, 2005 03:30 PM

Aldous:

have said it once and I will never stop saying it…

We need more Republicans to volunteer to fight. There are 61,000,000 of them. Surely a few thousand won’t be missed? Bush and his Evangelical WingNuts must call for their Supperters to send their children!!! They have a Duty to fight the Terrorists over there so WE don’t fight them here. They must Spread Freedom and crush these deadenders in Iraq.

Maybe they are waiting for Pat Robertson to promise them Paradise and Virgins for their Lives? Worked for other Religious nuts…

So, the story has changed. Your promise…your word has officially been broken. I guess that puts you in the same boat as Bush…you lied.

You said you would stop if you got info from Republicans. Several have complied. You have not stopped and now you say you will never stop.

Just another liberal lieing, I guess. How do you like being compared to Bush, huh, Aldous?

You’ve dug your own grave. Your posts can never again be taken seriously, right Aldous?

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 25, 2005 03:33 PM

AP:

The whole thing has become a sham. Time for some leadership replacement. We can’t wait three years for Bush to leave. Start with Rumsfeld and work your way down.

The current leadership will stay the course. We can’t afford that…never could…either in terms of lives or dollars.

Selectively secure the borders, sweep the offenders into a corner and crush them militarily. If the Iraqis see us making the effort to actually rid them of the problem, and see our military finally being decisive, they may slowly start coming back around. That is, if, in the wake of the military action, we use them and their own resources to quickly and effectively rebuild infrastructure, businesses and jobs.

Then and only then, get the hell out.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 25, 2005 03:39 PM

Just another liberal lieing, I guess. How do you like being compared to Bush, huh, Aldous?

You’ve dug your own grave. Your posts can never again be taken seriously, right Aldous?

Wait a minute Chi Chi,
It’s only a lie if he knows the facts at the time he makes the statement. (Paraphrasing from previous discussions on if Bush lied. Maybe Aldous later changed his mind.

Yes, we can take Aldous’ posts seriously. Whew.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 25, 2005 03:45 PM

cnw,

I disagree.
If we can link the chain of evidence together that shows this administration sought to pursue the invasion of Iraq, using invented and not faulty intelligence, and that this administration has made every effort to cover the facts, we have grounds for impeachment. He is losing support from both parties and will be seen as a pariah by most of the Republicans running for office. The Republicans may have been towing the party line up to this point but most of them along with the Democrats would sell their own mothers out to gain re-election.
We could get rid of this administration and end the occupation of Iraq. We could then with the help of the U.N. and other Middle Eastern nations help to bring all of Iraqs leaders and factions together.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 25, 2005 03:48 PM

Ms Schwamp:

Wait a minute Chi Chi, It’s only a lie if he knows the facts at the time he makes the statement. (Paraphrasing from previous discussions on if Bush lied. Maybe Aldous later changed his mind.

Yes, we can take Aldous’ posts seriously. Whew.

Yeah, right. I think we need Aldous to enlist. He is the most committed person I know… or at least should be based on his posts.

Your posts declare that we must stay in Iraq. Well, put your money where your mouth is, chief. Sign the dotted line. You are advocating the death of many without paying the price yourself. It might be a “Republican War”, but you sure are on the bandwagon. You have talked the talk, can you walk the walk?

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 25, 2005 03:54 PM

Who knows who it is that attacked the police? Somebody knows who it was. Can anybody tell me who knows? Is it some general who knows? Maybe somebody on this site knows? Maybe Iraqi citizens in certain parts of the country know.

The most important objective of the Iraqi people is….

STOP PEOPLE FROM ATTACKING THE POLICE AND WINNING.

Posted by: Darrius at August 25, 2005 04:15 PM

“Where’s the strategy, Mr. President? Winning a war requires one, yet all you can do is state the same, tired lines.”

Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 25, 2005 01:10 PM

Good point Mister Magoo, But do you actually think that Bushco has any plans here of strategy?

He’ll turn this over to The Democrat Elected in 08. Just like Daddy (Emporer George I) Did to Clinton with Somalia, in 1993. Commited troops
but then let someone else deal with them. To be fair Clinton did the Same To Emporer George II, Yes In Bosnia-Herzegovina…And (Since 15 December 1995 has ANY US SERVICEMEMBER EVER DIED AS A RESULT OF DIRECT ENEMY ACTION IN BOSNIA? I am not asking about Kosavo. But I am pretty sure that the Only Deaths Directly related to enemy engagement Occured in Kosavo resulted from action in the first 6 or 8 weeks. I may be wrong However, So I won’t state that Emphatically. My Point is this, Please do not leave or allow our young men and women Servicemembers to be fed this shit sandwich for too much longer.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at August 25, 2005 04:40 PM

I posted part of this in the thread under David’s “More Bush Non-Sense” article, but it applies here, too:

At this point, they simply don’t seem capable of pulling off any sort of a win in Iraq — in fact, what they’re still advocating, i.e. “staying the course”, is sure to make things much worse for our troops there.
Good heavens, hasn’t become obvious yet — they don’t have the ABILITY to change course. There has never been, and there isn’t going to be, a Plan B!!! Hell, there wasn’t much of a Plan A, was there? Look at everything they’ve done — both in Afghanistan and Iraq — do our leaders appear to be smart, shrewd military tacticians to you guys?

I’m not advocating a pull out because I’m just a stereotypical anti-war type person. I realize that had they waged this war differently, things might have worked out for the better in Iraq. I also know that Saddam was a monster to his people, and that he was someone the entire world community needed to deal with at some point. But surely we can agree that save for “shock and awe”, nothing about how they’ve waged war has been done wisely or effectively?
As hard as it may be to face, as much of our blood as has been spilled, as much of our money as has been spent, as much as the middle east has been destabilized, does anyone honestly believe that with these people in charge, U.S. military miracles are still just around the corner?

AP:
“Secure Iraq. Seriously.”

Let’s face it, they blew all chance of that a long time ago.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 25, 2005 05:04 PM

America Pundit
Well written,lucid but I respectfully disagree.
Until mid 1943,the Japanese beat the hell out of us.
During this time,the Nazis were bombing the hell out of the Brits.
The situation seemed grim.
Churchill gave his speech,the American army and Navy re-tooled and island by island we took back what we gave.
During that time guys like Charles Lindburgh and Joe Kennedy were screaming for the USA to sue for peace and preaching the isolationist postition far and wide.
As the Nazis drove into Russia(who took 20,000,000 million!! casualities)and St. Petersburg was on the cusp of falling,none of the allies lost hope.
They were resolute and determined and most importantly had the will to succeed.
I ofter wonder what would happen if the other 59,000,000 democrats joined forces with the 61,000,000 republicians and sent a unified message to the world.
Of course this will never happen,but really,if the insurrency died tomorrow and every Iqaqi converted to Christianity,with two weeks there would be different kinds of arrows shot at the Administration.
I ask you,seriously now:Al Gore responding to Sept 11th?C’mon…..John Kerry inspiring America…C’mon…..
In three year or so,John McCain will be president,and in a matter of weeks more boots will indeed be on the ground.At that point,of course,the liberal democrats will take the opposite view.
How about one post from a Dem…just one…of encouragement and solidarity.Last I checked we are all in this together.Maybe.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 25, 2005 05:25 PM

Dear Ms Schwamp or whatever-I work 40 hours a week and sometimes 7 days a week. I keep myself informed and care very much for our soldiers - our future. Too much time on my hands? Sorry I don’t keep my head up my ass and believe the lies.

