Democrats & Liberals: Archives

When you boil it all down, it becomes a management and a values problem. You might think the analogy of a vacation is bad, and maybe it is frivolous, but does illustrate the point with something we all understand and have experienced. Sometimes you are better off getting behind a plan and making it work even if it is not what you would have chosen.

The probably result of American failure in Iraq would be terrible. It is the duty of all Americans to avoid that. We can argue about how that would be best to avoid that, but that is the extent of legitimate dissent.

As an American you have the right to disagree with your government, but you have to recognize that your disagreement has consequences you might not anticipate or support. Disagreements among Americans should be contained within the parameters of what is good for America.

I don’t think that any decent person disagrees with this. But I do sometimes worry that people get so caught up in their opposition that they forget which side is theirs. Back in the Vietnam time, Jane Fonda went beyond legitimate dissent when she went to North Vietnam. I can’t think of any prominent Americans today who have gone that far, although there are occasional reports of the senile, the craven and the dead, such as Kurt Vonnegut and that fool professor mentioned on the other side and the late Susan Sontag. We should condemn them.

Carla,
The point is that Iraq is not a dire matter of national security. It was not a dire matter of national security when we went in. It will not be a dire matter of national security when we leave.

The invasion of Iraq gave Bush and the Republicans a great boost going into their first midterm election. It appears the withdrawal will have the opposite effect.

Now if the Bush administration started talking about a draft, and raised taxes, that would catch my attention. Those concrete actions would demonstrate the importance of Iraq, its high priority.

Not even on the drawing board, is it?

“Disagreements among Americans should be contained within the parameters of what is good for America”.

And who decides what is good for America?

The coalition forces are effectively ceding control of large areas to militia groups led for the most part by Religious leaders. In Sadr city, the US forces do not challenge the militia of Ayatollah Muktada al Sadr, whom Sadr city is called after. Indeed, they have instructions not to challenge al Sadr, tho’ he is wanted for the murder of another religious leader. The British are doing the same in the South, allowing non elected militia to control their areas. It is simply the expedient thing to do.

This has strong shades of Vietnam about it. The US made peace with the North Vietnamese, and pulled out the bulk of their troops. It was glaringly obvious that is was only a matter of time before the north resumed its campaign to reunite the country, and sure enough, when they did, the US accepted the inevitable. It was not at that point prepared to send more troops to shore up the South Vietnamese. The peace settlement was a fig leaf to allow the US to withdraw with some semblance of dignity. The US would not pay the price of victory in Vietnam, assuming that any price could have purchased it, short of the total annihilation of that country. I believe that the US will not pay the price of victory in Iraq, assuming there is a price which could purchase it. This war is already lost. Its latest aim, to bring liberal democracy to Iraq, is hopelessly compromised.

Bush daddy knew in 91 that unseating Saddam would take the lid off a hornets nest, and let the hare sit. The only thing that could hold Iraq together was a ruthless leader.Colin Powell warned GW before the invasion of Iraq, that if you break it, it’s yours. GW didn’t listen, and the rest is history. The only question now is how many more need to die, before Uncle Sam brings his sons and daughters home.

Jack:

So the Republican position is to keep cheering Daddy while his driving the car over a cliff?

Jack after the next couple of election cycles, we will be ushering in progams not unlike those of the Great Society and the New Deal so as to rebuild America. Since we will be riding a wave of reasoned public backing, it will be understood that the success of those programs will be undeniably good for America. It will be wonderful to have your full-fledged support and commitment to those programs’ success.

“Disagreements among Americans should be contained within the parameters of what is good for Americaâ€.

After the past five years, it is increasingly clear that “what is good for America” is the utter destruction of the conservative movement in the United States and its return to the garbage heap of history to which its malodorous, fascist corpse rightfully belongs. Otherwise, the Great American Experiment is doomed to utter failure. It is no accident that those very policies and actions which led to the fall of the Roman Empire now threaten the United States. The only question that remains is, Are Americans intelligent enough to throw the devil out or will we be complicit in the demise of our own country.

Jack wrote:
“As an American you have the right to disagree with your government, but you have to recognize that your disagreement has consequences you might not anticipate or support. Disagreements among Americans should be contained within the parameters of what is good for America.”
_____________________________

Here, here!! That is absolutely correct! Bravo, Jack…

Roger

I oppose some programs not because I think they are bad in theory. I oppose them because I don’t think they can work. The New Deal worked to some extent because it was properly focused on creating infrastructures that let people help themselves. The Great Society failed because it tried to engineer society. We declared war on poverty and poverty not only won, it demanded reparations in the form of ruined families and impassible inner cities. By reaching too far, we fell backwards and it took us years to climb out.

I lived in social democratic Norway. I liked it. The system worked okay, but it worked because the society was small, cohesive and homogenous. You could find the same things even in some American cities and states at certain times. America as a whole, however, is too big and diverse for those sorts of things to work. We just can’t have it even if we all want it.

Dr. Poshek

Which Roman policies would those be? Which century? The Empire went through various times of decline and rebuilding and its history properly extends not only to 476, but arguable as far as 1453. Sorry to be pedantic, but as a former classics scholar facile comparisons to the Romans Empire annoy me. It was not a one directional history.

Well put Dr. P.

Carla:

On this side of the argument everyone seems to need to express their outrage. Everything has been said, but everyone hasn’t said it yet. And I as a Republican have heard the left’s outrage loud and clear.

What I would like to hear is ideas on the future. What do you personaly recommend as a course of action in the war on terror? I have heard many times, that the left believes we shouldn’t be there at all. That is looking back. What ideas do you have that would help bring peace and make the world a more secure and better place?

Craig

expatUSA_Indonesia

And who decides what is good for America?

Those we elect.

Craig

Craig - How about we get Osama?! Gee, wouldn’t that be a good idea? Or, maybe we can avoid invading countries and creating new terrorist havens like we have in Iraq. Too much? Okay, then maybe we can work with our allies to create REAL alliances to fight and find terrorists. Funny, I think we’re full of great ideas and your side is full of something quite different.

Paul in Euroland

The coalition forces are effectively ceding control of large areas to militia groups led for the most part by Religious leaders. In Sadr city, the US forces do not challenge the militia of Ayatollah Muktada al Sadr, whom Sadr city is called after

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whom U.S.-led coalition forces wanted captured or killed a year ago, could become Iraq’s political kingmaker, a behind-the-scenes force shaping the outcome of the country’s December elections.

