Democrats & Liberals Archives

Iraq: Republican Pawn in Political War

Republicans are pushing Iraq firmly into the news in order to demonstrate that Republicans are fighting terror while hapless and wimpy Democrats refuse to fight. After Zarquawi was killed and the new Iraqi government was established, Bush began the big push with a secret visit to Baghdad. And today, the House is debating - I use the term loosely - an “I support the war” resolution. Passage of the resolution will not affect the war in any way. The Iraq War is being used as a pawn not to fight insurgents or terrorists but to fight Democrats.

Yes, indeed. The purpose of the debate is to paint Democrats as the real enemy. This is obvious when you look at a confidential memo sent to House Republican members by House Majority Leader John A. Boehner:

"Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era. Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a fundamental question facing America’s leaders:

"In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

"Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses."

This statement has the usual Republican lies: that 9/11 and Iraq are related, that Democrats are willing "to concede defeat" and that they do not want to fight terrorism. Boehner makes clear the debate's purpose when he says:

"As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world."

There is nothing honest about the debate. All amendments are barred. Democrats must vote yea or nay. They can't talk about withdrawal. They can't make any suggestions about winning in Iraq. It's the old Bush statement: "Either you are with us or against us."

It's a gotcha debate. If Democrats vote against the resolution they are against fighting the war on terror. If Democrats vote for the resolution, they're flip-floppers.

All indications are that Republicans do not know how to fight a war. 2500 Americans dead, tens of thousands are wounded and who knows how many Iraqis are dead. And Iraq is saturated with violence.

But Republicans do know how to fight a propaganda war. OK, I'd love to see a propaganda war against Al Qaeda. But no, Republicans are waging a propaganda war against fellow Americans who happen to disagree with them, some of whom are Democrats.

Disgraceful! I'm positive there is more important business that needs tending to in the House.

The Democratic answer should be: Vote for the resolution. Then issue "signing statements" explaining their differences with the formal resolution.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 15, 2006 4:56 PM
Comments
Comment #158150

And 14 permanent bases in Iraq will not be seen as colonialism?
Or is Bush waiting to pull out, I mean cut & run, only when those bases are finished.
Or Am I just reading liberal between those lines?

Posted by: Joe at June 15, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #158151

Paul-Six of your brave Senetors voted for pulling out of Iraq.The usual suspects i dont have to tell you who the cut and runners are.It looks to me like Democrats are getting more Conservitive every day.Ihave to be honest with you it dont look too good for your party.

Posted by: K.O.n5 at June 15, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #158155

Its beginning to look alot like Cristmas!!

Posted by: troll lookingout at June 15, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #158159

Jesus, troll, you can’t even spell Christmas right.

K.O.n5- what? That was not even close to English.

Let me address a general question to all of the Repubs out there: when is Iraq able to stand on its own two feet? What sign are you waiting for?

Posted by: David S at June 15, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #158167

“The Democratic answer should be: Vote for the resolution. Then issue ‘signing statements’ explaining their differences with the formal resolution.”

Democrats fighting fire with fire? Now that would be a shock!

Posted by: europheus at June 15, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #158174

Seems we have to wait for 50000 American dead before again before the militarist are willing to admit a mistake.

lookingout
Exactly when and where did you serve. We just love to corroberate blowhard chicken hawks here.

Posted by: BillS at June 15, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #158182

Sure, a “one-sided” “no lose” debate should piss y’all off.

You wouldn’t be human to not be pissed that the deck is stacked against you.

But what REALLY pisses you off is…

we are now winning.

Captured papers show weakening insurgency

Posted by: Jim T at June 15, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #158183

Lately I have been reading several Republican bloggers regurgitating the newest Rovian talking point that the Democrats are anti-war. I have to disagree with that statement on the basis that myself, and several friends of mine who are Democrats, supported the war on terror after 9/11 along with an overwhelming number of Americans. However, we were opposed to the Iraq war since it had nothing to do with the war on terror. So to make it clear I think Democrats should be saying we are Pro-(war on terror), and Anti-(Iraq war).

Now I would like to ask our Republican bloggers why we are fighting the war on terror using conventional war tactics? Most terrorists are rogue elements in their own country yet we are going to war with whole countries, taking many innocent lives in the process. Shouldn’t we be using more strategic and surgical like tactics in eliminating these terrorists without harming civilians? Don’t you think our steam-roller like approach to fighting this war is creating more terrorists from the people who have lost innocent loved ones?