Posted by: Annie at August 25, 2005 06:00 PM

Sic Eagle:
“Until mid 1943,the Japanese beat the hell out of us.
During this time,the Nazis were bombing the hell out of the Brits.
The situation seemed grim.
Churchill gave his speech,the American army and Navy re-tooled and island by island we took back what we gave.”

Oh Look!
‘COMPARING WWII AND THE IRAQ WAR?’

“They were resolute and determined and most importantly had the will to succeed.”

Yeah, and what do you know — in those days, the Democrats were in charge of things, too. ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 25, 2005 06:38 PM

Shiite Cleric’s Soldiers Battle Rivals in Najaf and Basra
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/international/middleeast/25iraq.html?th&emc=th&oref=login

Sunnis on Constitution Panel: Determined but Impugned
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: August 25, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/international/middleeast/25sunnis.html

“My friends tell me to quit smoking,” Mr. Mutlak said in a rare moment of rest between negotiating sessions. “But I could walk outside and be killed.” And he laughed.
Saleh Mutlak is a Sunni whom American officials insisted on adding to the drafting committee.
Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 24, 2005
The complete text of the draft Iraqi Constitution, as translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/international/middleeast/24wire-itex.html

Article (5): The law is sovereign, the people are the source of authority and its legitimacy, which they exercise through direct, secret ballot and its constitutional institutions.

WHERE YOU CAN START TO FIND THE REAL TRUTH (Dems call it “reality)

http://www.network54.com/Forum/200436

Kosovo is not going to be independent, but that’s not the problem. What worries me is what the **** are we going to do with Albanians? Feed them, give them our jobs, our passports, let them use our priviledges? Bosnia has already accepted Kosovo ID’s and put visa on it so they can’t travel to Bosnia. Should they have right to get Serbian papers to go there?
I don’t think so. They are drug-smuglers, sell their friends and sisters in prostitution, biggest asylum seekers. Serbs aren’t going to put a single euro on Kosovo anymore.
You are callins us Serbs “beastial”?
and what the **** are you?

Dirty, Stinky Turks. U didnt hear for spoon, for shampoo.
Go wash your self then talk something about us.

TURCINE..NAPUSIS SE… DICKCINE!
… chasing fictional Osamas in mountain caves at fantastic expense, American bombs would strike civilian targets in the most obvious of places; only European journos would show up to cover those horrifying scenes… What is redundant is BUSH…piss on one for me.

Posted by: Annie at August 25, 2005 06:55 PM

AP,
We’re no longer part of the solution in Iraq. We’re part of the problem. It’s time to begin drawing down the troops.

I’ve heard many advocate adding US troops. Sounds great- but we both know increasing the US Army & Marines by 100,000 over the next five years won’t come anywhere near addressing the situation in Iraq.

Reminds me of a joke:

Little Johnny: “I want chocolate ice cream!”
Dad: “We don’t have any. Would you like some vanilla?”
Little Johnny: “I want chocalate ice cream!”
Dad: “I said, we don’t have any. How about a cookie?”
Little Johnny: “I want chocalate ice cream!”
Dad: “Johnny! Look. How many letter r’s are there in ‘football?”
Little Johnny: “There ain’t no r’s in ‘football.’”
Dad: “And how many m’s are there in ‘baseball?’”
Little Johnny: “There ain’t no m’s in ‘baseball.’”
Dad: “And how many f***s are there in chocolate?”
Little Johnny: “There ain’t no f***s in chocolate.”
Dad: “That’s what I’m trying to tell you. There no f***in chocolate.”

And there aren’t enough troops to secure Iraq, nor will there be enough anytime in the near future.

No other country will provide enough troops to make a difference.

And Iraq is already in chaos, and it’s already a king hell training ground for terrorists.

Partition the country, draw down troops, and see if a huge bucket of freezing cold water doesn’t bring the Sunnis around.

Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2005 07:49 PM

Chi Chi:

Several? Several, my ass!!! The only Republican who gave me their Email is you and you’re too old. You knew that didn’t you? Nothing like using legal doubletalk to escape!!! Shouldn’t surprise me considering how many Republicans avoided service in Vietnam. Typical.

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 08:34 PM

PRESIDENT; And that is why, for the sake our children and our grandchildren, the terrorists will be defeated. (Applause.)

Yet, the administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq?directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq?a COUNTRY

that was not a serious menace before invasion.
PRESIDENT; And that is why, for the sake our children and our grandchildren, the terrorists will be defeated. (Applause.)

Yet, the administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq?directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq?a COUNTRY

that was not a serious menace before invasion.
The White House still refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing, and instead resorts to the classic two-step feint, citing sources but conveniently refusing to acknowledge those sources ? critical faults. For instance, Cheney began pointing reporters to an article in the right-wing Weekly Standard as the ? best source ? of evidence backing the Saddam-al Qaeda claim, even though the Pentagon had previously discredited the story.

Conclusion: They knew they were misleading America

This just can’t be stressed enough.

There is no one to blame but Bush. There is no “we” …in corruption.
Our troops are doing their job. We are proud of them.
They are in a tangled web of deception.

Posted by: Annie at August 25, 2005 08:55 PM

What job are the troops doing?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 25, 2005 09:40 PM

—-
What job are the troops doing?
—-
Treading water… basically.

Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 09:44 PM

How come there havn’t been any prominant democrats visiting with C. Sheehan in Texas?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 25, 2005 10:00 PM

Perplexed,
I suspect the mainstream, prominent Democratss refuse to associate themselves with any discussion of Iraq because they do not want to be painted as weak on defense. Instead, they’re being relatively quiet, or calling for more troops.

In terms of pure politics, that might be smart. The mainstream, prominent Democrats are letting the Bush administration hang itself in Iraq.

That might be smart politics, but it surely serves the country poorly. Only leftist liberals (like me) and pacifists will call the situation for what it is- a big mess, developing into an even bigger mess before our very eyes, one that demands we disengage.