“Sadr’s movement is powerful in Iraq,” said Hazim Ali, a political analyst at Baghdad University’s International Studies Center. “I would expect him to be able to bring in at least 2 million votes.” Ten million Iraqis voted in the recent constitutional referendum.

Ali said al-Sadr is capitalizing on his unbending rebel image to mobilize a substantial following. The result could put him in a commanding position to build a coalition to assemble the next government.

I am not sure of your point. Sadr is running a campaign and is working within the system.

Craig

Rahdigly,

Then it’s agreed. We will all do what is good for America, and throw out the Bush cartel, his henchmen and cronies in the executive, and his apologizers and stooges in congress.

We will start a phased withdrawal from Iraq starting in the next month.

We will make our taxes fair and progressive.

We will institute universal health care, and education (including tertiary) for all.

Here here indeed!

Or, did you mean you get to decided whats good for America?

-Great post expatUSA_Indonesia! I hope you don’t mind me using it :)

Roger:

Craig - How about we get Osama?! Gee, wouldn’t that be a good idea? Or, maybe we can avoid invading countries and creating new terrorist havens like we have in Iraq. Too much? Okay, then maybe we can work with our allies to create REAL alliances to fight and find terrorists. Funny, I think we’re full of great ideas and your side is full of something quite different.

If you were in charge today, what would you do to get Osama?

If you were in charge today, who else would you like us to align with? How would you accomplish this?

I assume the left would like to lead eventually, What would you do if you won?

Craig

Get Osama by redeploying thousands of troops from Iraqi quagmire. It can be done and Bush dropped that ball, period.

Align with NATO allies and UN and possibly Russia. Please dont’ bother with whines about them not supporting similar interests, they do. These entities can be engaged when Bush is gone and not alienating them.

When, not if, the left wins we will govern for all the people, not just the corporations and the top 20%. That means completely repealing Bush tax cuts which will spur the economy by actual SPENDING, not hoarding by the upper castes which is spun to look that way. We’ll make major investments in our social safety net and infrastructure, strict re-regulation of companies destroying our environment. We’ll work for universal health care, a massive influx of federal money and talent into our public education system, restoration of student loan and grand funding to pre-Bush levels. We’ll have national mission to develop forms of renewable energy funded by taxes on energy corporations and usage.

I could go on and on, but it doesn’t matter. You’ll be watching all this happen from the fringe sidelines as conservatism becomes more and more irrelevant.

Viktor Davis Hanson wrote a good article explaining the Democrat strategy and constraints with regards to the Iraq war. He explains why the mainstream Dems were so enthusiastic about supporting the war and why even now they are a little leery of coming out openly against it.

It makes a lot of sense and explains why the blogosphere and Dean Dems can’t get responsible Dems to sign on unequivocally to their campaigns.

Thanks for the article Jack - it reinforces my belief that the right is scared shitless of the left and is willing to say anything no matter how silly to try to keep up a good front.

“expatUSA_Indonesia

And who decides what is good for America?
Those we elect.

Craig”

So you believe America is a functioning democracy and those elected are serving the best interest of the American people in spite of evidence to the contrary?

War is a vacational excursion into the countryside with your spouse, lovely. well honey did we have a good time losing our legs? What a neo-con republicanized ball of horse dung! Those who are so far removed from what war is, and those who’s only only way of showing that to us is through illustrating it as a vacation or a trapse to the beach are really a peculiar bunch.

This is what I mean about republicans being ‘Caviar Cowboys’ living out their own horsecrap within the confines of a videostore. Is it that the republicans watch more TV than the rest of us? Is that it? where it’s all a Stephen Seagal adventure with Karate chops? Rambo screaming “Whooooaa!!!” and blowing away the bad fellers. Is that what they think war is? Are they that dumb? Okay don’t answer that.

These people are so butt ignorant it’s scary!

Nobody “decides what is good” for America. But we can all debate that question and then support or oppose policies we think will bring about that good, a process which is very much in effect in the US today.

Whether Iraq will turn out to be a success has yet to be determined, and those who are saying it “is lost” were either against the war to begin with or have succumbed to a defeatist attitude.

Before the beginning of the Iraq war, those who opposed it were saying that there could be 10-20 thousand American combat deaths before Saddam was defeated, that there would be millions of refugees, that the “Arab street” would erupt from Saudi Arabia to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and beyond, that the oil fields would burn uncontrolled for over six months and perhaps for a year.

None of this happened, and none of it HAS happened still. Instead, all there has been is a low grade insurgency led by foreign elements that enjoy a minority of support among the Iraqi population (even if they enjoy majority support in certain European capitals). We have lost a number of soldiers equivelant to what we lost in any number of minor battles of our own Civil War—indeed, a number less than a 45 minute period in downtown Manhattan four years ago, a number approximately one fifth of the number of French who die in their apartments during summertime while their children are on vacation.

And yet, some are whining about defeat. Well, let them whine. They’ve been wrong about everything so far, and they’ll be wrong again.

expatUSA_Indonesia

So you believe America is a functioning democracy and those elected are serving the best interest of the American people in spite of evidence to the contrary?

Generally speaking, when elected officials make poor choices the voters replace them.

Craig

Roger:

Get Osama by redeploying thousands of troops from Iraqi quagmire. It can be done and Bush dropped that ball, period.

OK. So you are for moving our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?

Align with NATO allies and UN and possibly Russia.

Nato and the UN are already involved in the hunt for OBL in Afghanistan. How would you change that?

Why is OBL so important to you? (He is only one man).

That means completely repealing Bush tax cuts

What about the parts that benefit the middle class?

which will spur the economy by actual SPENDING,

Higher taxes slow the economy. That is why Europe has slower economic growth rates than we do here in the US.

not hoarding by the upper castes which is spun to look that way.

We’ll make major investments in our social safety net and infrastructure,

How will you pay for this? the Bush taxcuts were not that great.

strict re-regulation of companies destroying our environment.

I hope you will be careful as this can slow the economy can cost us jobs as it might be easier to do business overseas.

We’ll work for universal health care,

This is something I am interested in. I am not where you are, but I am for a social net for the poor and middle class. I would be opposed to a single payer system.

a massive influx of federal money and talent into our public education system, restoration of student loan and grand funding to pre-Bush levels.

President Bush has spent far more on social programs than Clinton did. It is kinda funny that way. Clinton was in many ways a better Repubican than Bush.

We’ll have national mission to develop forms of renewable energy funded by taxes on energy corporations and usage.

Why not tax consumers and drive up the cost of fuel, and use that money to fund R & D?

It’s nice to dream. You are describing Europe and Canada.