Posted by: bushflipflops at June 15, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #158197

Note to “bushflipflops”: What a great strategic and surgical mind you have my friend. Wouldn’t it be great if “these terrorists” would just leave the comfort and safety of civilian homes and fight us out in the desert? Hell boy, the war would have been over ten minutes after the first shot. What a fantastic military mind you carry around in your head.
Note to “paul”: Your statement, “Passage of the resolution will not affect the war in any way” is quite revealing. Apparently the firm resolve by 92 U.S. Senators who voted for the resolution means nothing to the terrorists. Do you believe they don’t know what our congress does? Would an opposite outcome of the resolution give terrorist aid and comfort? Think about it. Many on this site are very glad you didn’t have a vote. Call the resolution a ploy, gimmic, political hardball or whatever you choose, it was time for all 100 U.S. Senators to stand up and be counted. We don’t need political mumbo-jumbo with stakes this high. And, no political pundit can twist or parse what this resolution means to our enemies. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at June 15, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #158204

Jim T,
We are winning? That is great. But… I have heard that before. Please let everyone know which version of winning applies:
1) Mission Accomplished!
2) Dead enders
3) Last throes
4) We are turning a corner

The problem, Jim, is that the Bush administration lies. They lie all the time.

This war was never about US national security. Our borders were never threatened. No Iraqi ever launched an attack against an American inside the United States. Never. Not one.

So when Bush Supporters back this administration, and back this war, they place the political interests of the Republican Party above the best interests of the United States of America. They sacrifice thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and it is all for a lie, it is just blood for oil, Bucko.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #158207

“We don’t need political mumbo-jumbo with stakes this high.
Posted by: Jim Martin at June 15, 2006 07:20 PM”

Jim,

This “resolution” is just exactly that: pure political mumbo jumbo. Where’s the beef?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 15, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #158210

Dang I hope we can find a copy of this book in PDF:

“Pentagon arms Iraq supporters with rebuttal book”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-15-iraq-pentagon_x.htm?csp=34

“The Associated Press obtained a copy of the 74-page document. It was sent to both Republicans and Democrats and it laid out the administration’s positions in strong terms and offered page after page of counterpoints to criticisms that Democrats typically level against President Bush’s war policies.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 15, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #158212

Jim Martin,

All I am saying is that our approach should be to infiltrate these radical organizations by recruiting Arabs and Persians. We should be targeting any cleric that calls for jihad and then spreading propaganda about their character to weaken their support, or if we have to assassinating them. We should be supporting rebel groups who would fight against these terrorists. We should be willing to negotiate with other nations to hand over or offer help in capturing terrorists in their countries. Declaring war on any country should be a last resort. Afghanistan was necessary since the Taliban refused to cooperate, although I felt it would have made the post-war reconstruction much smoother if we’d given the rebels a greater role during the war and not just used them primarily as scouts. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam was in a box, the sanctions were working, and Iraq was the most secular nation in the middle east. True Saddam was a bad guy, but we don’t go around toppling other regimes around the world because they’re bad, remember Bush said America should not be in the business of nation building.

It seems your approach would be to invade any country we want for any reason we want. Why don’t you just admit that you and the rest of the neocons are either gullable little sheep or evil warmongers?

Posted by: bushflipflops at June 15, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #158214

Jim M,

What a strawman you have built! It looks lovely, by the way.

The fighting has taken place in all sectors of Iraq, not just in cities. It’s everywhere. The conventional military IS being used for 90% of the fighting, which it’s not very good at, since they aren’t trained in counterinsurgency the way the elite troops are. In the cities, it makes more sense to use special troops in small numbers to go after suspected terrorists.

It all makes such wonderful sense to you, though, in how it’s being conducted now. According to the conservatives, the Iraqis love us all. They want to help us win the war. They will help us to get those nasty insurgents (likely family and friends of theirs) and the terrorists that showed up along with them.

Only they really don’t. They don’t like us. They don’t want us there with our guns and fighters and tanks. Since the population isn’t actually helping us at all to kill their own people, we have to resort to conventional means to do the job, as bushflipflops mentions. Only by doing that, we don’t get them alone. We only get them by bombing entire city blocks to get a few insurgents. Have you seen figures of the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed in this fight so far? It’s not heavily reported. Know why? Because it would be appalling to any decent human being. Your own strategic mind is a bit soft there, bud. The tactic to fight insurgents is the rifle and the bayonet and communications and intelligence, not bombers and tanks. That kind of puts your statements at odds with how the war is being conducted, doesn’t it?

I, too, am for the War on Terror. Going into Afghanistan was the right move. Putting Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and the Sudan on notice was also a good start. They are known exporters of terrorism. But where did we go? Iraq? Sorry, the ulterior motive is showing.