As approval polls indicate, most people suspect we’re in trouble, and they suspect ‘staying the course’ is a very bad idea. But right at the moment, no prominent mainstream politician will articulate a position which advocates partition, withdrawal, and large scale international intervention.

It leaves us in the position of spectators, watching a slow motion bus crash, unable to prevent the increasingly horrible chain reactions.

Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2005 10:19 PM

“That might be smart politics, but it surely serves the country poorly…As approval polls indicate, most people suspect we’re in trouble, and they suspect ‘staying the course’ is a very bad idea. But right at the moment, no prominent mainstream politician will articulate a position which advocates partition, withdrawal, and large scale international intervention.”

So, what you are saying is that the democrats are lying about their true feelings for the purpose of re-election?

I know the left is poll driven, but what I don’t understand is if the polls show so many against the war, why aren’t the demodratic politicians jumping on the band wagon?

There is a good article at realclearpolitics.com about “The Hillary Train Wreck”.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 25, 2005 10:38 PM

Perplexed:

Its really quite simple. Most Democratic Politicians of Congressmen level and above are required to understand World Politics as part of their jobs. Now that we are in Iraq, they know pulling out would be a mistake.

Cindy Sheehan wants a pullout NOW regardless of the aftermath. Because of this, the highest ranking Democratic Politician who would see her are Congressmen and below. No Senator or senior Congressman would ever be so stupid to voice a withdrawal immediately because they know the damage it would do to our allies and the world.

World Geo-Politics. Cute, eh?

Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 11:19 PM

Perp,
The liberal democrats & independents- the ones who voted against Iraq in Congress, the people who protested by the millions in huge demonstrations, they have been opposed to Iraq from the beginning.

The centrist, mainstream, prominent democrats- and I would include Hillary & Kerry in this group- are not lying. For example, I believe Kerry meant what he said about Iraq in his campaign. But rather than lie, or say anything whatsoever, they’ll simply play it safe, ‘support the troops,’ and let the Bush administration crash & burn.

In a way, it’s understandable. The Republican attack machine has trained the Democrats well, and the Dems learned this tactic from the Bush Social Security stupidity. The Bush administration will be desperate to blame this Iraq debacle on someone, anyone. They’re casting about for a scapegoat, anything to deflect blame from this fiasco, and while Cindy Sheehan may provide a convenient target, she’s merely a focal point, a target of convenience & opportunity, and certainly not a political heavyweight.

So I suspect most Democrats will hold their peace, and resist the urge to drive the peace bandwagon.

Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2005 11:24 PM

The thing is, it’s a losing war we’re fighting. The way we first went about it was just breathtakingly stupid. We went in, and we disbanded their military. Thus rendering jobless 90% of the population (vaguely). Also, whenever there is a president in Iraq, to be blunt, he will be assasinated by the extremists. And we cannot beat the extremists, because when we try to kill lthe extremists, more people come and fight us to undo what is seen by many as a grievous wrong. The way to win this war is for both sides to see eachother as people. Not targets. Not terrorists. Not racists, or heartless killers, just people. Who have lives, and family, and play sports, eat food, take care of children. Instead, we think of eachother as heartless killers, who are out to get us. Misunderstanding and lies are at the roots of this war.

Posted by: John at August 25, 2005 11:36 PM

Sic Eagle,

“Churchill gave his speech,the American army and Navy re-tooled and island by island we took back what we gave.”

No offence meant to those that gave their lives at Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese made a huge mistake when they took out the Pacific fleet. The result was that we had to build a modern navy to replace the WW1 vintage ships that were destroyed. If they had not destroyed those ships, we probably would have defeated the Japanese, but not quite so quickly.

“In three year or so,John McCain will be president,and in a matter of weeks more boots will indeed be on the ground.At that point,of course,the liberal democrats will take the opposite view.”

Yep in a matter of weeks (October actually), the boots will be on the ground. A grand total of 1,500 new troops will be sent in to “protect” the process.

I’ll bet those insurgents are just quaking in their boots in the face of those overwhelming new odds.

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 01:57 AM

Let’s get a few things straight. Bush will NEVER conceed this war… Everyone who has a problem with that might as well get use to it.

cnw, President Bush WILL conceed this war. Preparations are being made right now to withdraw significant numbers of troops within 12 months, despite the fact that Iraqi security forces can’t handle the insurgency by themselves,

“We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the … coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward,” said Maj Gen Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command.

I (and Congressionsl Democrats) have a better idea for breaking the dependence. Train them to the standard of US troops, so they can operate independently.

And in the meantime, commit more US troops to a sustained campaign to secure Iraq. If we draw down while the insurgency is still going, the terrorists win.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 02:40 AM

AP,

Could we be not training them to our standards with the fear we may have to go back and fight them again?

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 02:57 AM

How about one post from a Dem…just one…of encouragement and solidarity.

Sic Eagle, how about a post from Republicans acknowledging that, without a sustained commitment of far more troops in Iraq than we have now, al Qaeda will continue to recruit and train thousands of new terrorists there?

How about, instead of lame excuses and vitriolic scapegoating, a plan for victory against the al Qaeda groups training new terrorists in Iraq? Hunkering down in the Green Zone until the Iraqis kick us out isn’t victory.

And there aren’t enough troops to secure Iraq, nor will there be enough anytime in the near future.

phx8, there absolutely ARE enough US troops to secure Iraq, and Democrats introduced legislation to increase our military by 20,000 troops every year for 5 years.

And your political analysis is absolutely wrong. Despite the fact that Democrats thought this was the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, we’re there now, and we need to win.

President Bush made Iraq a frontline in the war on terror, and now he’s retreating. Democrats are the only group stating the obvious: there are not enough troops in Iraq to secure the country.

How come there havn’t been any prominant democrats visiting with C. Sheehan in Texas?

perplexed, it’s because the vast majority of Democrats and their constituents do not believe pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is secure Iraq, and we’re not going to do that by following President Bush’s plan to draw down troops as the insurgency gains strength and al Qaeda continues to train and operate in Iraq.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 03:00 AM

I just read in the paper today that the CENTCOM commander is preparing to significantly draw down troops within the next 12 months, yet President Bush is declaring that “So long as I am president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism.”

Last month Gen. Casey said we were going to draw down our troops next year, and President Bush brushed it off as “rumors”.

What the hell is going on? Are we in the middle of a military coup?

Is the military pulling out troops in defiance of President Bush’s commands? Or is Bush just spouting hawkish BS for the masses, as he prepares for defeat and retreat in Iraq?

BTW, the CENTOM director of operations, Maj Gen Douglas Lute, gives you a really good idea of why the behind-the-lines generals aren’t calling for more troops:

“If a year from now I’ve got to call on all those army troops that Gen Schoomaker is prepared to provide, I won’t feel real good about myself,” he said.