Craig

SANGER, Dude, where are you getting this from? I heard no estimation of any of that from the left anywhere and I trawl everything. Everything!

Oil wels burning for six months to a year? Where on Gods green did you hear that? Ten to twenty thousand casualties? “Arab streets” throughout the entire middle east? I go through political sight by political site(left, right and libertarian), google news, dogpile news, nowhere did I hear that stuff, any of it.

I’m not saying your lying but I question whether you are stretching a little bit, huh? Just a little right?

This sound more like a “drinkin’ buddy told me that” kinda thing.

Novenge,here is just one link, an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. The television news and newspapers were filled with this stuff before the war.

All of the criticms of the war I mention were widely aired during the lead up to war, in addition to another one I didn’t mention: the warning by critics of the war that Saddam would unleash Weapons of Mass Destruction not only in Iraq, but against his neighbors and possibly against the United States. How quickly all of this is forgotten by those rewriting history today. A main assumption by critics of the war was based on the assumption that Hussein had WMD and that he would use them.

Novenge,
Here is a link to the Medart Report, written in November 2002. At the bottom are numerous linked articles based upon the Report. Sanger is right about the predictions. Because there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, estimates in the Medart Report were too high. To be fair, their low end estimates were fairly close. They were also correct about the large number of civilian casualties that would eventually happen after a US invasion.

http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html

I thought the Iraqis would fight house-to-house in the cities, causing maximum casualties. Instead, a large number of Iraqi soldiers elected not to fight a conventional war, or surrender. Instead, they simply walked away.

Some people did express concern about the environmental damage that could result from burning oil fields. US troops quickly captured and defended the oil fields, as well as the Oil Ministry building in Bagdhad. Unfortunately, that left everything else unprotected.

More refugees were expected. Protests by Arab countries were less than expected too.

The CBO also made predictions. Interesting. Their worse case scenario for an extended war estimated a cost of $4 billion/month for a “temporary occupation of Iraq.”

Of course, the Bush administration won’t exactly go into the Hall of Fame of Great Predictions either. It’s a shame the Bush administration miscalculations cost so much more than the liberal miscalculations; they cost more in treasure, in loss of honor, and in lives.

This is why I don’t bother to engage conservatives anymore. Sorry Craig, but those old tired lines just aren’t going to play. Grover Norquist and his ilk developed them all to help confuse the American public so that the rational agenda of the center-left (which would benefit them) would be muddled. We have seen these lines proven disastrously wrong on all counts very clearly over the past five years. Tax cuts don’t spur the economy, that’s utter horseshit despite the spurious numbers thrown out by Concerned Women for America. Regulating polluters doesn’t cut anyone’s jobs, more horseshit from the Hannity cabal. Conversely (and why it’s a problem for the upper caste crowd) regulating polluters grows jobs but cut’s shareholders dividends. Reinstating the pre-Bush tax level will hardly hurt the middle class because they saw so little of it to start with - not to mention much of the middle class has dropped to lower classes during this “strong” economy.

As for paying for it all - increase the top tax rates - yup, that’s right. They made their money by virtue of being in America and they’re damn well going to contribute fairly to her well being. We can immediately lose the overseas tax shelters and other such lousy giveaways for major corporations - that’s just as a start. Yes, we can increase some energy taxes on consumers for R&D, that’s a fantastic idea even though Cheney floated it back in his days as a representative.

You’re very wrong in underestimating the average American’s resolve to sacrifice for such important things. You’re also very wrong in thinking your Robin Hood argument isn’t going to be turned inside out on you when this is debated nationally. People will again cheer Robin and hate the Sheriff of Nottingham - it’s just eh natural order of things.

These are very, very easy things to do, but those who would be forced to pay their fair share will do anything to stop it.

Deja vu of vietnam war. This is one of the common arguments used by the war hawks during the vietnam war. Seeing it trotted out makes me realize how desperate and how futile the situation in Iraq is. Like vietnam, everyone knows the emperor is naked except the emperor and those who buy the official line uncritically. Eventually those buyers become fewer and fewer as reality destroys the illusion, and the emperor angrily blames his nakedness at last on those who refuse to indulge in his illusion.

To all the democrats who live and breath in this here forum. Hello, Ya know I voted Mr. Bush in both times. I even have family in Iraq. My question is, do any of you who have written in this forum have family there? Have they written to you about the situation over there? Have any of you seen it first hand?

Politics are interesting I guess to some, but reality is whether your for the war or not, whether the war was started for the right reason or not, the Iraq people aren’t all dying to make us leave. Many are happy we came. I bet none of you care.

Your so worried about Bush and so and so that you aren’t worried about what’s going on over there. Sure they didn’t find any weapons, but, my husband has had women kiss his feet, men offer him food, and children smile at him and follow him.

Why, because we’re there. Does this matter to anyone, since we’ve been there, Iraq citizens who are Christians have been able to worship freely, children who couldn’t afford to go to school have entered school for the first time. Does any of this matter to any of you?

“Generally speaking, when elected officials make poor choices the voters replace them”.

Craig

With the entire Republican agenda beginning to appear to be nothing more than a
corporately orchestrated marketing scam, packaged and presented to the public like a box of laundry soap by a compliantly manipulated media, how the hell would a voter know if an official has made a poor choice if they do nothing more to inform themselves than sit in front of a television like a mindless sheep, like most Americans seem to do!

Sanger,
That publication is so liberal it had a link for a column by Deepak Chopra. Now what they were estimating was yes based on the last Gulf War and to the ecological things that happened as a result with also some revue of Depleted Uranium, also very real. But maybe you are correct in that instance in that we didn’t know anything about what this war might entail as far as to environmental effects using the last war as a barrometer.

What is funny about it is the fact that they probably weren’t going to blow the oil wells, WHY because, when the last war happened if you’ll recall Saddam did that as retalliatory against Kuwait as he was forced to get out of there. So the article is a bit dumb in some logistical respects as to the reasons why Saddam lit ‘em up. That wasn’t a war strategy from all outward appearances. It was a last ditch snipe on his way out of the country he invaded (if we can’t have it no one can).

But as to other ecological things there may be some truth there still with exception to lakes of oil and such. Depleted Uranium is actually only depleted by very small amounts so it still has a good if not heavy amount of toxicity to it. But yes I guess you were right on that count as to fears over oil wells.

Charon,
Fight the man!

Roger, which side are you on? Just curious.

PHX8,

I think the toll of civillian deaths in Iraq is in the area of 180,000 to 200,000. So yes they were prognosticating fairly and the war isn’t over yet. No telling of how many wounded. Now yes some of it done by what we are calling the ‘insurgeants’ but much of it is our forces. But it’s all just war and very few want to talk about those numbers.