And here go the Republicans, playing their simple little games again. Let’s make a resolution stating that all members of this august body must stand up and be counted. But for what? The War on Terror? I doubt very seriously anyone in their right minds would vote against that. 9/11 was a fact. Those people killed our fellow citizens and the citizens of many nations, all without provocation and cause. They have shown themselves to be beneath contempt and well beyond any decent moral restraint. No question.

But you see, they are going to make this a referendum of the Senate by stating that they must vote for this and say that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, and if you vote against what we are doing in Iraq, you are against the War on Terror. It’s a shoddy, shameful piece of political crap designed to help win votes for 2006’s elections, and nothing more. To the Republicans and the authors of this disgusting piece of filth, it’s nothing more than a way to oversimplify the case and to create more confusion into the real debate. Which is, of course, is Iraq part of the War on Terror?

Well, is it? No, it is not. There were no WMD’s there. Saddam Hussein was not consorting with the terrorists. There was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq in any real sense. It was our demolishing the security apparatus that brought them there. So, now Iraq is loaded with terrorists. We created their presence in Iraq. So, now it’s ex post facto a haven for terrorists and now it must be part of the War on Terror, right?

Such twisted logic you conservatives use. How on earth do you sleep at night telling such lies?

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 15, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #158216

Joshua & Bushflips,
Good posts. Agreement on a national level was nearly unanimous when it came to going into Afghanistan. It beggars description that we may yet lose there, simply because we became distracted by the invasion & occupation of Iraq.

The same old talking points, the same Republican crap, utter tripe, attempting to turn our best instincts for supporting the country into support for the Bush administration & its sick, despicable policies & sicker payoffs to its cronies.

The sad part is that most Bush Supporters do not understand- they are mere tools.

Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #158221

And in the meanwhile Afghanistan looks worse and worse:

“In a move of staggering foolishness, the Bush Administration in early 2002 blocked the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force beyond Kabul. This, more than any other single development, disrupted the momentum of Afghanistan’s transition.”

from:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/west-has-been-helping-itself-not-afghanistan/2006/06/14/1149964604283.html

and:

“Afghan and foreign officials and local villagers blame a lack of United States-led coalition forces on the ground for the resurgence.”

from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?ex=1307678400&en=f218c099c08c1867&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Maybe the GOOP led Senate and House should be resolving to pull their own heads out of the sand.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 15, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #158222

Regardless of the sheer idiocy of going into Iraq, the fact remains we are there now.

We cannot leave Iraq until it is stable. I define “Stable” as George Bush being able to use the Highway to go to the Green Zone instead of Chopper in the dead of night.

We must stay. We have a responsibility to fix what we broke.

Regardless of the cost in lives and gold.

We must stay.

Posted by: Aldous at June 15, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #158234

Paul:

The fact is that on the war the Democratic party is a mess. We are now into this thing three years and there is no Democratic position. We are three years into a war and your party has no position. Think long and hard about that.

This isn’t liberal/conservative. You belong to a messed up, dysfunctional party. From the very beginning your party was split down the middle.

Here is the fall campaign on the War.

1. Hillary Clinton: Stay the course

2. Kerry. I voted for the war resolution but was a mistake. I voted against the first Iraq war and that was a mistake as well. I can never get this war thing right. I want to be president. Even though I never seem to vote correctly on a war resolution Bush was wrong in getting us into this war. (This is pretty funny)

3. Kennedy: I voted against the resolution and am proud of it. I was against the war from the beginning.

4. Joe Biden: I support the war, but not the war way Bush has conducted it.

5. Al Gore: Here we are in a middle of a war, and I think we should focus on Global warming.

6. Joe Lieberman. We are in the middle of a war and I support the president.

Please for the love of America, can you please explain to me the Democratic position on the war? Now that we are in the third year, and you want to take over the house and senate, what is your party’s position?

By the way, the only two people with a clear position are Lieberman and Kennedy. The rest seem to be playing politics.

You might just win!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 15, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #158235

Paul, you nailed it.
But you know what I believe the Democratic answer should be? Abstain from voting for the resolution entirely. That’s right, simply boycott their dirty trick. Unfortunately, this would only be truly effective if every last one of the Dems are able to glance down and realize they’re in full possession of a whole stomach filled with guts.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 15, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #158238

Adrienne,

I’m 100% in agreement with you. Abstain altogether. Makes sense to me.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 15, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #158239

The debate should be re-framed to include the costs of the war in Iraq. Are you willing to raise the taxes needed to pay for the war in Iraq as we go, and not insist our kids and grandkids pay for it.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 15, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #158241

Abstention! Absolutely! Funny, I thought the same thing. I see no reason to participate in a fraudulent debate for a “non-binding resolution.”