I didn’t realize the operation in Iraq was designed to create a warm fuzzy in our officer corps. Just like whoever is dismissing requests for more troops by the commanders on the ground, this guy is obviously putting his career ahead of the operation. Call on those troops now. Keep them there until the country is secure.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 03:35 AM

Could we be not training them to our standards with the fear we may have to go back and fight them again?

That would be pretty crappy, wouldn’t it? But no, I doubt it.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 03:40 AM

Pundit
Obviously my comments concerned post-Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor servred then as our Sept 11th.
Looking at S13 again,4,000 special ops as the Dems propose won’t do the trick there.
Rocky slammed me about the 1500 from the 82nd being dispached there…4000 (over time) works out to that same amount.
I listened to Bush carefully last night.
Iraq is now the arenea for the world fight against.
He couldn’t be clearer.
Dead Sunnis ,Syrians,Sudenese,Chechknians,Palestinians,Egyptians now join Iraqii terrorists in body bags.
He said that dissent at home sends the wrong message to our troops and the enemy.
Vietnam clearly established that principle.
He’s being mollified (for the 10,000th time) for trying to keep the wheels on the cart until the Iqauis stand.
Surely you must agree that despite hoffific sacrifices made by our brave troops that progress has been make since one year ago today(election….constitution…Fallugha…growth in Iraqui defense forces (however feeble you think they are better than one year ago…hospitals,schools,infrastructure being rebuilt(no,they are not all being blown up as fast as we built them…..vast areas have been rebuilt..c’mon….),oil is being shipped(not every pipeline has been blown up either…c’mon)
Again,I’d rather have the fight here than there…..so would you.
This thing on the constitution will pass.In three weeks the Sunnis will be on board.
Problem is that you are trying to use clear logicial Western thought in your analysis of their actions and reactions when you should be repeating Sun Tzu’s mantra of “To defeat the enemy you must become him”.
Once we understand how their thought process operates(and here,singularily is our Achilles heal…we flat out can’t at this point….lack of translators….lack of American-Arabs stepping to the plate..),things will improve and quickly.
Recall the Second World War again.Things turned for us when we began understanding Nazi troop movements by intellegence intercepts….the Brits cracked their code.
Here in the states,exactly 2 Univercities offer advanced Arab studies.That is pathetic.
Every community college should be teaching basic farsi,and arab dialects to our younger generation.
The enemy is fluent in English…we are not in theirs.
Every try to assemble a bike when the directions are in Chinese?
Same principle.
Guys like you and me (well,at least me..an oldtimer in his mid-fifties) can contribute to the effort by encouraging (or learning ourselves) the arab and persian ways .
Didn’t see that as part of S13’s “comprehensive” plan to fight terror.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 26, 2005 07:53 AM

Aldous:

Your liberal short memory is showing. I saw at least 4 who gave their info. Better check again. Either way, you asked for just one without any stipulations. You got more than you asked for. Regardless, your word has been irrevocably broken and has been rendered worthless.

By the way, since you have been cheerleading so much to stay in Iraq and fight, risking the lives of so many, maybe you should enlist. Otherwise, you are guilty of the same hypocracy you accuse Repubs of, right Aldous? Put your money where your mouth is. Or shut your mouth.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 26, 2005 08:49 AM

Chi Chi:

4, eh? I don’t suppose you could post their data again?

In any case, the fact the you KNEW you were ineligible makes you guilty of deception and dishonesty. Am I supposed to post a breakdown of the minimum requirements for enlistments now? Heh.

Anyway… Since you are willing… Can I have the Names and Emails of any of your relatives under 39, healthy, whole and without mental problems?

Posted by: Aldous at August 26, 2005 10:47 AM

Aldous said: “Its really quite simple. Most Democratic Politicians of Congressmen level and above are required to understand World Politics as part of their jobs. Now that we are in Iraq, they know pulling out would be a mistake.”

You are admitting that Congressmen & above know more about the moves & motives behind the scenes than the common American does?

C. Sheehan not only wants to pull out of Iraq, but also Afghanistan. It turns out that she has been a liberal activist for much longer than the time her son was killed. She has admitted this.

You also said, “ No Senator or senior Congressman would ever be so stupid to voice a withdrawal immediately because they know the damage it would do to our allies and the world.”

This statement is illogical, because of the fact democrats do not care about the damage done between the US and allies. They want to see relationships hurt because it gives them ammunition for future elections. Phx8 phrases the feelings of the left best by saying, “let the Bush administration crash & burn.” So to say that democrats avoid Sheehan or any other anti-war group for anything less than political motives is not true.

Continuing along that line, we have a statement from phx8, “The centrist, mainstream, prominent democrats- and I would include Hillary & Kerry in this group- are not lying. For example, I believe Kerry meant what he said about Iraq in his campaign. But rather than lie, or say anything whatsoever, they’ll simply play it safe, ‘support the troops,’

We have a great hypocrisy on the left. If the president, his cabinet, & the congressional republicans are required to speak out against the words of Robertson, then why aren’t the democrats held to the same standard to speak out against Sheehan, & the “Pink Squad” at Walter Reed Hospital. Not to mention things said by M. Moore, Dean, & even members of congress. The protests at Walter Reed are a protest against the wounded soldiers & their families. It is worse than discustng & yet the left is silent. You say you support the troops & yet allow this typeof thing to go on unanswered.

Phx8 said, “The Bush administration will be desperate to blame this Iraq debacle on someone, anyone.”

Can you tell me whom he has blamed concerning Iraq? I have heard him say on several occasions that he sent the troops & why he sent them. The president has not changed his speech & he has not flip-flopped.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 10:52 AM

—-
This statement is illogical, because of the fact democrats do not care about the damage done between the US and allies.
—-
This is a bunch of crap (message, not the messenger.) I find it wholeheartedly debase of any substance for further discussion. If your only ammo is being anti-DEM, then you will be ignored.

Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 10:59 AM

It amazes me how the left can pull one sentence out of several paragraphs & ignore answering anything else. You can ignore this all you want, but can you honestly tell me that democrats are concerned about how republicans maintain a relationship with the rest of the world? A report the other day said that democrats “hoped the gas prices would remain high until the next election”. Can you explain this statement or is it “a bunch of crap” & “debase of substance for further discussion”?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 11:11 AM

Iraq is now the arenea for the world fight against. He couldn’t be clearer.

Eagle, he talks a good game, but where are the troops to back it up? Obviously there aren’t enough troops on the ground to secure Iraq, and yet he’s drawing them down.

And the special ops troops are for going after al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan, not doing security duty for the constitutional referendum in Iraq like elements of the 82nd.

He said that dissent at home sends the wrong message to our troops and the enemy. Vietnam clearly established that principle.

Oh, no. Vietnam clearly established the principle that you can’t say we’re winning when we’re obviously not winning. The best analysis I ever heard about the media and Vietnam is in Col. Thomas X. Hammes’ book, “The Sling and the Stone”.