In Cambodia during Nixon’s carpetbombing they killed in excess of 100,000 civillians. So this is nearing double those numbers.

Ali said al-Sadr is capitalizing on his unbending rebel image to mobilize a substantial following. The result could put him in a commanding position to build a coalition to assemble the next government.

I am not sure of your point. Sadr is running a campaign and is working within the system.

Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 23, 2005 10:08 PM

Well Craig, the point is, Khomeini worked within the system too. Now do you see my point? Whereas al Sadr may be working the system, I think you’ll search long and hard to find anyone who regards him as a democrat. Now that I think of it, didn’t Hitler run a campaign and work within the system? At least until he won power, just like, erm, Khomeini? Is this what all those young American lives were given for? Not to mention all of the unrecorded Iraqis?

“Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism”

Yes Jack, as an American I have the RIGHT to disagree, and as a Patriot, I have the OBLIGATION to dissent, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

Paul:

Well Craig, the point is, Khomeini worked within the system too. Now do you see my point? Whereas al Sadr may be working the system, I think you’ll search long and hard to find anyone who regards him as a democrat.

No I really don’t see your point. Sadr is working to secure votes. That is progress. Your point was that somehow we were failing in Iraq because we were letting Sadr and his militia run free. It is exactly the opposite. I think it is great that someone who in the past had been using arms to make his point, is now using the polling booth. That kind of change is a sign of victory, not a sign of defeat as you proposed.

Craig

expatUSA_Indonesia

With the entire Republican agenda beginning to appear to be nothing more than a
corporately orchestrated marketing scam, packaged and presented to the public like a box of laundry soap by a compliantly manipulated media, how the hell would a voter know if an official has made a poor choice if they do nothing more to inform themselves than sit in front of a television like a mindless sheep, like most Americans seem to do!

That is the best discription of both the Republican and Democratic agenda that I have ever seen. David Remer should see this!! Great job!!

Craig

What I would like to hear is ideas on the future. What do you personaly recommend as a course of action in the war on terror? I have heard many times, that the left believes we shouldn’t be there at all. That is looking back. What ideas do you have that would help bring peace and make the world a more secure and better place?

We can begin by extricating ourselves from dependence on oil as a main source of fuel. Our nation should invest heavily in alternative, renewable sources. The fight over the world’s limited natural resources is one of the fundamental causes of conflict. It’s also something that those of us on the left have been wanting to have implemented for quite some time.

In the more narrow terms of Iraq, several Democrats have come forward with workable, reasonable plans to restore complete sovereignty to the Iraqis. Congressmen Blumenauer and Murtha have both laid them out very specifically and clearly. So has Senator Biden. Each plan differs slightly in specifics…but all can be implemented. In terms of terrorism, this is key.

We also need to understand our enemies. It takes more than just hatred of them and standing up to them. We need to know what they want and how they think. Those key pieces are currently missing in our policy in dealing with terrorism, IMO.

It’s also very important to look back and see how we got here in the first place. Ignoring it and saying “move forward” is inappropriate. We need to remember how we got here so that it never happens again. We must never allow ourselves to be driven by fear and bloodlust again.

Tom

As an American you have a right to dissent. You have no obligation to do anything foolish, however, and other Americans have a similar right to shun, ridicle or oppose you if they strongly disagree. Dissenters often miss the point that others have a right to dissent from their dissent.

It depends on what you are dissenting about and it does depend on the consequences. Being in favor of dissent is just silly without more information.

The biggest dissenters in the U.S. are probably those white supremacists who live up in the mountains. They disagree with almost everything about the U.S. and its current government. That Rudolph character who bombed the abortion clinics was a dissenter. So was Charles Manson. It is a mixed company.

Like most things, dissent should be done in moderation. If you dissent about everything all the time, you are just nuts and you will be irrelevant and ignored.

On a similar subject, the same goes for supporting change. People glibly say that they are for change without thinking about it. Change does not equal improvement just like dissent doesn’t equal wisdom. Should a health person be in favor of changing his condition? If the negative probabilities exceed the positive ones, seeking change might not be good strategy.

So forget about the one liners on dissent. It all depends.

And how is it that we hear so much from people complaining that their dissent is being silenced. If we hear them, doesn’t that mean they are not silent.

Carla:

thanks for the thoughtful response.

It’s also very important to look back and see how we got here in the first place.

Have you heard of the book,

“Dying to Win : The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” by Pape?

He comes across to me as a left of center researcher. He did research into what causes suicide terrorism. His conclusion is that it is not as deeply religious as has been advertized. The root cause is foreign combat troops on soil the terrorist considers sacred. Also the troops need to be of another faith. (This allows the terrorist to overcome their taboo on suicide somehow).

In very basic terms he believes the only way to stop suicide terror is to have all combat troops off of muslim lands. He would advocate going back to the pre 1990 policy of having combat troops on ships surrounding the gulf.

In terms of reponsibility (verses blame), I myself view it as the last three president’s policy of keeping troops on the ground. The reason it is nonblaming is because we have not had enough of a history with suicide bombings. (Only since the 80’s with Reagan when we cut and ran).

If I read Murtha’s proposal correctly, he sees a similar future with his phrase “over the horizon”. If Murtha would have chosen another word besides “Immediate”, I would have been happy to support his proposal. I am discouraged by the “pranks” on both sides of the spectrum. It seems to me a better approach would have been to bring Murtha’s proposal through the usual channels allowing amendments. Almost nothing gets through Congress without amendments and rewording anyway.

My own view on Iraq, is that we should start troop withdrawals shortly after the new government is sworn in and in place. We should negotiate with the new Iraqi commander in chief a systematic and complete withdrawal of forces that makes sense from a strategic point of view.

I also think we need to each work within our own party structures to bring about a consensus type of thinking. This “gocha” politics in a time of war has got to stop. Both sides seem to be more intent on oneupsmanship, than on making true progress for out country. I think the correct approach is to say both parties are out of line in their tactics, and start to move away from hyperpartisenship, and back toward statesmanship.

I don’t think our troops care which party comes up with the right idea.

Craig

Speaking of the troops. I believe it is their right and our obligation to get them something besides the right wing slant, like Ed Shultz as it was pulled from the air the day it was supposed to start.

Craig,

I’ve heard of Pape’s book on suicide bomber psychology. Recommend it? In a nutshell, I know it undermines some cherished assumptions. For example, when Vonnegut said the terrorists committed their acts as a matter of self-respect, the wingnuts lost it. But as bizarre as it seems, I suspect it is true.