Craig,
You are right about the division among the Dems. It is funny just how much more and more Iraq comes to resemble Vietnam. Half the Dems support the war. The liberal half oppose it. Meanwhile, Republicans walk in lockstep. Sadly, like lemmings, they will walk in lockstep right off the cliff, taking the country down with them; and, like lemmings, there are quite a few of them. Furthermore, like lemmings, they will walk off the same cliff year after year. I believe it is called “staying the course.”

Jim T,
So you must be thrilled about 70,000 troops retaking Bagdhad. But does it not strike you as strange that we need to retake Bagdhad in the first place?

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #158243

Adrienne

Absolutely abstain! What a piece of crap this resolution is, and to introduce it as John Kerry’s. They should have all walked off the floor.

phx8

Good point. Does anyone know how many times this is that we’ve had to retake Bagdhad. How many young men and women have died retaking other parts of Iraq?

Posted by: mark at June 15, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #158245

“The debate should be re-framed to include the costs of the war”

j2t2,

I’d add “reinstate the draft” to that.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 15, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #158247

I’ve been watching this debate and got ill. Americans should have to sit and watch the whole farce.

The waste of time and money for them to stand and bloviate over such an unbelievably political stunt should make every American as angry as I got watching it.

With our debt out of sight, this waste of time and money when there are so many other pressing problems is unforgiveable.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 15, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #158248

Next up: Flag Burning. I’m surprised the Republicans didn’t pull this one out of their bag of tricks yesterday(Flag Day).

Posted by: mark at June 15, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #158251

Craig:

I suppose it’s very difficult for Republicans to understand that Democrats do not insist that everyone in the party must think alike. We are allowed to think for ourselves and therefore have differences of opinion. This may not always be the best way to get things done but it is better than being lied to and swallowing it hook, line, and sinker because you cannot think for yourself.

Posted by: mark at June 15, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #158253

Does this actually surprise anyone?
Meaningful legislation or election year pander?
Oh, the choices!

Womanmarine,
Wasting time and money is what they are good at.
This does, however, keep them from adding a couple of billion to the deficit for a little bit. Perhaps next they can resolve the color blue (for or against would be adequate) and save us another couple of billion.

Posted by: Ted at June 15, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #158259

Kansas, phx8, mark,
Glad you guys liked that idea too. Question is, do you think they’d have the guts to actually do it?

phx8,
I agree the situation with Iraq has indeed become very eerily like Vietnam. I was just a little kid back then, but I recall how the Dems were split on the issue because my parents used talk about that. Maybe everybody did back then?

Kansas,
You’re right, of course. But if they instituted a draft, they know the whole public sentiment regarding the Iraq war would change with lightning speed.

Off topic, but important:
It seems there were some improper proceedures courtesy of Diebold (surprise, surprise!) in California’s 50th district special election where Bilbray won over Busby by only three percentage points. If you want, you can go and sign the petition to help them get a 100% hand recount in the district by clicking on this link.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 15, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #158262

Mark,

You are spot on in that remark. I see lots of political robots spinning there wheels with the repeat button depressed.
I do believe that adults debating an issue with a sence of fair play and differing opinions can do miraculas things.
First , I’m affraid, we must find some adults, who have a sence of fairness.
I remain hopfull.
P.S. Love the flag message too.
womanmarine:

maybe if you tell two people and I tell two people and each tell two people, well ya’ll get my meaning. Simple ? yes. but that may be the best way to have it understood by these meatheads.

Posted by: gypsyirishgirl at June 15, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #158268

Blah blah blah blah. You neolibs just keep saying the same old stuff that is neither logical or factual. More like fantasy thinking. Wake up. It is a world wide war. We started in the back yard of the ones killing us. It is better to take it to them rather than they bring it to us again. Talking nice won’t fix it. Your neolib speak just undermines the US and worst of all the Troops. However you cut it your neolib speak DOES provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: nunya at June 16, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #158269

P.S.

The only parallel the war on terror has to Vietnam are the spineless neolibs that don’t have the guts to do what needs to be done and provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: nunya at June 16, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #158270

Nunya,
You support your party at the expense of what is right for your country, and the price is paid in the blood of American soldiers and Iraqis.

Disgusting.

Adrienne,
A big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that in Vietnam we tried to keep a country divided through war, while in Iraq we attempt to keep a country united through occupation.

Eventually the Shia Death Squads will kill enough Sunnis to finish the job of ethnic cleansing. The Shias & Sunnis will be separated. But what next? The eventual partitioning of Iraq seems unavoidable. It was always the most desirable solution, but Republicans NEVER cared about the Iraqis. The invasion & occupation was always about what seemd most expedient with the Republican base at the time: Mission Accomplished! Dead Enders! Last throes! Turning the Corner! And so Republicans waved purple thumbs in the air, because elections were good for rallying Republicans in this country.