Surely you must agree that despite hoffific sacrifices made by our brave troops that progress has been make since one year ago today

No. I don’t. And according to the GAO, the reconstruction is failing. And the root cause is lack of security.

Again,I’d rather have the fight here than there…..so would you.

You got that backwards, but I know what you mean - and it’s BS. Tell it to the families of the dead in London, Egypt, Spain, Indonesia, Russia, and tell it to the US Navy who just pulled two ships out of Jordan because they were fired on by Iraqi-trained al Qaeda operatives.

Here in the states,exactly 2 Univercities offer advanced Arab studies.That is pathetic.

We agree on that, at least. S.12 (not S.13) has a program for increasing the number of translators. Here’s the actual text of the bill.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 11:15 AM

Aldous:

Chi Chi:

4, eh? I don’t suppose you could post their data again?

In any case, the fact the you KNEW you were ineligible makes you guilty of deception and dishonesty. Am I supposed to post a breakdown of the minimum requirements for enlistments now? Heh.

Anyway… Since you are willing… Can I have the Names and Emails of any of your relatives under 39, healthy, whole and without mental problems?

Obivously, you only pay attention when it benefits your message. The fact that you conveniently “missed” the info does not negate it. Since minimum requirements have changed, yes, a list would have been nice. I deceived no one. I’ll leave that to you and your ilk.

So now you want more names. Please send me your direct e-mail address, and I will gladly oblige. Then I expect your uninformed, immature posts to stop.

By the way, as you have become such a cheerleader to stay in Iraq, why don’t you enlist? Or, how many of your relatives have you sent to recruiters? Advocating the continuation of our work in Iraq without paying the price yourself puts you in the same hypocritical group you claim to be rambling on about. How about it, Aldous? Put your money where your mouth is.

Send your e-mail address to richlowe62@yahoo.com.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 26, 2005 11:17 AM

—-
You can ignore this all you want, but can you honestly tell me that democrats are concerned about how republicans maintain a relationship with the rest of the world? A report the other day said that democrats “hoped the gas prices would remain high until the next election”. Can you explain this statement or is it “a bunch of crap” & “debase of substance for further discussion”?
—-

“A report” said that “democrats”: Oh - come on! Do you have a link to ‘that report’? I think my first assumption was correct… more of the same…

Also - you added ‘how republicans maintain’ to the initial quote —-
“You also said, “ No Senator or senior Congressman would ever be so stupid to voice a withdrawal immediately because they know the damage it would do to our allies and the world.”

This statement is illogical, because of the fact democrats do not care about the damage done between the US and allies. They want to see relationships hurt because it gives them ammunition for future elections.”
—-

1 - this first post is meaningless and debase…

2 - Republicans have destroyed almost all relationships with foreign countries… and Democrats have been trying to prevent that at every stage of the game.

Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 11:19 AM

This statement is illogical, because of the fact democrats do not care about the damage done between the US and allies.

perplexed, you just went off the deep end with that. It’s complete BS. And phx8 is wrong.

A report the other day said that democrats ?hoped the gas prices would remain high until the next election?

Could you source that quote? I just googled it and nothing came up. I’m not going to comment on something you apparently just made up.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 11:21 AM

Perp,
There is such a thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ And when it comes to politics, our first loyalty is to the country, not a party. We can respect the Presidency without necessarily agreeing with the policies of the person temporarily occupying the office. We can obey lawful orders from the CINC without necessarily believing they are the right decisions.

No one, regardless of political persuasion, wants to see us lose in Iraq. No one wants to see another recession so soon.

But that’s where the Bush administration policies are leading us. And anyone prominent, mainstream politician who opposes those policies will be smeared.

“Can you tell me whom he has blamed concerning Iraq?”

The CIA. Blame has been on bad intelligence. To date there has been no congressional investigation whatsoever of the political uses of that intelligence.

Remember that hilarious moment of revenge, when Tenet announced Chalabi was an Iranian spy? Priceless.

Wonder why the Plame case is being prosecuted so vigorously?

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2005 11:54 AM

Chi Chi:

Translation: There were no 4 names. There was just old you… No relatives, eh? Can’t say I blame you. Its different when you post someone qualified to enlist. Guy might just say yes when the Recruiter comes acalling.

BTW… I have taken your advice and from now on will add the Recruiting Standards needed to enlist. Wouldn’t want an army of 70 year old Republicans wasting my time.

Thanks.

Posted by: Aldous at August 26, 2005 01:18 PM

Tony & AP:

The title of the article is: “Democrats want Republicans to pay for high gas prices”

The opening statement is:
“WASHINGTON - Americans are mad as heck about soaring gas prices, and Democrats hope they’ll take it out on the Republicans who control the federal government in next year’s midterm elections.”

The web address is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050818/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_gasprice_politics_wa

I asked phx8 who the president had blamed & he said the CIA. He may have blamed the CIA or another agency for faulty intelligence, but he has never said his only reason for going to Iraq was intelligence. This has been discussed time & time again & there is no reason to cover it. I have never heard the president blame anyone else for our attack on Iraq. If you know, quote it to me with links.

To say “I respect the presidency” & yet hate the president is like saying “I support the troops, but am against the war”. It’s not possible. If you support the troops, then you support what they are doing, because they were sent there to do a job & the overwhelming majority of our troops know what you do not know & that is what their job is. If you say, as the “pinkos” in Washington, that the war is useless, that they are fighting for nothing, that they are killing innocent civilians, then you are saying their job is useless. If you are against their work, then you are against them.

I heard yesterday that reenlistments are up. That means troops are reenlisting to stay in the fight.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 01:33 PM

You have never answered my question: if the president is required to condem Pat Robertson for what he said, why aren’t democrats required to condem Sheehan or the “pinks” for the trash they say? Considering the fact (as you say) the democratic congress is in favor of finishing the job in Iraq & they support the troops. How about an answer?

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 01:40 PM

Perplexed,

Do you think the unprecedented cash bonuses that have been handed out for reenlistment have anything to do with those numbers? They range from $1000 to $150,000, with an average of $10,000.

Posted by: Burt at August 26, 2005 01:41 PM

Burt:

When I was discharged from the military in 1970, my VRB (variable reenlistment bonus) was $10,000.00. The same as the average today, by your info. It played a part with some servicemen, but not many. As you know, Vietnam was not a popular war & most of us justed wanted to go home. I sure that some troops today are influenced by the money, but I believe most are influenced by patriotism. They are part of history, they are freeing a nation & could possibly play a part in the restructure of the middle east. I know you find this hard to believe, but the mindset of the left in in a minority.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 01:50 PM

I don’t judge my own thoughts and convictions whether they are in the majority or not, although most recent polls indicate that they currently are.