Tired of political stunts? An entirely predictable one will occur next year. I’ve been predicting it for over a year, and when it comes to Iraq, it’s archived, I’ve put it in writing, and I’ve been consistently right.

For a number of reasons we’ll draw down next year. The domestic economy, the military’s manpower shortage, and the 2006 midterms will make it absolutely necessary.

Our withdrawal will have litte to do with what is actually happening in Iraq.

But how to make a virture of necessity? The White House will seek ways to make hay from the draw down. They’d be crazy not to.

This will be choreographed after the newly elected Iraqi government takes over. The new government’s prime minister will unexpectedly call for a press conference, and announce the Iraqi desire for the US to leave. The Iraqi legislature will pass a resolution, inviting the US to leave, & UN to assume a larger role.

In the US, our patriotic eyes will water, then brim over with tears. ‘Oh look. Our little country is all grown up.’ Sadly, we’ll shake our adult heads, knowing the young Iraqi politicians think they’re ready for independence, but they’re really not, but ah, sob, rueful smile, what is a parent to do? Using a purple-stained thumb to wipe a tear from our our eye, we’ll respect the astonishing soveignty of the new Iraqi government.

We’ll bring the boys back home. There will be a parade. Victory, victory for the glorious Bush administration! Just in time for the 2006 midterms. My, my, what a fortuitous coincidence.

“Mission Re-accomplished!”

And then, Act IV. Civil War. And then, the real reasons we should never have invaded Iraq will become obvious.

I am deeply troubled by this style of argument. It’s like after killing someone, you complain about the guy who isn’t helping hide the body. “Why do you hate freedom?”

What I get out of this is that Bush supporters are in a state of denial. They do not want to reflect on their past mistakes. Certainly this is endemic of American politics in general, but this administration and their cheerleaders are rabid enthusiasts. I’ve always found that vehement denial is a sure sign of guilt.

By focusing on such weak denials and redirected blame, Bush supporters tacitly concede that the actions of this administration regarding Iraq have been an utter failure while implying that their incompetence absolves them from accountability. It permeates the entire spectrum of their counter-arguments. There are the brave trolls who insist that Iraq is going to be just fine, some day, and that this somehow justifies the means for starting and executing the war. And then there are the idiots who want to base American foreign policy on what the terrorists might think. And finally, the lazy romantics who think supporting the president, right or wrong and regardless of method and result, is some sacred burden of patriotism. But all of these are still simpleminded fallacies - juvenile ruses to avoid the subject at hand: Did the administration manipulate intelligence to start the war? A question which, in any modern republic so proud of their democratic sensibilities, should be of the utmost concern.

For the rest of us, I’m sure none of this is surprising. While spouting personal responsibility and respectability of the office of president, this administration has deftly exemplified the exact opposite: dodging responsibility and a complete absence of respectability. When they fail, there is always someone else to blame - the French, the CIA, the Dems, a few bad apples, Mike Brown, whomever is readily vulnerable.

The road to mental health is pretty easy. The hardest step is the first one: admitting there is a problem. Bush, an alcoholic, should know this intimately. If the US is going to heal its schism, the Bush supporters are going to have to make that first step. Respect comes from acting respectable.

Paul:

Well Craig, the point is, Khomeini worked within the system too. Now do you see my point? Whereas al Sadr may be working the system, I think you’ll search long and hard to find anyone who regards him as a democrat.

No I really don’t see your point. Sadr is working to secure votes. That is progress. Your point was that somehow we were failing in Iraq because we were letting Sadr and his militia run free. It is exactly the opposite. I think it is great that someone who in the past had been using arms to make his point, is now using the polling booth. That kind of change is a sign of victory, not a sign of defeat as you proposed.

Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 24, 2005 10:40 AM

Craig, the IRA in Ireland had a much publicised strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box. That did not make them democrats. They were and are essentially fascists. Hitler used the ballot box while it suited him. As did Khomeini. If you can’t see that a man who was to be taken dead or alive 12 months ago, is now allowed to run a militia unharmed, who is clearly using the ballot box as a strategy to his Islamic polity allied with Iran, is the antithesis to a democratic Iraq, then I respectfully suggest you are either severly myopic or obstinately obtuse. What elephant in the corner????

Novenge - I supposed that my last post could be construed as a sarcastic reactionary rant, but it wasn’t. I’m firmly entrenched on the left and I believe what I wrote. I used to be more center/left moderate, but refused to move right with the rest of the country so now I’m a liberal by default.

Jack, as I mentioned to Craig in another post - you underestimate the American people’s ingenuity and willingness to sacrifice to a true greater cause. The Great Society was undermined by the Vietnam war, without which LBJ would have gone down as one of our greatest presidents.

The new progressive era is upon us and we will most definitely be instituting similar social programs. Maybe not all will work, but most will.

Michelle, I hope your husband’s tour(s) of duty are as safe for him and his fellow soldiers as they can possibly be. Having said that, no, I’m not really impressed with the good news you present from Iraq because it’s so far outweighed by the bad news. I could care less about Iraqi Christians being able to go to church, especially when we’re creating safe havens for terrorists. I’m sure that for every woman and child who wanted to kiss your husband’s feet, we’re creating ten or twelve more who want to do him (and us) great harm. You and your husband should be proud of his service. Please do not buy into the lie that those who do not support this war do not as well support our troops. We don’t want things to go badly, but they are going badly and frankly, we friggin’ told y’all so three years ago.

phx8

I’ve heard of Pape’s book on suicide bomber psychology. Recommend it? In a nutshell, I know it undermines some cherished assumptions. For example, when Vonnegut said the terrorists committed their acts as a matter of self-respect, the wingnuts lost it. But as bizarre as it seems, I suspect it is true.

Yes I do recommend it. I appreciated much of it as I read it.

I think the terrorists are viewed as patriots from the locals. One of Pape’s conclusions is that suicide takes a lot of local support to overcome taboos on suicide, and killing the innocent.

I think there are conclusions that would make both the right and left go nuts. He shows that suicide bombers ONLY react when combat troops of a democracy from another faith are on land they believe to be sacred. (some in Lebanon I believe were Christians). This points to 9/11 being reaction to troops on the ground that Clinton ordered present after Iraq kicked out the weapon’s insptectors in 1998.

Pape also predicts the increase in suicide bombers in Iraq.

You and I have both commented on the cynical nature of politics. I have no doubt troop levels will be lower for the 2006 elections.