We never bothered to ask the Iraqis if they wanted to remain united in one country in the first place.

So the debacle grinds on, lives are damaged, or lost, billions upon billions of dollars disappear, and the partition seems more likely as time passes.

This is from a weekly newspaper representing one of the two major Kurdish parties, courtesy of Juan Cole:

“After three years of journeys to Baghdad, we are certain that nobody is ready to recognize the issue of the displaced Kurds and mass graves; no one is happy to have a Kurdish president; nobody accepts for Kurdistan to have a president and nobody accepts a Kurdish symbol on the Iraqi passport or the Iraqi currency. Because of all these questions and hundreds more by our miserable people, it would be better for us to leave Baghdad and the government of the Green Zone and return to Kurdistan.”

Nunya, Jim T, do you have any idea what that means? Any idea at all?

I very seriously doubt it, but would welcome a discussion.


Posted by: phx8 at June 16, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #158272

phx8:

You are right about the division among the Dems. It is funny just how much more and more Iraq comes to resemble Vietnam. Half the Dems support the war. The liberal half oppose it. Meanwhile, Republicans walk in lockstep. Sadly, like lemmings, they will walk in lockstep right off the cliff, taking the country down with them; and, like lemmings, there are quite a few of them. Furthermore, like lemmings, they will walk off the same cliff year after year. I believe it is called “staying the course.”

I don’t disagree. But what would the Democrats possibly do in Iraq if they were returned to power?
The only Democratic policy on Iraq I can see is that George Bush is wrong. So I guess my question of the party is, if you are elected, what would you do on the most important issue facing our country? The bottom line is that the party has no answer, therefore no mandate to lead.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 16, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #158274

Wow. What country did this person come from?

Blah blah blah blah. You neolibs just keep saying the same old stuff that is neither logical or factual. More like fantasy thinking. Wake up. It is a world wide war. We started in the back yard of the ones killing us. It is better to take it to them rather than they bring it to us again. Talking nice won’t fix it. Your neolib speak just undermines the US and worst of all the Troops. However you cut it your neolib speak DOES provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
I’m sure it was better in the original German.

As I recall, we’re never took it to the backyard of the ones that killed our citizens on 9/11, because they were not from a single nation. They are criminals, not soldiers. As such, there is nothing to declare war on. The ones that killed our citizens were citizens of Arab nations, mainly Saudi Arabia. The only thing we’ve been taking to them is a lot of money for their oil. Afghanistan, now they aren’t Arabs at all. They are followers of Islam, some radical, most not. Whose backyard are you refering to here?

Iraq was never a part of the War on Terror as far as I and many other citizens of this nation are concerned. It’s a sideshow. I haven’t quite figured out the real motivation for our being there, but I figure it will come out eventually.

Meanwhile, the most repugnant thing to ever come out of an American’s mouth is what you just said. Accusing me of giving aid and comfort to the enemy for exercising my 1st Amendment rights as a rate-paying citizen of this nation? How dare you?

I, probably unlike you, actually served in the military, but then again, I met some real knuckle-dragging retards in my time in service, so I can imagine that some people might have served but probably fall under this category.

Those people over there in Iraq, you know, the ones in the desert camo? Guess what they are protecting? Well, we can debate about that all we want to here, as is our right and our privelege, but in the end, you can argue it’s about freedom. It’s not in this case, but we can set that aside for the moment. Let’s just suspend reality for one moment here, and say that the war in Iraq is about freedom. Well, guess what those brave men and women in our nation’s military uniforms are there to protect? My right to open my big yap and say whatever I would like to say.

You have a lot of nerve, proleboy.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #158275
I don’t disagree. But what would the Democrats possibly do in Iraq if they were returned to power? The only Democratic policy on Iraq I can see is that George Bush is wrong. So I guess my question of the party is, if you are elected, what would you do on the most important issue facing our country? The bottom line is that the party has no answer, therefore no mandate to lead.
Sorry for sounding a bit cliche here, but the first thing you do when you are digging a hole for yourself is stop digging.

There are lots of people all over that think about this very issue all the time. Just because they don’t bark it in the papers doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. You have as much knowledge as I do that Democratic leaders are or are not discussing this. None. You don’t need a mandate to lead.

George W. Bush didn’t have one. He just had a paper thin majority in our government houses to go along with his executive power. The nation was clearly split in all but a few tenths of a percentage point from being split right down the middle.