Posted by: Burt at August 26, 2005 02:08 PM

—-
if the president is required to condem Pat Robertson for what he said, why aren’t democrats required to condem Sheehan or the “pinks” for the trash they say?
—-

Because one is inciting violence the other is political speech. Just because someone says something you do not like does not mean it equates to suggesting someone be assassinated.

Try to step away from the politics for one second and look at what Robertson has given to the people recruiting terrorist.

Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 02:08 PM

and by the way
“A report the other day said that democrats “hoped the gas prices would remain high until the next election”

You completely misrepresented the article. It states that the Democrats are upset that the Bush administration is doing nothing to combat high fuel costs, and they hope the voters remember that next election.

Also - the text you quoted is not in that article.

Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 02:13 PM

Aldous:

Too Lazy to look, eh?

Your liberal laziness is not my doing. And, as I said, but will repeat for your liberal benefit, send me your e-mail address and I will gladly send you e-mails of my children, a couple of whom are already thinking of enlisting, unlike you apparently, and other relatives who would be glad to hear from recruiters—all of them qualified to serve.

Now, if you can muster the strength to send me your e-mail, this whole thing should end, including your immature, uninformed posts. But you still have not commented on your own enlistment. Hmmmmmm…..what does that say?

Again, my e-mail address is richlowe62@yahoo.com.

Got it?

By the way, I’m 43—not 70. And, unlike you, would be glad to serve my country, and have in the US Air Force from 1982 to 1986.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 26, 2005 02:24 PM

Sic Eagle,

Again,I’d rather have the fight here than there…..so would you.”

Unless we can see this as a global fight, what are we doing?

“This thing on the constitution will pass.In three weeks the Sunnis will be on board.”

I hope you aren’t holding your breath on this one.

“Problem is that you are trying to use clear logicial Western thought in your analysis of their actions and reactions when you should be repeating Sun Tzu’s mantra of “To defeat the enemy you must become him”.”

America, especialy it’s military leaders, doesn’t seem to have a grasp of history at all. This was proven in VietNam and it is being proven again in Iraq.
We have already fought a war where we were the guerilla fighters against an opponent that had overwhelming odds in their favor. We won that war. The tactics of Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys were brilliant. Those that we fought in Viet Nam used the same tactics against us and those that we are fighting in Iraq are using them again, successfully I might add.
You cannot train for the deserts of Iraq in North Carolina. Likewise you cannot fight guerilla fighters with Apache helicopters and F-15s.

AP in another post stated that we had one of the largest standing armies on the planet.

Where are they?

I hate to repeat myself, but Bush1.0 used 500,000 troops to push Saddam out of a country smaller than New Jersey, Bush2.0 sent barely 1/3 that many to take over a whole country the size of California.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Sun Tzu’s philosophy may have been to know his enemy, I’ll take overwhelming odds on the ground every time

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 02:26 PM

So, you will not answer the question. Let me answer for you. The democrats are playing politics. They are allowing outside fringe radical groups to get their message to the populace & at the same time wiping their hands clean of the situation. When the “polls” (remember dems are poll driven) show the american people listening to the radical groups, then the democratic politicians will join the bandwagon. The problem is, as was said by someone on your side, it would be political suicide.

I just heard on the radio (about 5 minutes ago) that the largest protesting group at “camp cindy” is a pro-palestinian group calling for Israel to get out of Palestine. It was also said that this group funds terrorists groups in Israel.

Come on people, isn’t there anyone who would condem this type of protesting in the presidents front yard.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 02:33 PM

Perplexed,

“Come on people, isn’t there anyone who would condem this type of protesting in the presidents front yard.”

What’s your point?

Weren’t you saying that Robertson had the right to say anything he wanted to?

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 02:39 PM

Rocky:

It was not military leaders calling the shots in Vietnam. It was politicians (President Johnson)& if the military leaders had been in charge, the outcome may have been different.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 02:40 PM

Rocky:

Yes, I gave him freedom of speach. But it was your side that called for condemnation by republican leaders. I merely say, if our leaders should condemn, then yours should condemn too.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 02:44 PM

Perplexed,

“It was not military leaders calling the shots in Vietnam. It was politicians (President Johnson)& if the military leaders had been in charge, the outcome may have been different.”

You’re wrong.

We lost in VietNam because appearances were more important than results. Because our forces were trained to fight in Eastern Europe, not VietNam, the result was their tactics were better than our technology.

“Yes, I gave him freedom of speach. But it was your side that called for condemnation by republican leaders. I merely say, if our leaders should condemn, then yours should condemn too.”

Unlike those that kowtow to a party, I prefer to actually think for myself, do my own research and make up my own mind. I don’t just spout some bullshit party retoric. I don’t take sides, I like to call a spade a spade.

While Cindy Sheehan’s public grief may be foolish, but she is within her rights as a mother and a citizen of this country to do as she is doing.

Mr. Robertson on the other hand is a public figure in this country that is broadcast world wide. His message of hate affects the world’s perception of the United States. This is not the first time he has done this, it is also not the first time that he lied, boldfaced, during his retraction/apology (?).

This moron has the ear of those in power in this country.

That scares the beejeezus out of me.

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 03:33 PM

Perp,
“The democrats are playing politics. They are allowing outside fringe radical groups to get their message to the populace & at the same time wiping their hands clean of the situation. When the “polls” (remember dems are poll driven) show the american people listening to the radical groups, then the democratic politicians will join the bandwagon.”

Pardon my hardened cynicism, but I’ve noticed politicians- now, brace yourself- often play politics. Yes! I must insist, it’s true.

Hopefully you’re sitting down for this next part, because- are you ready?- both Democrats and Republicans play politics.

And I may have to shout to make myself heard over the hysterical shouting, but both Republicans & Democrats… use polls! Polls! Polls! There, I said it. And they use focus groups, too. They rehearse town hall meetings. They measure how words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘9/11’ resonate in a speech, and repeat such words simply to create a positive response.

As for protestors- doesn’t matter how abnoxious or objectionable their point of view may be, US citizens have the right to assembly & to make views known.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2005 03:48 PM

Rocky:

We lost in VietNam because appearances were more important than results. Because our forces were trained to fight in Eastern Europe, not VietNam, the result was their tactics were better than our technology.

Exactly. Perhaps AP could link to his article on 4th Generation Warfare. My system is on the fritz. 4GW fits this to a tee.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 26, 2005 04:00 PM

Come on people, isn’t there anyone who would condem this type of protesting in the presidents front yard.

Maybe the President should get out of that scrub-filled piece of land and get back to the White House and get to work.