Craig

Paul:

Craig, the IRA in Ireland had a much publicised strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box. That did not make them democrats. They were and are essentially fascists. Hitler used the ballot box while it suited him. As did Khomeini. If you can’t see that a man who was to be taken dead or alive 12 months ago, is now allowed to run a militia unharmed, who is clearly using the ballot box as a strategy to his Islamic polity allied with Iran, is the antithesis to a democratic Iraq, then I respectfully suggest you are either severly myopic or obstinately obtuse. What elephant in the corner????

Can you give me where you are getting your reports that Sadr City is doing poorly? I am not getting the same information.

Craig

Craig Holmes:

Sadr City is the vast low-income neighbourhood in northeastern Baghdad, home to some two million Shi’a Muslims. It is comparable to the Bronx only the gangs have RPGs and AK-47s instead of handguns. This area has become a focal point in the growing divide between Sunnis and Shias as insurgents and Sadr’s Mahdi Army kill each other’s civilians in escalating war. The area has no running water and little electricity. Children wade in streets ankle deep in sewage. The US no longer attempts to patrol this area.

Craig Holmes:

CPTnet
24 August 2005

IRAQ: Sadr City visit

by Jan Benvie

Two weeks ago, we visited Sadr City, a sprawling, poverty-stricken suburb of
Baghdad, home to some 2.5-3 million people.

Neither words nor photographs can adequately depict the living conditions.
The infrastructure of Sadr City, designed for a population of 750,000, was
built in the 1960s to provide homes for Shi’a peasants moving to the city
from the south. As a Shi’a neighborhood, it was neglected during the reign
of Saddam Hussein, who favored the minority Sunnis. Fighting last year
between Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi army and U.S. forces added to the existing
disrepair.

Burnt-out vehicles still lie at the side of the main roads, which are full
of craters. The side streets are rutted dirt tracks with pools of sewage,
some that fill the street, some that can be circumnavigated. In some places,
we saw sewage bubbling to the surface from cracked pipes. When the pools are
absent, the sewage runs along channels at the side of the streets, outside
houses. The smell is overwhelming and unmistakable, particularly in the
120-degree Fahrenheit, (fifty-degree Centigrade), summer heat. We watched
children, some in bare feet, wading through the water, and others playing at
the muddy edges of pools.

Everywhere we went, people welcomed us, some inviting us to photograph the
conditions in their homes. One woman showed us the courtyard leading to the
rooms of her house where sewage relentlessly seeps through the cracked tiles
from the broken pipes below the surface. We noticed a strong smell of
disinfectant, evidence of the endless attempt to prevent disease and to mask
the stench.

In many houses we could see containers, of various sizes and shapes, filled
with water for drinking, cooking and washing. The water pressure throughout
Baghdad is low. People have to pump the water from the street pipes into
their homes. Electricity to power the pumps is only available for a few
hours a day (not many people in Sadr City can afford even small generators),
so they have to store the water in available containers for many hours in
the searing summer temperatures. The quality of the water is poor. The
system was installed during the Iraq/Iran war, a time of austerity. Now the
adjacent underground sewage and water pipes are cracked and leaking,
polluting the water supply. Community leaders told us that 72% of the
population has hepatitis. Typhoid and cholera also infest the neighborhood

People simply add to the piles of rubbish in the streets, because no
adequate system for garbage collection exists. We observed the bimonthly
collection, two men with a horse and cart shoveling the garbage onto the
back of the cart.

What we witnessed is not unique; Sadr City is a microcosm for much of Iraq.
Yet, this is not poor country; Iraq has vast oil reserves, second only to
Saudi Arabia.

Little wonder the people we talk with are angry that so little has been
achieved in the past two years.

Disagreements among Americans should be contained within the parameters of what is good for America.

Is this horse dead yet? —Because I’m beating it anyway.

“What is good for America” is one of those statements that some of those on the right make in a completely offhanded way, as if we should all know exactly what that is — and that’s what’s so scary about some of those righties. They simply cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly fail to see their view, let alone disagree with it. Newsflash: Whatever YOUR parameters are, they probably aren’t the same as mine. Welcome to America, the land of the free and the right to dissent.
And that’s really the point, isn’t it? I’ve heard a lot of people on the right recently talk about how our country was founded on religion, but really it was founded on the right to dissent, to have one’s own opinion, own way of life, and own view of religion.
I’m sick and tired of the argument that safety is more important than freedom. Without freedom, there will soon be no safety from our own government.

Aldous, it seems to you have already answered Craig’s challenge to me in a manner at least as eloquently as I could have myself. For those Christians out there, didn’t Christ himself say that, ” There are none so blind, as those who will will not see”?

On a further point Craig, the sources I get my info from are perhaps not as timid at much of the US media appears to be. I get my reports from the BBC, Irish Times, RTE, ( Irish TV)Channel 4 (UK), Sunday Times, alongside US TV News and press. Despite British involvement in Iraq, its media are not afraid to challenge the Government line and indeed are often very vociferous in presenting news that is clearly in total contradiction to Government statements. There is no free ride for politicians in the UK and few media lackeys of the home regime, as appears to be the case in the US.

In my own country, Ireland, we have many journalists reporting from the mid east, including Iraq, some of them for the British media. Indeed, one such was kidnapped in Sadr city recently, tho’ released within a couple of days due to skilful diplomatic intervention. It appears that it was through the good offices of Moktada al Sadr that he was released, along with those of another well known personality, Ahmed Chalabi. We are intimately up to speed on what is happening there. I suspect much more so than anyone depending on the US media for balanced reporting from that region. If you’r in bed with the Army, then you will see what they allow you to see. No offence to the Army, but they learned in Vietnam that a press given freedom of the theatre of operations, can very quickly leach away support for those operations. I don’t blame the Army, I blame the media.

Paul:

Here is your premise:

The coalition forces are effectively ceding control of large areas to militia groups led for the most part by Religious leaders.

Here is one of your next points:

On a further point Craig, the sources I get my info from are perhaps not as timid at much of the US media appears to be. I get my reports from the BBC, Irish Times, RTE, ( Irish TV)Channel 4 (UK), Sunday Times, alongside US TV News and press.

The report from above was written in August

I appreciate that. Most of us receive our news worldwide.

Here is a report from late July.

As the occupation of Iraq continues, the infrastructure of most Iraqi cities and towns continues to remain in a state of disrepair. Sadr City in Baghdad is said to be the worst in the country. Among the most basic of things, the neighborhood lacks electricity, water and sewage.