Mandate? Reagan had one when he crushed Mondale. There was no argument that he started with a mandate. Bush doesn’t have a mandate, didn’t have a mandate to start with, and won’t have one, either. He’s just enough of a mouthpiece for all his corporate puppetmasters to ignore the normal decorum of politics and just do whatever he feels like doing.

What would I do? Get out! If we’re really lucky, the Shia and Sunni won’t kill each other in droves while they both take turns killing the Kurds. At least not right away. The operation needs the UN to drive it, and then it won’t seem like a unilateral move to control the oil in Iraq. Of course, that’s precisely why Bush invaded Iraq.

We did what we set out to do there, right? Saddam is out of power, and so are the Baathists. Fine, train the troops of Iraq, and get the hell out of Dodge. Oh, wait, it was about WMD’s and al-Qaeda. I forgot. Or was it? With all of Bush’s flip-flopping on the subject, it’s hard for little old me to keep track. It was WMD’s first, then it was al-Qaeda next, and then it was Saddam’s a Hitler, and then it was the insurgents. We’ll find something else as an excuse soon, I’m sure. All designed to cover up what we were really after, at least on paper. The rest of the world knows precisely why our military is in Iraq: oil.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #158276

Iraq and 9/11 are related as any reasonably well informed person should be able to see.

You can’t win the war on terror while containing Iraq. Our policy of sanctions in Iraq was a major factor in the anti-americanism rampant in the middle east which harbors terrorists and promotes recruiting efforts by terrorists. The UN reported that 250,000 Iraqis were killed by the sanctions and Madeline Albright implicitly agreed that as many as 500,000 Iraqi Children were killed by the sanctions. Meanwhile, Hussein was saying the sanctions killed 1,000,000 Iraqis.

While there is no doubt that what deaths did occur, occured due to Hussein’s manipulation of the santions to starve (out of food and medicine) his enemies, it is true that this propaganda is WIDELY believed in the Islamic world.

Al Qaida’s 1998 fatwa declaring war on America and Americans EXPLICITLY states that the Iraq sanctions, enforcement of the no-fly zones and the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia enforcing those no-fly zones ARE ALL Cassus Belli.

So how do you come to the conclusion that Iraq and 9/11 aren’t related?

That’s some interesting logic.

9/11 commited by Al Quaida. Al Quaid declares war due to our policy of containment of Iraq.

THERE IS YOUR LINK.

Posted by: iraqwarvet at June 16, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #158279

Wow, phx8 and joshuacrime, terrific posts. Thanks.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 16, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #158280

Adrienne:

“Unfortunately, this would only be truly effective if every last one of the Dems are able to glance down and realize they’re in full possession of a whole stomach filled with guts.”

Where I come from, this is called cannibalism. Which reminds me of another Mencken quote:

“If a politician learned he had cannibals in his constituency, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.”

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 16, 2006 3:23 AM
Comment #158282

You know, on second thought, if their stomachs were full of Republican guts, I just might vote for them.:-)

Yummmm! Tastes just like chickenhawks!

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 16, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #158299

Whatching thedebate in the House of repensntive shows the republicans propganing and the brain washing of the going on linking the invasion of on the global war on terror. There have been no hard evidence of any ties to Osama. Iraq was secular society that was ruled by an iron fisted dictator. Past administraion helped in putting the Bathist in power helped inthe toppeling of a miltary dictator with comunist leanings. During Iraqs war against Iran we supported Sadam With Miltary intell and direct miltary aid because Rumsfeld was over ther shaking Hands with Sadam after signing anarms deal. If some ofthe Classified material wasreleased we probaly sold him the material to manufacture the gas he used on Kurds in the early 80s. Wher was world out cry against this genocide. Ithink the US should pull the troops out.Leave quick reaction force in Quita {sic] And use our Special foces as counter insurgince. This is about some ego trip by Gw to finish the job his dad thought better of so in closeing Iurge every to for anything than R or D in this election to send amessage they work for us and glable conglmerates!

Posted by: disgruntaled at June 16, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #158349

Of course the debate is being used to show the different views of the parties, isn’t that the point of debate? This way, citizens will know who is for or against the war, plain and simple. And judging from the voting, it looks as if more Democrats are for the war than all of us thought, either that or they are afraid to vote against it because of the upcoming elections.

Posted by: Joe at June 16, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #158351

Iraqwarvet,

Meet Panamawarvet. And you have some rather twisted logic there, mate.

The reason for going to war, according to the Republicans, at least at first, 2 things:

1. Saddamn Hussein and the Baath Party of Iraq were trying to create or obtain weapons of mass destruction. These weapons could then be sold to terrorists or to “rogue states”.