Posted by: jackie at August 26, 2005 04:08 PM

More Vietnam than Vietnam

I will admit to leaning toward AP’s well-reasoned and well-sourced arguments, but I also sympathize with the point of view of phx8, who writes, “Only leftist liberals (like me) and pacifists will call the situation for what it is - a big mess, developing into an even bigger mess before our very eyes, one that demands we disengage.”

All honestly, I think it’s too soon to disengage. Today, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers said, “You talk about instability. It would be instant instability in that region, in Saudi Arabia, on down the Gulf states, perhaps Iran, Syria, Turkey.” Then he said, “Just economically, it would be instability of the sort that would affect the globe, and then they would keep pressing on, they would continue their movement and it would involve, in my view it would involve terrorist incidents certainly that would expand.”

This sounds suspiciously like the old domino theory that was used to keep us in Vietnam so long, but that theory turned out to be wrong. The same may be true of Myers’ scenario. Still, I think there’s considerable evidence to suggest he’s right. And today the stakes are a lot higher than simply losing Southeast Asia to Communism.

That is, the stakes are not just political (do we really care if the Arabs create a caliphate?) but obviously economic (the oil in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) and military (religious zealots with virtually endless of oil money to spend on weaponry).

The truth is, the utter and nearly traitorous stupidity of blundering into this war is almost beyond argument at this point, however much some may strain. But this simply isn’t a war we can walk away from. It is, in many ways, more like Vietnam than Vietnam itself. That war felt like a quagmire but wasn’t. This is a true quagmire.

It reminds me of Macbeth: “I am in blood Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” Of course, things didn’t end well for Macbeth. I hope they do for us, but I think the correct classification is “tragedy” no matter how it ends.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 26, 2005 04:19 PM

Rocky and Pundit
Sorry ….I was busy looking at the President’s approval numbers just now.
Down 5% in two weeks to 40%.
Still beats Clinton’s 37% and all he had to deal with was a blow job on company time.
Also higher than Geoge#1 and Regan(27%)
Factor about about 6% for gas and another 3% for Sheehan and immigration and I think he is where he should be all things considered.
I think (speaking as a republician here) where the president fell flat here is in the public relations department.
Since the fall of Bagdad,we have done a lousy job convincing anyone there about anything.
I think the president should go on the offensive there,and get on Iraqi tv and get this constitution hammered home.
He made a start today calling for the Shia to back off on the federalism issue and calling the Shia leadership personally.
I think he racked up points with the Sunni too calling for a back off on the federalism issue.

Personally I agree with the Sunni position anyway.
Funny but the president and Al Sadr are (for once) in agreement.
I agree with Rocky about Ethan Allan too.History is replete with successful insurgengies and all we have to do is look south to Cuba for a recent success with Castro.Corrupt governmant plus an active insurgency always spells doom for the existing government.
Iraq does not compare to Vietnam for 10,000 reasons,the most important being that China and Russia both have stayed out of the fray.
No superpower is backing the Iraq insurgency.
However one issue that needs more discussion is that of of tunnels and caves in both Adfganastan and Iraq.
Anyway,I have thrown out some real cream puffs for discussion and I’d like your comments (I will be here all weekend raring to go)

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 26, 2005 05:21 PM

Sic Eagle,

“Iraq does not compare to Vietnam for 10,000 reasons,the most important being that China and Russia both have stayed out of the fray.”

And you know that for sure?

I would say that the only important comparisons are that we were ill prepared for both and we didn’t pay enough attention to who we were fighting early on.

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 05:32 PM

Reed,
“The truth is, the utter and nearly traitorous stupidity of blundering into this war is almost beyond argument at this point…”

You got it.

And

“… The stakes are not just political (do we really care if the Arabs create a caliphate?) but obviously economic (the oil in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) and military (religious zealots with virtually endless of oil money to spend on weaponry).”

Well said.

To extend the Vietnam comparison- while the insurgents and the foreign jihadists lack the backing of a superpower such as China or the USSR, they do enjoy the backing of Wahabbi Sunnis and others, with all the might that religious fundamentalism & oil money can bring to bear.

I’m simply amazed the process of producing an Iraqi constitution has gone so very, very badly. Guess a lot of Kurds & Shias have concluded they’d rather be independent than have anything to do with the Sunnis.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2005 05:50 PM

This from Associated Press,
Top Sunni Negotiator Says No Agreement Has Been Reached on Draft Constitution in Iraq
8/26/05 8:53PM GMT
By ROBERT H. REID , Associated Press Writer

“A top Sunni Arab negotiator said Saturday that no agreement has been reached on the draft constitution and called on Iraqis to reject it in an Oct. 15 referendum. A government spokesman indicated talks were hopelessly deadlocked and said “this is the end of the road.”

The Sunni negotiator, Saleh al-Mutlaq, made the statement on Al-Jazeera television after Sunnis studied compromise proposals offered by the Shiites on federalism and purges of former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.

“The issue of division through federalism is on the table,” al-Mutlaq said. “The Iraqi people have to give their word now and reject the constitution because this constitution is the beginning of the division of the country and the beginning of creating disturbance in the country.”

Asked about Shiite offers, he replied: “We are still far from what we need and what the people need.”

A Shiite negotiator, Khaled al-Attiyah, said a “consensus” had been reached on the charter and an amended version would be sent to parliament Saturday. Asked about that, al-Mutlaq said simply: “Let them.”

How long before this dissolves into civil war?

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 06:08 PM

This whole debacle is thoroughly depressing. I’m not sure could’ve expected better - and most experts in the region expressed this exact concern - but here we are….

…damn.

Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 06:38 PM

Rocky
If Russsia and China are involved it it marginally…..both have their own Islamic issues …and everyone seems ot be on the same page on this one.
Putin probably has dirty hands due to the UN thing on oil,but all in all both are behaving.

As far as who we are fighting now…well…it’s become the Dodge City of terrorism,and despite what my friend Pundit thinks,I for one am thankful that we are carrying the fight there and not here.

US forces are the best in the world in adapting to battlefield conditions.
Despite what many think,we have eliminated many many enemy there(more that we know,I think) and one by one we hunt them dowm.

Osoma remains a problem.Marginalized though he may be,kill him and add 15 points on Bush’s approval rating.

His death would be only public relations victory however because the poison of Wahhabism spews its hate non-stop,24/7

Funny,I just finished reading another great book on Islam(I decided 18 months ago that I was going to read as much as I can on this religion…I am a Christian…and I decided that if I was going to make public comment that I should have at least a working knowledge of Islam)

No God But God by Reza Aslan is an excellent primer on the topic and I recommend it as background.