Here is a report from the end of September:

I’ve written about Sadr City many times (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE). Most people know Sadr City from its namesake, Muqtada Al Sadr, the militant Shiite Cleric who heads the Mahdi Army. Our efforts have turned a city that used to be a no-go zone in Baghdad, “a wretched hive of scum and villainy†(see Star Wars to understand), into a place where we’re at least somewhat appreciated. It’s much easier to drive around now that we’ve proven to the people that we’re not there to kill everyone, just every terrorist. sadr city The old Sadr City

Sadr City residents say they’re definitely seeing a difference as nearly $86.5 million in infrastructure improvements have been completed with an additional $246 million ongoing. Local citizens report their sewers are working (unlike last year when all the lift stations were inoperable with broken pumps), water pressure is better, and they’re seeing electric lines going up.

Here is another article that would support your view:

“All of our days are like holidays now,” says Bassem Kamil, the burly 34-year-old husband of one of the Dulaimi sisters. He, like everyone else, is sprawled on the floor of their three-room home, since the family’s furniture was recently sold to pay school fees and rent. “Just living without Saddam is a blessing. Now all we have to do is get rid of the politicians that rode in on the back of American tanks.”

Mr. Kamil and the other Dulaimi men - the women in the household were kept out of sight during the visit - provided an interesting contrast to their Mahdi Army minder, “Abu Zawra,” who was ostensibly there for my protection but seemed mostly interested in monitoring what the Dulaimis had to say.

Talking about life since the fall of Saddam Hussein, they had much good to say despite the hardships of joblessness and poor services.

Here is a report that is very recent:

In another report within the same bulletin, the station says: “A joint US-Iraqi force today arrested 25 members of the Al-Mahdi Army [affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr] in Al-Sadr City in eastern Baghdad.” The report cites an anonymous spokesman for the Al-Sadr Office as blaming the Iraqi government “for this escalation.” - Al Sharqiyah, Iraq

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/mideastwire/index.php?id=19

I am not finding anything that looks like “ceding control.” I am seeing ongoing struggle. Actually nothing that seems unanticipated.

Craig

Paul:

Concession to Muqtada al-Sadr To bring in Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement, the Shi’ite alliance has offered the movement 30 seats (about one-quarter of the seats they expect to win). This concession reflects the growing realization that al-Sadr’s popularity among young Shi’ite voters is on the rise and could, rather soon, overshadow the traditional religious establishment in Najaf, presided over by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.

In agreeing to join the Shi’ite alliance, al-Sadr made a number of demands, all of which were accepted:
(a) The Sadrist movement shall be allocated the same number of seats as allocated to SCIRI;
(b) The building of Iraqi armed forces shall be accelerated in order to expedite the exit of the multinational forces; and
(c) There shall be no normalization with the “Zionist entity” under any circumstances.

The mercurial al-Sadr has not given his public support to the alliance; rather, he has advanced the faint argument that his supporters have joined the alliance in their personal capacity.(8) His spokesman, Sheikh Mustapha al-Ya’qubi, declared that “al-Sayyid Muqtada” will announce “next week” his official position regarding the elections.(9)

Politics as ususal,

Craig

Why is it that people who claim to have relatives on the ground in Iraq always seem the least informed about matters going on over there?

Does this matter to anyone, since we’ve been there, Iraq citizens who are Christians have been able to worship freely,

NEWSFLASH: Iraqi Christians have always been able to worship freely. US BEING OVER THERE DID NOT CHANGE THAT. In fact, it made things WORSE by replacing a secular government with a government based on Islam.

Christians here say they enjoyed as many rights and freedoms as any other Iraqi under Saddam Hussein, who made one of their number, Tariq Aziz, an influential deputy prime minister.

“We enjoyed total religious freedom and there was no religious discrimination” against Christians, said Armenian Archbishop Avak Asadourian.

The current sense of uncertainty about their future that most Iraqis feel today, however, means that “anything could happen now,” says Sarmed Hazem, a pharmacist who teaches Sunday school at the Chaldean church.

“We want to stay, we don’t want to emigrate, we just want to be free and safe,” he adds.

There are 650,000 Christians in Iraq, most Chaldeans but also Syrian, Latin, and Armenian Catholics, and members of a variety of Orthodox sects. Their numbers have fallen from more than a million during the past 20 years, as emigration has taken its toll.

“We are few, and they [Muslims] are more than us,” says Raad Rassam, a commercial translator who wears a pearl crucifix on a gold necklace. “I don’t know what to expect, but in these days we fear many people from the outside.”

American marines and soldiers, to whom most Iraqis had looked for security, are present in only a few neighborhoods of Baghdad. In other parts of the city, armed Shiite Muslim militiamen have taken upon themselves the duty of preserving public order.

“We are very afraid that the Americans will withdraw from the cities and leave them in the hands of those people,” says Kevorg Zeretzian, an Armenian tire merchant in Baghdad’s souk. “That would be very dangerous.”

Sadr City is the vast low-income neighbourhood in northeastern Baghdad, home to some two million Shi’a Muslims. It is comparable to the Bronx only the gangs have RPGs and AK-47s instead of handguns. This area has become a focal point in the growing divide between Sunnis and Shias as insurgents and Sadr’s Mahdi Army kill each other’s civilians in escalating war. The area has no running water and little electricity. Children wade in streets ankle deep in sewage. The US no longer attempts to patrol this area.

I understand all of that. My point is that Sadr is working inside of the political process, which is a good thing. Sadr’s direction is toward democracy. I am not making the case that he is a boyscout. That change is clear change in the direction of good. I am looking for evidence that we have given up on Sadr City, and not finding any.

Craig

As Sunnis who emigrated to the capital from Ramadi 30 years ago, the Dulaimis are about as unrepresentative of Sadr City’s population as a family can get……

Similar militias are dominant in much of the country today, particularly in the Shiite south. For instance, asked if they’ll vote in the country’s upcoming parliamentary elections in December, both Haider and Mr. Kamil looked to Abu Zawra, who declared “there can be no free elections under occupation,” then said they weren’t sure.

Quotation from Craigs Christian Monitor article.

Craig, I’ve never heard of Electronic Iraq, not of Dahr Jamail. As for a soldiers perspective, well, I think that one speaks for itself. The above extract from your Christian Scientist article is particularly noticeable by virtue of the fact that you chose to exclude it. It tends to change the colour and tone of the point you were trying to make, no?

Paul:

The above extract from your Christian Scientist article is particularly noticeable by virtue of the fact that you chose to exclude it. It tends to change the colour and tone of the point you were trying to make, no?