2. Al-Qaeda was dealing with the Iraqi government through intelligence agents all over the world, and an al-Qaeda base existed right in Iraq.

The CIA helped George Bush and the NSC cherry pick intelligence that supported his case for going to war, and then they fit it all into a nice neat basket for that “slam dunk” they were so desperate to get. The NIE on Iraq was so full of shit that a number of prominent government officials and veteran CIA officers quit their jobs in protest. Jack Straw (the former Home Secretary of England) quit also because of the crap that was being presented as our casus belli in England.

A small side note here: if you want to make me believe you are smart, you’ll learn how to spell first. It’s CASUS BELLI. I realize it’s Latin, but you used it. You can tell a lot about a person by how well they spell and use their own native language. You can tell even more when they try to use another language and turn it into a load of bollocks.

Anyway, moving on. Al-Qaeda decided that their main reason for terrorism against the United States was because we had troops in the Holy Land. Don’t give me that bullshit about how our sanctions in Iraq are the reason they attacked us. They’ve said it time and time again. Since we wound up in Iraq with a lousy security situation (thanks to good Ol’ Rummy, the moron), they took advantage of it and came after us.

Bin Laden has said time and time again that if we removed our presence from the Holy Land (meaning Saudi Arabia), they wouldn’t really have much truck with us. Of course, NOW that we are militarily in Iraq and killing Arabs, they are made at that, but I’m going to help you out with something. This is Latin as well, so don’t be afraid, ok?

EX POST FACTO. That means “after the fact”. It’s a term we use in US laws to describe a condition where people used to get arrested for an action which violated a law that wasn’t in place at the time the action was committed, but the person is still prosecuted for it. Since the law was created ex post facto, it does not hold any authority in that particular instance.

Now, the Casus Belli of Al-Qaeda, as you play it out, is tied to Iraq. It’s not, and you could only say it was if you decided that it was an ex post facto casus belli. Al-Qaeda was already attacking us for being in Saudi Arabia, therefore they were already at war with us. Their casus belli was already created well before we removed Saddam from power.

The reason GWB gave us for going into Iraq have all turned out to be lies. Every last fecking one of them. No WMD’s. No al-Qaeda in Iraq before we let them run rampant through the nation. No links to foreign terrorists. No threat of moving against Israel. No nothing. It’s all bullshit.

The other thing that really pisses me off is the people that say that “well, we’re there now, so we have to finish it”. No, we do not. We have no obligation to Iraq. The CIC has the obligation to protect the Constitution. That’s it. The problem lies in the fact that people like you are too obtuse to understand that we have to get out when we are doing absolutely no good there.

The other point is that the government won’t ever admit a single mistake, and so we’ll be there until the verminous multitude are tossed out of Washington and onto the lecture circuit where losers like G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North and his ilk go. Or maybe onto AM Radio, the last bastion of the non-thinking.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #158357

The American people get Huge win over the Democrats in Congress and Senate.We will continue the WAR ON TERRORISM.

Posted by: lookingout at June 16, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #158370

joshuacrime This might come as a shock to you but i will take the oppinion of a man who has been there done that over the likes of you any time.Thank you for your service Iraqwarvet.

Posted by: justwondering at June 16, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #158402

The official defenition for DEMOCRAT-Some one mostly liberal who seeks a loss for the american people.They come in all colors and all nationalitys.Win is not in their vocabulary as its been so long since they have had one.Some pose as something other than liberal democrats but they are a dead give away just tell one that you love America and if its a Dem. this person will give you 100 reasons why America is an evel country.The Republican s Are the exact opposite. They will give you 100 reasons why they love their country.

Posted by: justwondering at June 16, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #158404

“The Republican s Are the exact opposite. They will give you 100 reasons why they love their country.”

Then they will sell US port security to the United Arab Emirates.

Posted by: phx8 at June 16, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #158413

lookingdown;

You are 100% correct. The war on terrorism will continue. Haliburton and the likes will continue to make billions. Thousands will continue to die.
Tens of thousands will continue to recieve life altering injuries. The military-industrial complex will continue to thrive. This is just as the Republican hierarchy wants it and as long enough people like you buy into it, the war that begets more war will continue. Certain corporations will become richer and more powerful, just as Eisenhower warned. As we continue to kill more innocent people, as we bomb terrorists, we will fail to end anything, only create more terrorists. Is this really what you want?

Posted by: mark at June 16, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #158420

Mark and the democrats will get weeker and meeker.And before you know it Hollywood will becme Dollywood.

Posted by: lookingout at June 16, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #158428

Classic lookingdown. Thanks joshuacrime.