Anyway,Mohammed did not say anything about killing the “infidels’.Quite the opposite.His wors pretty much duplicate those of Jesus(someone that he admired greatly and as a matter of fact he left the statue of Jesus and Mary in Mecca to be venerated)

The problem cropped us,as usual,when he died,and the Companios(a rough equivalent of the Apostles) began their interpretation of the words,and as the centuries evolved,human meaning has been heaped on human meaning to give the believer many versions of the”truth”

Ayatollahs are an interesting breed.They are the rough equivalent of a Ph.d and their fatwas are merely their official opinion on a matter.
Mant times,Muslims go “forum shopping” and find an ayatollah who suits their need.
Khomeini let his followers conclude that he is the Mahdi..hence the fanaticial reverence in Iran.

I think that BOTH Dems and Repubs need to steep themselves in a thourough background of Islam as we can better understand the mentality which is a threshold requirement in order to defeat them.

Islam has no Dems or Republicans…only Shia(with many different cults…like Christianity has) and Sunni.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at August 26, 2005 07:00 PM

Un-freakin-believable. I thought drafting a consititution would be the easy part, compared to the 10/15 referendum & elections. But even with months of prep the Iraqis can’t put something together. Fer cryin’ out loud. All that time wasted. All the $, all the violence. Really, it is depressing.

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2005 07:21 PM

I’m simply amazed the process of producing an Iraqi constitution has gone so very, very badly.

phx8,

You may be right about this, but I’m still hopeful that it might eventually work out in some limited, realpolitik kind of way. I read a David Brooks column that lifted my spirits about the constitution today. Also, I think Bush’s phone call really did do some good.

Things could still go very badly, of course, but I hope a compromise is slowly, painfully being cobbled together. The supporters of this war are right about one thing: the insurgency has very little to offer the citizens of Iraq other than hatred, resistance and ultimately the kind of organized criminal thuggery and militia mentality we saw in parts of Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed. For both Iraq’s sake and our own, I hope they can craft some other solution.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 26, 2005 07:35 PM

Patience,people.
I will bet somebody a cup of coffee that by this time next month this constitution thing will be solved.
According to Reuters tonite the Shia have conceeded the federalism issue.
Bush’s call definately did some good.
A quick reminder that it took us years to adopt a constitution and the very issue of federalism was one of the major reasons for the Civil War.
I will bet another cup of coffee (a nice stron Republician brew) that Bush’s approval ratings spike up 3-4% on the news too.
For once….just once….give the President his dues.He did good today.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at August 26, 2005 09:22 PM

I will bet somebody a cup of coffee that by this time next month this constitution thing will be solved.

Hope you’re right, eagle. That’d be a nice start but hardly the end of our problems. The president had better do well. He’s responsible for the whole thing. About time he got off his damned bicycle.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at August 26, 2005 10:47 PM

Sic,
Solved? Listening to PBS commentators tonight, which included Shia & Sunni negotiators, it sounds like a constitution will be put together Sunday. However, according to the Sunni negotiator, Sunnis & Arab nationalists will vote against this constitution in the referendum. The Shia commentator, a representative for Jaafari, agreed the constitituion would probably be rejected in the referendum.

A spike in the polls for Bush? Maybe. Remember the Republican convention? Remember those ignorant fools waving purple thumbs in the air? I said, in writing, that it was a huge mistake at the time, and sadly, events are proving me correct.

They voted on the wrong issue. If the current Iraqi government dissolves after the rejection of the constitution, Katie bar the door.

In the likely event of rejection, the next step would be another election 12/15 for a new transitional government. But before that happens, the Shias and Kurds may decide to be done with it, and declare independent regions.

A power struggle is erupting among the Shias, between SCIRI & al-Sadr’s followers. 100,000 of the latter marched in protest. And btw, the al=Sadr followers really, really don’t like the US.

One of the ironies of this whole situation is that the US interests and Sunni secularist interests- that is, the Baathists- coincide…

Posted by: phx8 at August 26, 2005 11:10 PM

Sic:

I read an article the other day & I believe I posted part of it. There are moderate muslims but in most cases they are overpowered by extremists. Usually for fear, the moderates back down. The muslim religion moves into a country & as it gains power as a moderate religion, the extremist seem to take over.

I believe oil may play a part in our involvement with the middle east. But I also believe our relationship with Israel plays a larger part. Simply because we have a treaty with Israel to protect them in case of invasion. I don’t know that we have a treaty of the same kind with any other middle east nations.

There is no lack of discussion of religion on these pages. But, I believe the Muslim religion is a very dangerous movement. Most religions give you a choice of accepting or rejecting. The Muslim religion, when in the majority, gives you the choice of accepting or dying.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 27, 2005 07:04 AM

phx8 and perplexed
Both insightful posts.
Right now,life and death brinkmanship is going on.In the final analysis,the Sunni population,all 20% of them,will have to bend a little here too.
The alternative will be Shia and Kurd death squads knocking off any mullah who opens his mouth no matter what they try to do.
Sheer numbers will prevail here,plus the Shia (and Kurds) not only are armed to the teeth but have access to sensitive intelligence too.
The Shia and Kurds giving in on the Frederalism issue is not to be unnoticed.Now it’s the Sunni turn.
Some atonoumous regions in the world actually work.
Sicily for one (by the way,I am a citezen of both countries…proudly,I am add…hence my nom de blog) is an atonomous region of Italy and things are fine there.
If you have ever been to Palermo(in Sicily) you will find Muslim and Christian living side by dide…as they have done for over a thousand years now.
I spend an extra ordinary amount of time in Europe.
After Sept 11th,I spent six months in Amsterdam going from shwarma shop to shwarma shop engaging Egyptian,Iqaqi,Moroccian,Saudi folks of all stripes in dialog.
I usually travel alone and most of the time eye brows raided when I entered their shops.
Usually though,after a few tense moments,a dialog began and I think I lest each place with a better understangimg of theeir though and vice versa.
In Italy I spend time doing the same thing in Arabic coffee shops in Rome and Communist cafes in Catania.
The same theme of Isreal emerges time and again.
Frankly I can’t see a solution to that issue based on what I heard(and hear…I just returned to the states last weekend) but in Leiden Holland an Isreali guy and an Egyptian guy opened a shwarma shop(Right by the train station..It’s called Ciaro) and I thought that was great.
Muslims are just like you and I.
Terrorists are criminals.
As I have said a thousand times,the root cause of terror is the Wahabbi cult and our lack of understanding of the culture.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at August 27, 2005 09:10 AM

Sicillian Eagle,

You said:

Sorry ….I was busy looking at the President’s approval numbers just now.
Down 5% in two weeks to 40%.
Still beats Clinton’s 37% and all he had to deal with was a blow job on company time.
Also higher than Geoge#1 and Regan(27%)
Factor about about 6% for gas and another 3% for Sheehan and immigration and I think he is where he should be all things considered.

From the most recent Gallup Poll:

Historical Comparisons

There have been seven U.S. presidents re-elected to a second term since World War II (although two of them — Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson — had initially ascended to the presidency without being elected). Here’s where they stood in August o