Actually I am trying to find verification of the following from you:

The coalition forces are effectively ceding control of large areas to militia groups led for the most part by Religious leaders.

This war is already lost. Its latest aim, to bring liberal democracy to Iraq, is hopelessly compromised.

I asked earlier the following:

Can you give me where you are getting your reports that Sadr City is doing poorly? I am not getting the same information.

I would still enjoy reading your back up material. I am getting a little concerned, as you have instead said the following:

Aldous, it seems to you have already answered Craig’s challenge to me in a manner at least as eloquently as I could have myself. For those Christians out there, didn’t Christ himself say that, ” There are none so blind, as those who will will not see”?

I am not sure where we go from here. Here is a few statements as to why I disagree with you.

Sadr who not long ago was using a military solution, is now like the Sunnis involved in a democratic process. The country has a constitution, and will soon have an elected government with which to run it’s own affairs. As long as Iraq is having solid elections, the war is not lost.

Craig

I am uncomfortable with your comments. You haven’t provided your sources that I requested.

Roger:

We have seen these lines proven disastrously wrong on all counts very clearly over the past five years. Tax cuts don’t spur the economy, that’s utter horseshit despite the spurious numbers thrown out by Concerned Women for America.

Actually they do. They work in a way like the Fed raising and lowering interest rates. There are two says that the Government can spur the economy. One is by spending more (Like FDR used for instance), and the other is to cut taxes so that private citizens spend their tax receipts.

Raising taxes slows the economy. This is important as well. The most successful example of this was Clinton. By raising taxes when he did, he prolonged the recovery by raising taxes and keeping the economy growing at a sustainable pace. In recessions we should cut taxes, in times of prosperity we should raise taxes. In a perfect world taxrates would go up and down in a manner like the fed uses interest rates. Borrow money in recessions, pay it back during properity.

Regulating polluters doesn’t cut anyone’s jobs, more horseshit from the Hannity cabal. Conversely (and why it’s a problem for the upper caste crowd) regulating polluters grows jobs but cut’s shareholders dividends.

Regulation of anykind cuts productivity. I don’t think that is the point. The reason to regulate polluters is to leave the world in good shape for the next generation. I disagree with you that it creates jobs, but I agree with you that it is necessary.

Conversely (and why it’s a problem for the upper caste crowd) regulating polluters grows jobs but cut’s shareholders dividends.

The reason for cutting dividends would be less profit. Usually corporations keep dividends at a certain percent of profits.

Reinstating the pre-Bush tax level will hardly hurt the middle class because they saw so little of it to start with - not to mention much of the middle class has dropped to lower classes during this “strong” economy.

There are many positives for the middle class in today’s economy. Chief is that homeownership is at record levels.

I think that you have a stronger argument focusing on the fact that the poverty rate has been rising.

As for paying for it all - increase the top tax rates - yup, that’s right. They made their money by virtue of being in America and they’re damn well going to contribute fairly to her well being. We can immediately lose the overseas tax shelters and other such lousy giveaways for major corporations - that’s just as a start. Yes, we can increase some energy taxes on consumers for R&D, that’s a fantastic idea even though Cheney floated it back in his days as a representative.

This is a tough one. The truely rich have the ability to “take their toys and go home”. They can simply move their wealth to places where it will be treated better. A country ends up with more revenue if the rich feel like they are treated well. No one wins if they leave the country. They create many jobs.

I am interested in taking a relook at our health care system. I think our current system is very wasteful. It seems like we could use a new concept. Again, I would be opposed to something like what Canada has. I think that for those who the system is working for we should leave them alone. I am interested in solutions that benefit those that the system is not working for.

Hannity on economics drives me crazy. He has too simplistic of and approach. If you take his economics to the extreme, we should lower tax rates to zero, and pay off the national debt.

Craig

Craig, try this link;

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/I/iraq_the_reckoning/

Like I said, none so blind as those who will not see.

Paul

Sadr who not long ago was using a military solution, is now like the Sunnis involved in a democratic process. The country has a constitution, and will soon have an elected government with which to run it’s own affairs. As long as Iraq is having solid elections, the war is not lost.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 25, 2005 10:40 PM

Craig, the fact that Iraq will soon have its own elected Government is beside the point. Remember, under Khomeini, Iran got its own elected Govt. Is this the kind of regime the US went to war to see replace Saddam?

What is unescapable is that the Shia are by far the largest component of the people of Iraq. Their religious leaders are very close to Iran and they are getting much help from Iran. In the documentary series quoted above, Peter Oborne reports that women in Iraq are now widely wearing the burka or chador for fear of their lives, something that was unconceiveable in Saddams time.

I say again, one of the principal reasons Bush 41 did not take Baghdad in 91 was because he understood that taking out Saddam would remove the glue that was holding Iraq together, leading to the chaos that we see today. As Norman Swarzkopf said when the fighting had ended, the only thing between us and Baghdad, is the road to Baghdad. Even Powell before the war warned GW that if you break it, its yours. The clear meaning of this is that if it goes wrong, you are stuck with it. That I think eloquently expressed Powells fears of things going very wrong at least.

Paul:

Craig, the fact that Iraq will soon have its own elected Government is beside the point. Remember, under Khomeini, Iran got its own elected Govt. Is this the kind of regime the US went to war to see replace Saddam?

The fact that Iraq will soon have it’s own elected government is exactly the point. Iran was a single party system. Iraq is a multi party system. It is the difference between the Soviet Union style of election, and a more western style election. It is the difference between a soviet constitution and a more western style of constitution.

Craig

Paul:

I say again, one of the principal reasons Bush 41 did not take Baghdad in 91 was because he understood that taking out Saddam would remove the glue that was holding Iraq together, leading to the chaos that we see today.

Actually Bush 41 was not authorized by congress to overthrow Saddam. This did not become US policy until 1998.

Craig

Paul:

Craig, try this link;

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/I/iraq_the_reckoning/

Like I said, none so blind as those who will not see.

Paul

Can you find some facts or figures instead of opinions? They are quoting Michael Moore as if he was an authority of something.

You are claiming

This war is already lost

But it is only your opinion. You haven’t backed it up with a single fact. You keep saying over and over again that

none so blind as those who will not see.

But show me some actual facts to back up your opinions. Otherwise they are just opinions.

Craig

“I’d read things out of The Onion and believe them to be so outrageously absurd that they’re clearly parody.”

The Onion is ironic, but closer to the truth than anything GWShrub will ever garble. I try to pick it up every Thursday, but their location keeps moving, from the train station to Vintage Vinyl to Bill’s Blues and now back to Vintage Vinyl again in Evanston.