Posted by: mark at June 16, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #158434

Mark O.K.hero lets do it your way.Pull all the military back to the states.Lets cut ties with all other countries.Lets tell haliburton to get screwed.Then we can all sit around here in the good old U.S.A. like the Bitches that you want us to become.Some one should wash your mouth out with soap!

Posted by: lookingout at June 16, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #158444

lookingout, your comments do not comply with our Critique the Message, not the Messenger policy. Comply or lose your comment privileges here.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 16, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #158466

Who said anything about cutting ties with other countries lookingdown. But now that you’ve mentioned it, there are plenty of countries who want very little to do with us.

Posted by: mark at June 16, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #158486

Justwondering,

If you bothered to read what I typed, I mentioned that I, too, am a veteran of a US conflict, that being Panama. But, in reality, I could be full of shit, and so could Iraqwarvet. There is no proof of either of us being anywhere at all. Since it’s likely I’m not going to show you my 201 file, you have to take both of our words on it that we both served. Or not. In any event, if you are basing your opinion on who is right and who is wrong on an alleged statement made without any corroboration, then I’d say you’re just another Republican toady that goes along with everything your party tells you to.

Read what is being said, see if it makes any logical sense, and then judge. But that is not the Republican way, is it? The Republicans are soldier sniffers and cop lovers, by and large. Authority is there to serve us, not to be worshipped. Sieg Rummy!

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #158493

Justwondering,

You again, huh?

The official defenition for DEMOCRAT-Some one mostly liberal who seeks a loss for the american people.They come in all colors and all nationalitys.Win is not in their vocabulary as its been so long since they have had one.Some pose as something other than liberal democrats but they are a dead give away just tell one that you love America and if its a Dem. this person will give you 100 reasons why America is an evel country.The Republican s Are the exact opposite. They will give you 100 reasons why they love their country.
What a bunch of hyperbolous, cretinous balderdash. Get your Thesaurus out if you don’t parlez vouz Englais, mon ami.

I can prove to you that Democrats love their country as much, if not more than Republicans do. We care about what our nation does at home as well as abroad.

We have a sense of fair play, of basing our judgement on facts and not oversimplified rhetoric spewed forth from the vomit factory that is the RNC.

We care about every single person in this nation, not just the corporations that really run everything.

We want a flourishing economy, one that benefits every man, woman and child, not just the upper 1%.

We care that the nation is a living, breathing first-rate nation full of ideals, wisdom, common sense and justice. We don’t want to be a laughing stock to the rest of the world because our populace has elected, well, not twice, but once, a drooling buffoon whose puppet strings are so obvious it’s frightening.

We care that our conduct abroad is in accordance with international law, as well as common decency.

We want to be seen as a nation people look up to, not denigrate because we feel we’re above everyone else simply because this particular piece of dirt is where our parents fucked.

We want to be the nation of tolerance for all creeds, colors, persuasions and rational, lawful philosophies. We don’t want to be seen as the intolerant, war-mongering, religious-persecuting yahoos that thinks that we can do no wrong, and there’s no reason to ever think we do.

We want to be the people that Jefferson wanted us to become: self-sufficient, well mannered men and women of distinction, courage, intelligence and honesty. How does the rest of the world see us now? Anything close to that? If not, then we have some serious clean-up work ahead of us. And that, my very non-learned friend, benefits every American, not just one party.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 16, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #158546

joshuacrime

Great writing. I’m going to send that to my Senators(both Democrat) if its all right with you. By the way, I think lookingdown and justwondering are one and the same, although with some of these republican lemmings it easy to assume they are the same person.

Posted by: mark at June 16, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #158797

THE FINAL SOLUTION Gopers make the big mess.. cause a civil war.. exit stage RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

let the civil war kill off most of the people of need… NO NATION BUILDING NEEDED…leaving the CONTRACTORS to rule & kill off babies & mothers.. old men in wheelchairs.. O we are the land of the brave all right! puke in a bag!

after all we are now living in a DICTATORSHIP

so let’s all just try to buck up and get along…

one good thing .. is that we all die.. & one day GWB & his merry gang of thugs.. all those old farts.. have more years behind them than in front of them… so they will go long before most of us here on this board… we will be left with the filthy mess that they have left us..
but then there is that old crime of NEPOTISM..
their children will take their place in the KINGDOM of the DICTATORSHIP of THE BUSH CABAL

Zooly

Goodnight
& Goodluck suckers!

Posted by: Zooly at June 17, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #158968

Paul,

Great article, nothing new here, Rove is back. I like the idea of signing statements…

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 18, 2006 9:50 PM
Post a comment